[I]f the pres simply wanted to keep guns off spaceships, they didn't need to bring in the "“collective rights"” language. Re-read Ashcroft'’s letter--–he gave them the out to effect a ban with his "“compelling state interest"” rationale. That'’s all they'’d have needed to say and it would have legally stuck. They didn'’t need to address either a collective OR an individual right. But somebody did, and such inclusions are rarely accidental, which means there was intent, which implies motive...Understand, I'm not defending "compelling state interest," because, as practiced by the Bush DoJ, just about any existing law would be prosecuted or defended against under that banner. I'm merely observing that the administration did not need to go out of its way to embrace "collective rights"--the identical position as every enemy of the individual right to keep and bear arms.
The way I read this is, should a legal challenge to the authority of these regs be issued, the argument the administration will make will be based on the collective theory. I don't know any other way to look at it. And if that sticks, it will hurt us a lot more than if their defense was "“compelling state interest."”
Had they quietly announced the rules claiming authority under "compelling state interest," they would have probably slipped in completely under the radar--although aside from this blog and its few supporters, they essentially have anyway.
"compelling state interest"
ReplyDeleteYeah, right. Here is what two of the main proponents of the U.S Constitution had to say about that;
"Taking the opinions to be the same on this point, and he was sure if there was any room for change, it could not be on the side of the majority, the question will be shall less than 1/4 of the U. States withdraw themselves from the Union; or shall more than 3/4 . renounce the inherent, indisputable, and unalienable rights of men, in favor of the artificial systems of States....Can we forget for whom we are forming a Government? Is it for men, or for the imaginary beings called States? Will our honest Constituents be satisfied with metaphysical distinctions?"
- James Wilson, The Debates in the Federal Convention, Sat. June 30, 1787.
"You, Sir, triumph in the supposed illegality of this body; but, granting your supposition were true, it would be a matter of no real importance. When the first principles of civil society are violated, and the rights of a whole people are invaded, the common forms of municipal law are not to be regarded. Men may then betake themselves to the law of nature; and, if they but conform their actions, to that standard, all cavils against them, betray either ignorance or dishonesty. There are some events in society, to which human laws cannot extend; but when applied to them lose all their force and efficacy. In short, when human laws contradict or discountenance the means, which are necessary to preserve the essential rights of any society, they defeat the proper end of all laws, and so become null and void."
- Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 23 Feb. 1775
Papers 1:86--89, 121--22, 135--36
The PEOPLE created the state. The state was intended to protect and serve the interest of the People - NOT visa-versa.
edq--agree--my only point is that that would not have been a departure from previous administration language, and thus would not have been as likely to catch attention.
ReplyDeleteUnderstood, was merely adding commentary in an effort to debunk the contention of "compelling state interest" so often used by our supposed servants.....
ReplyDelete