For constitutionalists and gun-rights advocates, the Solicitor General's brief is a big victory.
Sure glad the Heretic...uh...Heritage Foundation is there to make sure our glasses are half-filled with Republican Kool-Aid.
If you listen to these worm-tongues, you have to believe we have an individual right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed--except when the government won't let us keep and bear them. Make sense?
"Leadership for America" indeed. And following you will lead to where, exactly?
Our rights are not subject to dispensing. Choke on your own poison. Some of us are here to smash your glass, not drink from it.
6 comments:
On careful analysis, the brief's departures from sound principle are internally inconsistent and otherwise not particularly effective.
Let me make sure I'm following this correctly: yes--the DoJ's call for rejecting a strict scrutiny standard is a position that would appeal only to statists, but the argument is made so ineffectively that we might as well pretend the DoJ didn't make that argument, because SCOTUS will be sure to reject it.
Is that about it?
Well, then--I feel much better now.
But Adolph's position on the Jews is inconsistent with the rest of what he wants to do for us. See, he doesn't wish to do away with the Weimar Republic, only insure that existing laws are enforced correctly for the good of us all.
Why worry about Vladimir and Leon's program? This thing about the bourgeois, that's inconsistent with the rest of their program for us. It's not to be worried over. See, they're actually trying to help us - don't you understand?
Should we extol the virtues of brother Mao's program as well? After all, there was only a little inconsistency in what he claimed.
Of course they will look past the unconstitutional authoritarian intent......just look at mccain - feingold
In fact, since we can expect SCOTUS to see through the clear language and do the right thing, I have a warm fuzzy feeling about the whole thing.
Fight islam Now
A few of the lawyers over on Volokh Conspiracy make a good argument that it's unrealistic to expect a government agency to support a position that undercuts the laws it currently enforces. When has a government agency ever suggested they have less power?
It was discussed in one of the thread I linked below.
http://volokh.com/posts/1200277286.shtml
http://volokh.com/posts/1200292558.shtml
No argument, Steve. I've been saying that's a probable outcome of this case from Day One, where even if we get an individual rights interpretation, nothing at the practical enforcement level really changes. Predators, political and otherwise, never give up power willingly--they need for there to be a compelling "or else."
That's why we need to be working toward getting enough people radicalized to not put up with this tyrannical crap.
"That's why we need to be working toward getting enough people radicalized to not put up with this tyrannical crap."
Count me in for the good fight. Of course, they realize that not all of the frogs will start boiling quietly, and thus the "Homegrown Terrorist" bill....
Post a Comment