Join the Discussion

Reply
Report this post

Well, Ms. Charen, it's funny how the courts are full of lawyers out of control and judges who legislate this and that, until you finally stumble across a decision you like. Then, all of a sudden, they have applied law and common sense. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... I am more or less okay with the outcome of D.C. v. Heller too, but if it has anything to do with the intent of the founders, my mother is a Martian. The "distraction" of the militia clause is anything but "eliminated", as you put it. State militias were what it was all about back then. I'm afraid Stevens got that one right in his dissent. In fact, the overriding fear states had at that time of military abuse by the newly created federal government is a great illustration of how idiotic it is to talk about sticking to the intent of the framers. It just isn't the same world today. .................................................................................................................................................................................................... So for you, the second amendment can be what the fourteenth amendment is for those who believe in a woman's right to have an abortion without being turned into a criminal. The courts will continue to make law, not just interpret it, the same way they did in Bush v. Gore in December 2000. That's when the U.S. Supremes voted 5 to 4 to prevent the Florida Supreme court from interpreting it's own state's election laws as they applied to counting votes, and that little pile of excrement on the face of American jurisprudence will go down in history as a harbinger of how far down the sewer the Bush-Cheney presidency would eventually flush itself. .................................................................................................................................................................................................... But be careful, Ms. Charen, the pendulum is about to swing. Judicial activism begets judicial activism, and D.C. v. Heller is a doosey.

Reply
Report this post

I think the problem with the Supreme Court is not explicable in case-by-case commentary on specific decisions. Ever since the principle of judicial review was asserted by the first Chief Justice, the court has assumed the power to review legislative acts of the Congress and, in some cases, state legislatures for conformity with the Constitution. I really don't have a problem with the concept of judicial review, even though the Constitution, in it's gorgeous simplicity, doesn't give that power to the Supreme Court. The fact is, by now it's an accepted function of the Court, and it's a useful contribution to the balance of powers the framers intended. The real problem is the fact that we've permitted the Tenth Amendment to be ignored. The federal government, often with the connivance of the Court, has arrogated far too much power to itself, at the expense of state and local governments. This is manifestly not what the framers intended. I'd like to see us move back toward the federal system that the framers did, in fact, intend. I have personal policy preferences, of course. I'd be more than happy for the states, in response to the will of their citizens, to legislate questions such as abortion rights (I'm pro-choice) and the death penalty (I'm against it), to mention just two examples. If I don't like what my state government chooses to do, I can attempt to make changes, in concert with my fellow citizens. I have much more ability to do that on a state level than at the federal level, where no one much cares what one citizen thinks. If I fail in changing my state's laws, then I can move to another state if I feel that strongly. That's what the Tenth Amendment is all about.