Will the justices get the history right, or will they be swayed by a potent gun-rights mythology that has distorted the history of Reconstruction and effectively erased the memory and sacrifices of men such as Williams? [More]See, according to Saul Cornell, the way we honor the memory of armed blacks who fought for freedom is by embracing disarmament edicts and the rulings that supported them.
There's no question that much precedent had been established by the late Nineteenth Century to reflect deviation from the concept of unalienable rights that shall not be infringed.
That does not give it moral legitimacy.
It's appropriate to question why we should give Cornell's opinion more credence than, say William Rawle's:
“No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under a general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any pursuit of an inordinate power either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”And then there's one other fundamental reality: We will not disarm.
3 comments:
And one more thing for smarmy Cornell: YOU come and get them, big boy. III.
The main argument of the article is that a tradition of corruption supersedes constitutional law. Cornell is arguing--as he always has--that because "gun control" existed in the past, it must always exist.
The federal executives, legislature and the courts are not actually physically and psychologically constrained by any law. That's why history includes notable events such as broad violation of treaties with native tribes, rulings that Negroes could be someone's personal property, tax enforcement agents machine-gunning bootleggers, and numerous court challenges regarding the constitutionality of legislation.
The concept of guilt-by-possession is what is under attack by pro-liberty advocates. Just because states' legislatures passed disarmament bills doesn't mean that they were legal, and the evidence now shows that they weren't even effective providing for an exegetic "public safety".
Am I to understand that Saul Cornell is now arguing for states' powers in determining how best the violate the natural rights of the people? What happened to: "the Second Amendment does not prohibit robust gun regulation, it compels it"? I guess now that can't be acknowledged, since a Second Amendment opinion favorable to human rights can't fit through a hole large enough to accommodate a jackboot.
It's obvious the context is the Chicago disarmament edicts. The landscape of disarmament is populated both by gaps wide enough to fit sprawling chains of the tortured reasoning that the Second Amendment orders the government to disarm citizens, but should the need arise, apertures so narrow that only firearms may pass through for consideration, and that such declarations in the Illinois Bill of Rights do not apply:
"All men are by nature free and independent and have certain inherent and inalienable rights among which are life,
liberty..."
"To secure these rights and the protection of property, governments are instituted..."
"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor be denied the equal protection..."
"The people shall have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and other possessions against unreasonable searches, seizures..."
"No person shall be compelled in a criminal case to give evidence against himself..."
"All penalties shall be determined both according to the seriousness of the offense and with the objective of restoring the offender to useful citizenship..."
"The right of trial by jury as heretofore enjoyed shall remain inviolate."
All of which are violated by disarmament based on guilt-by-possession, and extending punishments long after a prison sentence has been completed.
No, the only thing that matters is this completely contradictory amendment:
"SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It seems that Saul Cornell hasn’t bothered to read the Heller decision. Nor has he seen fit to read the debates that were argued prior to and during the drafting of the 14th Amendment.
Granted, the 14th Amendment was forced upon the Southern states whose legislatures were required to ratify the amendment if they were to be allowed to rejoin the union, after they were kicked out of congress subsequent to accepting and ratifying the 13th Amendment.
The 2nd Amendment was intended to stand alone and shouldn’t need “incorporation” into the 14th Amendment. But, as politics were at the time, the SCOTUS all but declared the 14th Amendment unconstitutional, and gradually, grudgingly established the doctrine of incorporation whereby the SCOTUS unconstitutionally appointed themselves the final say as to which of the “Bill of Rights” are important enough to apply to the states and which aren’t.
[W-III]
Post a Comment