Posted under Politics & Second Amendment & Sovereignty and Secession
While we need to vigorously debate Sotomayor’s political and ethnic biases, as revealed in her outrageous statement about white males, as well as her membership in La Raza, we also need to avoid the bear traps along the way.
There’s been a lot of noise about Sotomayor’s ruling that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the States. Here’s what she said:
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor ruled in January 2009 that states do not have to obey the Second Amendment’s commandment that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed …
The opinion said that the Second Amendment only restricted the federal government from infringing on an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. As justification for this position, the opinion cited the 1886 Supreme Court case of Presser v. Illinois.
“It is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right,” said the opinion. Quoting Presser, the court said, “it is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.”
Here’s a typical reaction, from a pro-gun website:
Well, we knew the current president was an anti gunner but supporters said nO! This is evidence that we have our work cut out for us.
The libertarian Reason Online also cites that ruling in its warning about Sotomayor entitled, “Why libertarians—and everyone who believes in limited government—should worry about Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee.”
Yes, we should worry, but not for her ruling on the 2nd Amendment. Truth is, Sotomayor was right — the Bill of Rights was intended to limit the power of the Federal government. The Anti-Federalists who backed it as a precondition to joining the Union saw it as a line in the sand DC could not cross. It was Lincoln’s Counter-Revolution against the American Revolution that re-wrote the Bill of Rights into a list of individual rights to be enforced by the central government — which further advanced DC’s power.
But this isn’t just a fine point of history — it’s crucial to the cause of freedom. Submitting to Federal supremacy over the once-sovereign States will ultimately diminish both our culture and traditional liberty, no matter the imagined short-term gains.
Here’s a powerful example of how this will work:
Former Bush administration solicitor general Theodore Olson is part of a team that has filed suit in federal court in California seeking to overturn Proposition 8 and re-establish the right of same-sex couples to marry. …
I asked Olson about the objections of conservatives who will argue that he is asking a court to overturn the legitimately-expressed will of the people of California. “It is our position in this case that Proposition 8, as upheld by the California Supreme Court, denies federal constitutional rights under the equal protection and due process clauses of the constitution,” Olson said. “The constitution protects individuals’ basic rights that cannot be taken away by a vote.”
Re-read that last line to see where an all-powerful Federal government will take us. Yes, we might be “allowed” to keep our guns a little longer, but we will have helped create an unaccountable, unstoppable, and increasingly authoritarian regime to which there is no appeal. Selling your soul might give you some immediate gratification, but there’s a terrible price to pay down the road.
James on 28 May 2009 at 7:44 pm #
That sounds like good conservative (ie. pro-federalism) Constitutional interpretation to me. Unfortunately, liberal (and most “conservative”) judges have long abandoned the idea that the Bill of Rights and other amendments apply only to the Federal government and have used them to enfore liberal activist decisions on the states and on individuals. I’m looking forward to Kevin Gutzman’s take on Sotomayor. Has anyone see him comment on her as yet?
HarrisonBergeron2 on 28 May 2009 at 8:17 pm #
James,
True, but I don’t think she’s a consistent Constitutionalist, much less an “original intent” jurist. I’m afraid we’re about to get ourselves another activist lefty on the Supreme Court.
roho on 28 May 2009 at 11:38 pm #
She’s laying the groundwork for LAZY SENATORS to simply give her a pass, and have a “Get out of jail pass” when they are called on the carpet by their constituents?
Do we not recognize why people like “Bill Frist” and “Trent Lott” burnt the corn and got the hell of of town?
Because things are going to get so bad, that having a “RECOGNIZABLE POLITICAL FACE” is going to be a handicap?
When that time comes?………….Americans will have revenge only on their minds!……….Save your money, and keep your powder dry.
D B Allyn on 29 May 2009 at 7:48 am #
This bitch is all but confirmed, what a total mockery of this country and the white European principles of its foundation.
Trent on 30 May 2009 at 3:37 am #
Serious question: Are you affirming that if a state wanted to stifle free speech or the free practice of religion, it is perfectly constitutional? that only the federal government is restrained from doing so?
Weaver on 30 May 2009 at 5:25 am #
Hopefully if she is confirmed she’ll become a “worse is better” in that she shoots off inflammatory statements and rulings. That could see a political counterrevolution and who knows maybe an actual conservative version of the Revolution of ’94.
They’re surely boiling the pot too quickly now.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 30 May 2009 at 12:55 pm #
Trent,
I’m saying the Constitution would not prevent it. The people of the States would have to provide a similar prohibition against censorship in their own constitutions.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 30 May 2009 at 12:57 pm #
Weaver,
We’re thinking alike now!
Kirt Higdon on 30 May 2009 at 12:58 pm #
Trent, in reply to your serious question, that is the way the Constitution was originally. During the reconstruction era, after the War between the States, the Federal power was extended to over-rule state power by (I believe) the 16th Amendment.
roho on 30 May 2009 at 1:38 pm #
Perhaps she would like to return and recover all of our “States Rights”?……………………….fat chance.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 30 May 2009 at 6:25 pm #
roho,
Yeah, I’m not counting on that to happen. My guess is that she simply used the handiest tool to achieve her goal of restricting gun ownership. I see her as a pragmatic government supremacist, not as an ideologue.
Weaver on 30 May 2009 at 6:50 pm #
Gasp, HB2 I hope you’re wrong: