Citing not the Constitution but judicial supremacy through legal precedent, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld strict gun control ordinances in Chicago and suburban Oak Park, Ill., stating the 2nd Amendment applies only to federal laws.

This is one of the rare times you will see the federal government deciding in favor of states. Except in this case, it’s misapplied and incorrect, because the Bill of Rights, wherein the Second Amendment is contained, takes precedence over any states’ infringement or cancellation of specific rights granted thereof. The Bill of Rights was meant to prohibit states from trampling on the rights of the people, just as much as it was meant to rein in such attacks from the federal level; it was meant to be a limitation on any government power.

Three Republican appointees — Judge Frank H. Easterbrook, Judge Richard A. Posner and Judge William J. Bauer — saw fit to hail their peers as the interpreters, deciders, and ignorers of the Constitution. Now the case will head for the Supreme Court in fall. And possibly by that time, Sonia Sotomayer will most likely have been approved by the Senate and sitting on the bench.

Sotomayer was part of a three-judge panel in New York that had already concluded that the 2nd Amendment and its protection does not apply to state and municipal laws. So the outcome of such a Supreme Court case leaves little to the imagination, as the justices will most likely try to squeeze out of the Second Amendment their own interpretation.

The LATimes report of the case written by David G. Savage is filled with inaccuracies and outright falsehoods:

Until the middle of the 20th century, most parts of the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government, not to states or localities. In a step-by-step process, however, the high court decided that most of the rights in the Bill of Rights were fundamental to liberty and, therefore, limit the action of states and municipalities.

There are exceptions. For example, the 5th Amendment says persons can be charged with a serious crime only by "indictment of a grand jury," but this right was not extended to the states. (Any lawyer care to comment on this one?)

Truly a more twisted and emasculated piece of foolery is hard to find. Any student of the Constitution, from high schooler to college grad, from housewife to blue collar worker, from legislator to constitutional lawyer, should know better; demagogues however, are a whole different category.

But for those who want documentation looking to the Preamble of the Bill of Rights is a good place to start:

The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

It was the states themselves who claimed the individual rights they specifically wanted protected, and initiated and received the Bill of Rights! It was the states and ultimately the people who benefited from them, from the very beginning. 

The Federalist Papers or just a simple search of our Founding Fathers’ discussions concerning the Bill of Rights will easily show Mr. Savage how uneducated and incorrect his liberal attempt at reinventing the Bill of Rights is.

Then there is Judge Easterbrook’s:

‘Federalism is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is the right to carry any particular kind of weapon.’ Deciding what is a fundamental right ‘is for the justices rather than a court of appeals.’

Appealing to people’s respect for tradition, Easterbrook offers nothing more than another arrogant lie that can easily be disproved by a cursorial glance at the discussions on Federalism and the right to keep and bear arms of the Constitutional period.

Easterbrook does serve to prove Jefferson, Madision, and Hamilton correct, when they warned of such a judicial monopoly on interpreting the Constitution. Jefferson in particular saw great danger in one branch of the government being the sole interpreter of the Constitution, and was most frightened if that branch was the judicial.  He stated, “I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but in the people themselves.” And Jefferson described a country in which the judiciary held a monopoly on interpreting the Constitution as one that would hold perilous power over the people as an “oligarchic despotism.”

In the judicial monopoly camp is our cap and gowned justices, who are ready (chosen thusly?) to interpret the Constitution according to their opinions and trends of the day, not even bothering to paying lip service to it, so bold and egregious have their actions become.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (10)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

Pat Henry said:

wisdom of Jefferson Courts trampling on natural rights. Supreme Court lending the cloak of authority to their usurpation of power, refusing to protect the People. Somehow this calls to mind Jefferson's Declaration that when a government no longer serves us, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it. In this case, the true abolition would occur by simply returning to the plain text and original intent (meaning) of the Constitution that legitimate federal office holders (falsely) swear to uphold. But as long as the people continue to vote for party candidates, they situation cannot turn around by peaceable means. A peaceable solution is simple, but it requires courage.

report abuse vote down vote up

June 08, 2009
Votes: +13

Christopher J Hoffman said:

... ‘Federalism is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is the right to carry any particular kind of weapon.’ Deciding what is a fundamental right ‘is for the justices rather than a court of appeals.’ And the right to defend one's own life and the life of loved ones predates civilization itself, Judge Easterbrook. How can a government that universally acknowledges a right to self defense deprive citizens of the means to effect it? It is as if we have, on one hand, a right to breath, but, on the other hand, we can be denied access to oxygen by the government. And the results are the same.

report abuse vote down vote up

June 08, 2009 | url
Votes: +11

Tom Glass said:

... This analysis left out several important issues. First, the words of the Second Amendment are different from other amendments in that it says the right "shall not be infringed." Contrast that with the First's "Congress shall make no law . . ." The implication of that difference is that the Second applies to all governments, whereas the First only applies to the federal government. Second, the Fourteenth Amendment is the lens through which the Supreme Court is viewing this issue. The question in the courts' mind is whether the right to keep and bear arms should be "incorporated against the States" as most of the rest of the Bill of Rights has been. The Supreme Court precedents that have incorporated other parts of the Bill of Rights have used the "due process" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (although they properly should have used the "privileges and immunities" clause which has been almost totally ignored. According to Blackstone, immunities are rights that no government should infringe - like the right to self defense - and privileges are procedural protections that a specific government provides as part of the deal of creating the government - in the United State's situation, items like rights to counsel, jury, and due process.) The way the precendents have read in incorporating other parts of the Bill of Rights have been to declare that the right being discussed is "fundamental" or "rooted in the traditions and history" of the United States. Even by that arbitrary standard which gives power to the Supreme Court to pick and choose, the right to keep and bear arms will easily pass muster for incorporation when the Supreme Court considers the issue for the first time. The same five justices who prevailed in Heller are likely to vote for incorpration, Sotomayer's replacement of the anti-freedom Souter, notwithstanding.

report abuse vote down vote up

June 09, 2009 | url
Votes: +4

JohnH said:

... Both circuits claim Presser as the controling law. But how can that be when Presser plainly says that states cannot impose firearms bans as that would deprive the United States of is civilian militia. Presser has been misread and misinterpreted for over 100 years. Once again SCOTUS will have to teach the lower courts English 101. What a sad comment on those charged with overseeing our legal system.

report abuse vote down vote up

June 09, 2009
Votes: +2

Peter Steele said:

My support for the second amendment As a Son of the American Revolution, I fully support the 1787 Constitution and its Bill of Rights. I have helped Alan Gottlieb's Second Amendment Foundation for as much as I can afford it, I was taught firearms use and safety while in the Marine Corps and I go to shooting ranges when I can. I have a Betsy Ross flag at home the same flag that Ron Paul had. BGen Peter F. Steele, USMC [Ret]

report abuse vote down vote up

June 09, 2009
Votes: +2

Kit Maira said:

	There seems to be a disconnect between the New American and the JBS http://www.thenewamerican.com/...ution/1203
	report abuse vote down vote up

June 09, 2009
Votes: +1

rexxhead said:

... Let's be blunt about the second amendment: "...whenever any government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it...". THAT is the function of the 2nd amendment: a destructive government will not be abolished by appealing to its better nature; it must be taken down by force. Allowing any government to dictate which arms are appropriate for overthrowing it by force is cuckoo. Allowing that government to dictate which persons may endeavor to overthrow it by force is likewise cuckoo. That's why the 2nd says "shall not be infringed". The founders knew EXACTLY what they were writing.

report abuse vote down vote up

June 09, 2009
Votes: +6

Constitutional Neophite said:

... Ms. Ann Shibler gets this issue and reports it completely, 100% right. The Federal Justices of the 7th Circuit got this one, by their ruling, 100% wrong. Read some wisdom of the Founding Fathers: "No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson "The said constitution shall never be construed to authorize congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams "The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." - Patrick Henry “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force: Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” – Patrick Henry. "Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." - James Madison "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! - I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.” - Ben Franklin "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee Founding Father

report abuse vote down vote up

June 09, 2009
Votes: +2

Beacon said:

	Dangerous Precedents Setting precedents is merely a route to legislating from the bench, and has been increasingly dominant as the number of precedents has increased. We dramatically need strict interpretation of our Supreme Law! Congress fails us when seating justices who do not meet this most important requirement.
	report abuse vote down vote up

June 10, 2009
Votes: +1

Ken Creech said:

... It is absolutely NECESSARY at this time for the revitalization of the Militias of the Several States, as Dr. Edwin Vieirra has so eloquently reasoned in his recent work "Constitutional Homeland Security". That JBS is squeamish by not forthrightly covering the 2nd Amendment's purpose is a mystery. We The People are being assaulted by a federal government which has been subverted by UN-Americans at every moment, to the end of total subjugation by a world fascist state. Its high time we acknowledge this plan for what it is, WAR by another means, and prepare accordingly. If we do so in time, as George Washington said, we may well avoid that inevitiblity. If we do not, then we will ultimately have to 'fight when there is no chance of winning, but to die is better than living as a slave.' (para. Winston Churchill)

report abuse vote down vote up

June 14, 2009
Votes: +0