The Supreme Court knows how to build suspense. While many expected the Court to release its long-awaiting decision on the Second Amendment in the Heller and Parker cases, the Court did not release the decision today. The array of opinions today has fueled speculation that Scalia will author the historic decision.
What is most interesting is that Justice Antonin Scalia is the only justice not to have a majority opinion from the March sitting — raising expectations that he will write a majority opinion recognizing an individual right to gun ownership. It is a position that I agree with, here.
Unfortunately, Professor, you might be right. Then the American obsession with guns, murder, paranoia and death can continue unabated with Constituional protection. It’ll be a sad day.
From the article: “A Liberal’s Lament: The NRA Might Be Right After All”
“More important, the mere reference to a purpose of the Second Amendment does not alter the fact that an individual right is created. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is stated in the same way as the right to free speech or free press. The statement of a purpose was intended to reaffirm the power of the states and the people against the central government.”
I’m sorry, but I find the reasoning behind this quite troubling.
As a gun owner and constitutional enthusiast, so to speak, I despise the NRA for making people think that the 2nd Amendment ‘confers’ the right to KBA. The constitution confers no rights whatsoever by definition.
Rights confer power, not vice versa.
Accordingly, the right to KBA has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a militia or the intent of some people who happened to scribble down on parchment a “Bill of Rights.”
Hamilton:
“I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.”
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa84.htm
Finally, the 2nd Amendment is a Fed only restriction; i.e. it has not been incorporated via the 14th as being good against the States.
http://jonathanturley.org/2007/10/04/a-liberals-lament-the-nra-might-be-right-after-all/#more-371
For Ken P and all ‘comers’-for all intents and purposes, in this day and age still, as then, what we are talking about essentially AND generally, IS guns…
Redefine ‘arms’ as you will, but let’s not get hung up on semantics
for purposes of this very important 2nd Amendment discussion, please.
Actually I was referring to the type of question begging that leads to forgetting why Hamilton insisted on the inclusion of something like the Ninth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
Once again; we don’t ‘get’ our rights from the constitution.
Rights confer power; not vice versa.
To clarify, my response was to Ken P, specifically, and anyone with a similar temperament.
I posted the link to JT’s article ‘A Liberals Lament’, as a courtesy, to those interested in the entire text, as that is where his quotations can be cited.
By the term ‘similar temperament,’ do you mean those with a proclivity for replacing conditions a priori with speculations about possible conditions a posteriori?
E.g. ‘If the constitution was green, then…’
BTW, if you’d like a more clinical analysis of this type of response, you may want to read up on Meyers-Briggs INTP’s.
They have a tendency to be quite unyielding when it comes to fundamental principles.
Righty-o.
Bob,Esq:
“Rights confer power; not vice versa.”
*********************
In a perfect world,I would agree but apparently right of conquest has appeal to this neo-con crowd, and they exercise it every day. Even the Constitution (that “g** d*** piece of paper” as our fearless leader likes to say) yields to these autocrats, especially when Congress deigns not to get involved.
Mespo,
“In a perfect world,I would agree but apparently right of conquest has appeal to this neo-con crowd, and they exercise it every day.”
And that’s where neo-con turns neo-fascist; thus all the more reason to hold the line.
I’m mean those who wish to nitpick over use of the word ‘gun’ as opposed to ‘arms’.
From the Wizard of Id comic by Parker & Hart:
[King walking with his courtier amid a crowd of angry peasants armed with pitchforks and torches]
“Courtier: Sire, the peasants are demanding the right to bear arms. What shall we do?
King of Id: Fine then, rip off their sleeves.”
That’s frame worthy.