search
top

Question to the 7th Circuit Panel

Here’s a quote from the decision today denying incorporation for the Second Amendment:

But the municipalities can, and do, stress another of the themes in the debate over incorporation of the Bill of Rights: That the Constitution establishes a federal republic where local differences are to be cherished as elements of liberty rather than extirpated in order to produce a single, nationally applicable rule. See New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting) (“It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”);

Let’s back up one amendment here, and ask whether or not the states are free to experiment, in order to foster our economic recovery, by re-instituting slavery.  Could Oak Park order all of its unemployed into a mandatory service system?  Why is that not part of our federal system?

Sorry, but the Fourteenth Amendment abolished the type of federal system they speak of here.  The federal government has a role to play in guaranteeing certain fundamental rights.

9 Responses to “Question to the 7th Circuit Panel”

  1. Kevin Highland says:

    Nice job at putting the incorporation issue into perspective.

  2. Jurjen S. says:

    I didn’t hear any anti-gunners arguing that “local differences are to be cherished as elements of liberty” when the 194 AWB passed.

  3. Ish says:

    Now, as much as I admire Justice Brandeis, I question the merits of citing a _dissent_ before tossing out a the entire concept of the right to self defense…

  4. Brian says:

    Nice. I LOL’ed at the slavery analogy. Too true. The reason they don’t think of it that way is that for liberals and anti-gun folks, self-defense simply isn’t a right. Which, really, is just an extension of the idea that private property is not a right, another hallmark of “progressive” ideology.

    For the first time since Woodrow Wilson launched fascism in America, the Left has finally found a use for “restricting” the application of the federal government to a local or state issue. Any idea whether we can get them to awaken to the 9th and 10th amendments’ read on federalism?

  5. RAH says:

    The 7th just wanted to bounce this to SCOTUS. They are fine with Chicago outlawing guns. since Scotus apptovr Heller they can decise on incorporation.

    I guess that the 9th is more concern with civil liberites. So that is a lesson to us conservativies about liberals have theur place in the world versus those who just want to restrain liberty.

    The problem with Sotomayor is she does not go against established authority even when it is wrong . That is a common theme among her decision from Ricci to Maloney.

    A real liberal may be more willing to think about the issues of freedom and civil rights. An authoritarian conservative and paternalistic liberal not so much.

  6. RAH says:

    Whoops did not use spellchecker and it shows. Please forgive

  7. No worries Sebastian, I think what the opinion is saying is that states are free to ban hand guns if they like and other states are free to allow machine guns if they like.

    Wait, what? You mean the grand laboratory of the states only functions in one direction? I’m aghast.

  8. PavelRicardo says:

    Why should we have the right to carry guns and defend ourselves? Unborn children don’t have that right, so why should the rest of us?

  9. Sebastian says:

    It’s mostly a mechanical issue. Fetuses have a hard time working the trigger, and they don’t really make holsters that small.

top