| cyborg wrote:|
Since when is it that there is a need for judicial review of a freedom protected by the Bill of Rights? This is all propoganda that will bit us eventually. The RIGHT to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed. This is completely self explanatory. There are no laws regarding this right which infringe upon it that are Constitutional. It is the Supreme Law of the land. Universal, and applies to all governemental agencies.
But if a city or state refuses to honor that right, the only redress for the infringement of the right is to take it to the courts. If not, other states and municipalities will follow suit. I agree that the meaning of the 2nd Amendment should have never been in question by anyone who can read plain English, but the fact is governments and municipalities infringe on rights all the time and will continue to sieze additional power whenever they feel they can away with it unchallenged. Previous Court precedent holds a lot of weight in future legal challenges. Right or wrong, much of what is current law is based on precedent from previous court cases. In a way, it is actually better that it had to go to the SC, because there is no higher legal authority, and it will now be used as precedent not only to strike down any future infringements on the 2nd Amendment by cities and states, but also to strengthen other Amendments to the Bill of Rights where "the people" is used as a synonymous term for "individual citizens." This puts a nail in the coffin of the "collective rights" and "military only" arguments the liberals like to use when distorting the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
In an ideal world, our local, state, and federal governments would always honor the Constitution, but since they don't, the only recourse we have is in the judicial branch of government. This is why our founders established the separation of powers doctrine.
I'm very happy for this victory, but it's also scary that it came down to a 5 - 4 decision. If we'd had one more liberal on the court, we would have likely had the completely opposite result. This underscores the fact that elections have consequences, since Presidents nominate SC justices, and SC nominations are VERY important to the security of liberty for many years after the end of a president's term. This decision also illustrates why it is important to vote, and even if the candidates you have to choose from are not ideal, it's still important to vote for the one who most closely supports your views, is most likely to honor the Constitution, AND has better than a snowball's chance in hell of winning. If we vote for candidates who have zero chance of winning, we may be adhering faithfully to our core principles, but all we do is make ourselves feel better. Strategically, if our vote doesn't count, we only help the "greater of the two evils," who may nominate more Leftist idealogues to the SC, with lasting damage done to our liberties for many years to come. For all Bush's faults, at least he gave us Justices Roberts and Alito, and as bad a candidate as McCain was, I have to believe he would have nominated much better SC candidates than Sotomayor and Kagan.
Edited by RifleDude - June/28/2010 at 20:35