Why in the world is Bill Lueders complaining about Russ Feingold's reaction to Fox News/Republican/Tea candidate Ron Johnson's wanting to treat firearms "like we license cars and stuff"?
More importantly, how about Ron Johnson acknowledging that his retooled stance — following on the heels and toes of podiatric extraction — as practically a Second Amendment absolutist wouldn't even be possible without the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in McDonald v. Chicago, a result that Senator Feingold had urged, in a writing submitted to and considered affirmatively by that very Court.
Feingold has a record on those questions and of course he's going to — and should — reflect it off of Johnson's ill-conceived meanderings.
"I believe it's an essential American freedom," says Ron Johnson, suddenly. "Fundamental right" is the constitutional term of art impressed upon the Court by Feingold and which the Court accepted.
Senator Feingold and his fellow amici argued that the right to keep and bear arms predates the drafting of the Second Amendment itself, which should tickle even the devoutest natural law aficionados.
"The people of Wisconsin can trust me not to play politics with their Constitutional Rights while protecting our right to keep and bear arms," Johnson announces, now. But Wisconsinites were unable even to assert capital-C Constitutional rights until McDonald v. Chicago.
The irony is strong with this one and Russ Feingold needs to make much more of it. If only for Ron Johnson's edification, as the latter's provided every indication that it went sailing right over his head.
Bill Lueders's "morons" are free to make of that what they will, but the majority non-morons should give it some serious consideration.
The Constitution is worth it. Ask any of the real Tea folks.
August 27, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Lueders may be a little too pure -- we do hold our people to a higher standard than the other side, where we expect such things -- but he happens to be right about Feingold's unfortunate patronizing on the supposed "fundamental right" to pack heat.
Feingold must come by his postion honestly, since he is never going to get credit for being "right" from the NRA or any of the other manipulative bastards who are going to work their hardest to get him out anyway. But beating up the amateur Johnson for making the mistake of saying something that actually makes sense (to me) because he thinks it might peel off votes from a few gun-tottin' knuckle-draggers -- "Yeah, ol' Russ, he a dadgum librul, but he always been right about my guns, so he got my vote, ya hear?" -- is a pretty blatent piece of political posturing that is beneath him.
Screw McDonald, Heller and their goddamn 5-4 decisions. The conservative majority was wrong in both. Obviously, the Constitution is "worth it". Majority decisions by the bought-and-sold right-wingers who brought you Bush v. Gore are worth much less. Just ask Michael Gableman and Annette Zeigler, et al.
Regards, as always,
MBP
I think it's important because it demonstrates a consistency in his view of the Bill of Rights. On the one hand, you've got lots of liberals who read every provision except the 2A restrictively and on the other hand lots of conservatives who only read the 2A so restrictively.
It seems to me if you're going to insist on separation of church and state, place a high hurdle against search and seizure, and find ethereal rights to medical privacy in what the Court, in retrospect, unfortunately called penumbras and emanations, then you've got to apply the same standards of liberty to the 2A.
I don't see the militia clause as an "out" to the aforementioned liberals, although it struck me that Scalia was reading the thing backwards in Heller.
As for the politicking, you know as well as anybody it's a jungle out there and I don't think Feingold had any choice but to draw the distinction (as hyperbolically as it may have been phrased -- I wouldn't have put it that way).
Other than that I feel ya homie.
And, this remains a righteous classic.
The militia clause is the "out" for me -- none of the other important protections in the Bill o' Rights is designed for a specific purpose. The "right" to possess certain hardware simply is not on the same level as the freedom to speak, be a religious nut, etc.
And, besides, you know better than I do how effective the handgun ban is in Canada. The tortured results of 2nd amendment analysis that can only have come from the Roberts court notwithstanding, why not here?
But, alas, this was dozens of news cycles ago. So yesterday's noise. I suggest we move on to Walker/Neumann's promise to eviscerate BadgerCare and Johnson's rail spurs. Keep up the good work, Captain.
Post a Comment