Shrubs new Gun Bans

[Don Galt]

Uh, no I wouldn't. If you want to show hypocrisy in my positions, do it using the positions I've taken. Attributing to me a position that you speculate I have -- a crime I have committed on occasion-- doesn't work so well.

A large number of republicans voted for the AWB. Sure, fewer than on the Democrat side, but if NONE of them had voted for it, and a few of them had fillibustered, I don't think it would have passed.

I checked but couldn't find the vote rolls for it just now. Though I've seen it in the past and was impressed at the number of republicans who voted for the AWB.

 

[alan]

Don Galt:

Re Dems.v. Republicans and the Assault Weapons Ban, John Dingell, Dem, Mich, has been a pretty reliable vote FOR gun rights.

Henry Hyde, Dem. Chicago, so far as I can recall, never or hardly ever saw a proposal called "gun control" he didn't fall in love with.

I do not off hand recall how either voted on the AW ban, however if I had to guess, I would guess on Hyde voting for, Dingell probably voting against. I could be wrong, but in-so-far as casting ones vote, it would be better to find out how an incumbent voted or how a candidate claims he/she would vote, what sort of a record, if any, do they have, than simply to go on the basis of party affiliation.

As for President Bush, while he's been in office, have any gun control laws been signed into law? I do not think so, though I'm not particularly trustful of Bush. Also, there was the opportunity he had to vacate those anti-gun executive orders, an opportunity he failed to utilize.

 

[Omega_7]

Bush signed the "plastic gun" ban renewal

That's a gun ban. If he really believes what the talking head A$$croft said about the 2nd, he never would have signed it and he would be against the AWB and would be working to restore our rights.

Has anyone here heard the phrase "The buck stops here?" Bush could order the BATF to stand down, and he could, instead of pushing for approval of a tidal wave of illegal aliens to invade this country (which is what is occuring right now as a result of his stupidity):

He COULD: Push for elimination of the BATF, pointing out all the atrocities they have committed against the American people. It would be an easy sell to most Americans, IMO. He would then be seen as a hero instead of an elitist Fabian socialist. But he is a Fabian socialist so this will never happen

This country cannot survive as a republic if MAJOR elimination of fed agencies does not happen SOON. Our liberties are slipping away and some of those pretending to be on our side are just peachy happy about it. Their children and grandkids won't be. They will learn to hate their ancestors that were such fools as to give up essential liberties due to cowardice.

BATF needs to be eliminated. The rest of fed government needs to be eliminated by 90%. Imagine waking up in a free land. IMO there's only one way that could occur, but there are not enough real men left in this country to do it. The founders must be turning over in their graves.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Warning:
This post is not safe reading for:
Those who love Bread and Circuses
Those who think paying your NRA dues is defending the 2nd amendment
Those who love big government and the status quo
May cause high blood pressure in JBTs .

 

[brookstexas]

Bartholemew Roberts

Great link


Found these in just a few minutes, FURTHER proof the Bush administration is as bad as Clintons for gun owners.
Folks wake up and vote Libertarian or change your party to one that serves Americans again.

H.R. 2122 - Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act of 1999
(McCollum (R) Florida and Hyde (R) Illinois)

-Administration favors closing "gun show loophole"
-Firearm supporters know there is no such thing
The Administration opposes H.R. 2122, which fails to close the gun show loophole. The bill contains a narrower definition of "gun show" that would not cover flea markets and other such commercial venues where hundreds of guns are regularly bought and sold. In addition, the bill creates a safe harbor for criminals by creating a new class of "instant check registrants" to do background checks at gun shows - undermining law enforcement efforts to trace firearms that are later used in crimes. We also oppose the Dingell amendment, which maintains many of the bill's worst features and makes other provisions worse. For example, it shortens the amount of time law enforcement officials have to conduct background checks. According to the FBI, if this 24 hour limit were applied to all current background checks, an estimated 17,000 criminals would have been able to purchase guns over the past 6 months.

We strongly support the McCarthy/Roukema amendment, the only amendment to H.R. 2122 that will close the gun show loophole once and for all.



H.R. 2378 -- TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND
GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, FY 1998
(Sponsors: Livingston (R), Louisiana; Kolbe (R), Arizona)
Importation of Lethal Firearms

The Administration strongly opposes section 518 of the Committee bill. The practical result of this section would be to deny the Federal Government an effective mechanism to control the importation of hundreds of thousands of inexpensive firearms such as M-1 carbines and M1911 45 caliber semi-automatic pistols. These are weapons provided to foreign governments by military assistance programs, and were not intended to become low cost firearms available for civilian use. Low-cost firearms that are concealable, and/or capable of accepting large capacity magazines, and/or capable of being easily converted to fully automatic fire frequently wind up in the hands of criminals. Such weapons are particularly attractive to criminals. In short, the net effect of the proposal would be to thwart the Administration's efforts to deny criminals the availability of inexpensive, but highly-lethal, imported firearms.

 

[Publicola]

I would not necessarily add a "nuetral" category when talking about anyone's pro or anti gun leanings. Your actions are either pro or anti.

That being said I disagree with one of the positives attributed to Bush. Ashcroft did say that the 2nd is an individual right, subject to government regulations. This is no different in practical effect than saying the 2nd is a collective right. & may I remind ya'll that a lot of anti-gun groups feel their ideas are a rasonable, non intrusive exercise of government authority.

So Bush gets no credit for that statement because of the qualifier used to condone prior restraint based gun control laws.

Numbers 2 & 4 are also not what I'd call a positive, unless you think that requiring governmental permision to exercise a Right is a reasonable government power. 1 day or 1 year, the checks should not be required in the first place, so I'd disagree with their inclusion on the plus side of the ledger.

The 1rst item in the nuetral category is alsoa little off base. Factually it's correct, but you must understand that Bush signed a law requiring pilots to become "federal flight deck officers", thereby reinfocring, albeit subtely, that government employees, not citizens, can be trusted with arms. Not to mention the hassle the TSA is giving pilots who wish to be armed, which although Bush may or may not have instigated it, he does bear the responsibility for the TSA's actions.

2 would be a negative, nto a nutral, even if I felt nuetrality was legitimate.

It's also remiss to ignore Bush's gun control enforcement programs, such as Project SafeStreets & Exile. He is an adament supporter of these programs, which strictly enforce every federal gun control law we have on the books. every unconstitutional gun control law that is (which would be all of them). So considering his zeal for putting people in prison cause they have wood 1/2" too short or decide to pack a pistol in a bear infested national park I'd say that shouldn't be left off the list.

In short Bush is what i'd consider anti-gun. He just has real good PR.

& the Texas CCW thing - a permit to exercise a Right (thus turning it into a privilege) may be considered pro-gun by some, but my way of thinking is that if a person's pro-gun he/she would realize that a permit to exercise a Right conflicts with said Right. So I don't credit signing a CCW law as a pro-gun indicator. Course if you did think signing a CCW law makes someone pro-gun & worthy of being elected president, then perhaps you should pettition Alaska's or Vermont's governor to run against Bush. Course Dean appears to be anti gun depsite his not tampering with Vermont's correct view on concealed carry.

& I would not blame any president for the actions of an agent or agency under his watch when he did not specifically authorize those actions. However I will blame each & every president for not dealing with inappropriate actions on the part of his underlings. No one would blame a factory owner if one of his employees committed a horrible crime, but they would if said owner did not terminate &/or atempt to correct the actions of his employee when they were brought to his attention.

& don't get me wrong, Bush isn't the only president I have issues with. Each & every one since FDR (including that particular socialist) has fallen short of the pro gun mark either through action or inaction. I guess since 1934 anyone who had done more than glance at the constitution was eliminated from the candidate pool.

But I'm an extremist by most gun owners' standards. Ya'll may see no movement towards more gun control as a positive. I on the other hand see no movement towards less gun control laws as a big negative. It simply ain't enough that we hold the ground we have, we must retake what we've lost. Sadly Bush or any other left leaning candidate will do anything about it. It really boils down to having more gun control openly or covertly. A Democrat might be more adament about passing ugn control, while Bush or a similar Republican might be a little slicker in pushing gun control. Neither will push for a repeal of gun control so it equates to taking a ride towards more gun control in the daytime or in the night.

to address some other comments...

Fallingblock,
the lesser of two evils is still evil (from Geek With A .45). Whether or not Bush is better than Gore is a side issue. The main issue is whether Bush is good for gun owners or not & the answer to that I have found is a resounding "no".

Obiwan,
No. Bozo's with boxcutters didn't make it possible. They took advantage of a deplorable condition. The government then took advantage of a tragic event.

Lemme break this down for you: a few men with substandard blades killed 3,000 people. They receive the blame for that, no question. But their actions were made possible because A: the government forced us to leave the secon amendment at the airport gates & B; the government told us the 9th amendment didn't apply inside airports & airplanes either. (The 9th amendment can be construed to cover the Right to Self Defense)

The government then decided to illegal search people & illegally seize all manner of objects that were protected under the 2nd, 4th & 9th amendment.

Now I don't care if Bush wanted the screeners federalized or not - he wanted the screeners, be it private or government, to infringe upon the Rights of people as they entered an airport.

The airlines don't make flying with weapons difficult. They are governed by federal law regarding weapons. Now if there was no federal law things might be as you suggest, but until then the airlines themselves cannot be blamed because federal law dictates how they treat firearms on a flight.

The TSA does more than just make you take off your shoes: they reinforce the idea that you have no constitutional protections when they want to do something. They remind us all that we're viewed as sheep. That's quite a bit worse than just making you partially disrobe.

& once again, Bush is the chief executive & is ultimately responsible for the actions of any agencies in the executive branch. Like I said it's one thing if he finds out after that fact about something, but quite another if he takes no action or condones said actions.

& to those who wonderdd about a real pro-gun presidential candidate...it's not that prmising as far as electability is concerned, but Rep. Ron Paul is unarguably the most pro-gun politicain we have. If you're a Republican try writing him in on the primary ballot. & try persuading your state party to back him for a presidential run in 08. His chances aren't great, but witht he possible exception fo Alan Keyes he's the most qualified for office I can recall in my life.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

brookstexas - glad you liked the link; but I don't get how you hold the Bush Administration responsible for two bills written during the Clinton Administration (1998 and 1999)?

& the Texas CCW thing - a permit to exercise a Right (thus turning it into a privilege) may be considered pro-gun by some, but my way of thinking is that if a person's pro-gun he/she would realize that a permit to exercise a Right conflicts with said Right.

Publicola, the Texas state constitution says:

"Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime. "

 

[Publicola]

Bartholomew Roberts,

I'm aware of the Texas constitution's provision. It, like many other state constitutions is flawed in that regard. The nearest equivilent I can think of would be to have a state constituton declare that the people have the Right to freedom of speech, except nothing shall justify badmouthing a member of government.

Unfortunately constitutions don't always get it right.

However via the 14th amendment to the federal constitution we find that the Bill of Rights - including the 2nd Article of same - is indeed binding upon the states. & while a state constitution may be more protective of the people's Rights than the federal, it cannot be a justification to disparage those Rights enumerated by the federal constitution.

But you must remember that the discussion is about Rights. Constitutional mention is a good thing, but it is not a prerequisite for those Rights. Most Rights as we know them are not granted by the state, but rather they predate the state & as such aren't dependent upon the state for their existence.

But my point was that if Bush were pro-gun by my standards, then he would have pushed for a law legalizing carry - openly or concealed - w/o permit, license, fees or any other requirement save on a person's actions (i.e. don't rob, threaten, murder, etc...).

& please note that the Texas constitution, while getting it wrong that concealed carry isn't a Right (getting more than that wrong as it says carrying arms is a Right but they'll tell you when & how & even if you can do it) does not prohibit the legislature from passing a law that requires no fees, permits or other intrusive measures. In short the Great State of Texas can repeal all the laws it has that criminalize concealed (& open) carry. It's what they should have done under Bush & it's what they should do now.

One last thing - in attempt to answer a question that wasn't directed towards me (forgive the rudeness of that but the question seems compelling to me) it is proper to hold the present president accountable for certain laws, even if they were passed by a previous administration.

The president's duty is to protect & defend the constitution, right? His role in government is to execute the laws that congress passes. However when the two requirements of his office conflict, he is bound to ignore congress in favor of the constitution. Hence Bush is responsible for Clinton's gun control laws, as well as those passed in 68 & 34 simply because he enforces them when his duty should demand that he refuse to enforce them.

So holding Bush (or any president) responsible for laws that were written under previous administrations is acceptable if said president does not oppose those laws which conflict with the constitution. In fact I could easily argue that not holding a sitting presient responsible if he chooses to enforce previously passed unconstitutional laws is part of the problem we have. But if we shunt the blame for said laws solely on the administration or even the legislature that passed them & refuse to hold the administration that enforces them acountable, then we're worse off than we might think.

 

[bjengs]

Bartholomew Roberts said

Actually it didn't - it started on Clinton's watch and was partially reversed on Bush's watch. But let's take a look at everything that happened on Bush's watch, shall we?

PRO:

1. UN Small Arms Restrictions blocked by US

2. Attorney General declares Second Amendment is individual right - reverses 35 years of previous Justice Department doctrine on the matter.

3. Attorney General refuses to allow legitimate purchase of NICS data to be used for fishing expedition - Ashcroft stops grabbers from sifting through NICS data of legitimate purchasers to look for "terrorists".

4. Ashcroft changes NICS data holding from 90 days to 1 day - NICS data on legitimate purchases will now be purged from the system in a single day as the law intended rather than being held onto for 90 days per Clinton policy

5. Bush supports and will sign lawsuit preemption bill

6. Bush ends taxpayer funding of useless HUD gun buybacks

NEUTRAL:

1. Claims to be against arming air line pilots but signs bill authorizing it.

2. Doesn't repeal any Executive Orders relating to guns instituted by previous Presidents.

CON:

1. Continues his support (stated in 2000) of the notoriously useless semi-auto ban.

You know, I was a bit of a Bush basher but was waiting for a list like this. I gotta tell ya, that's solid stuff. My first skeptical reaction, however, was "well, let's take the more reliable litmus test for politicians, the one I always use: count only their deeds, not their stated intentions."* And it actually improves Bush's standing. It gives him 5 "Pro's" and 4 "Neutrals," as two items have yet to be officially acted upon.

Now, that's the kind of post I come to THR for!




*you would be interested to note that Clinton, in terms of his actual voting record/legislation introduced, was nowhere near as liberal as he has been made out to be. But he said all the things the Left wanted to hear and was exceptionally charismatic, all the while voting as a Big Government Centrist. On the gun issue, however, there is no doubt, he was as Leftist as the rest of 'em.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

However via the 14th amendment to the federal constitution we find that the Bill of Rights - including the 2nd Article of same - is indeed binding upon the states. & while a state constitution may be more protective of the people's Rights than the federal, it cannot be a justification to disparage those Rights enumerated by the federal constitution.

I agree that this should be the case; but you must also be aware that no judge has yet ruled it to be so. No judge has ever incorportated the Second under the Fourteenth Amendment yet.

Your argument is one of principal - you argue that because a principled stand would acknowledge the above rights, the law Bush signed actually reduced the rights of Texas citizens. My point is you miss the practical - no judge in the country has yet agreed with your principles. As a result, the law offers no protections to Texas citizens based on those priniciples and the law Bush signed had the practical effect of expanding their rights rather than circumscribing them.

Hence Bush is responsible for Clinton's gun control laws, as well as those passed in 68 & 34 simply because he enforces them when his duty should demand that he refuse to enforce them.

What system of government would survive more than a month if all the executive had to do to kill legislation he didn't like was declare it unconstitutional in his view and refuse to enforce it? You are taking the checks and balances given to the judicial branch and demanding the executive usurp those powers.

I feel this is a monumentally bad idea and that consolidating more power in one person is unlikely to lead us to a desirable system of government.


bjengs:

Glad the information is useful; but please note Omega_7s post where Bush signed the ban on as yet non-existent plastic guns. I'd have to add that to the con list.

However, you can also add another Pro to the list. Bush recently signed the appropriations bill containing the Tiarhart amendment into law. This changes Ashcroft's practice of immediate destruction of legitimate purchase records in NICS from a bureaucratic rule that will change as soon as Ashcroft leaves, into the law of the land that even gun-grabbing Attorney Generals will have to acknowledge.

 

[redhead]

1. Claims to be against arming air line pilots but signs bill authorizing it.

One thing that takes this from neutral to negative is that the TSA is making it monumentally difficult for airline pilots to be armed. I can't remember if there is a thread about it on this forum or not, but another forum I frequent did have such a thread. The rules for carrying are difficult - for one, the firearm needs to be in a locked box unless the pilot carrying it is in the cockpit with the door closed. Before the cockpit door is unlocked, the firearm needs to be back in its locked box, rendering it kinda useless if a terrorist should barge in at that time. I have also read that the pilot has to jump through a lot of hoops to get qualified, so that most just haven't bothered. I'll look for that info, and post a link here, if anyone wants to see it.

[edited to add the following:]

I decided to add a link anyway: Thousands of Pilots Won't Fly Armed, Blame TSA

 

[Al Norris]

Bartholomew Roberts wrote:
You are taking the checks and balances given to the judicial branch and demanding the executive usurp those powers.

Oh, Really?

Up until Dec 10, 2003, it was unlawful for the government to prohibit the content of speech. The "reasonable" arguement was always made that time, place or manner could be regulated as long as such regulation(s) did not affect content. This is now no longer true. As of that date, Congress through any other legislation they so decide or the Executive through EO's, can now regulate and or prohibit the content of speech. Any Speech.

This is all three branches agreeing that the BoR exists only at the whim of government because of what the Judiciary has just ruled. A direct result of the Judiciary giving themselves power nowhere mentioned or implied in the Constitution. See Marbury v. Madison. Jefferson's worst fears have finally become reality.

So I ask you Bart, of what checks and balances are you referring to?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

So I ask you Bart, of what checks and balances are you referring to?

OK, Al, let's say I buy into your argument as stated and we both agree that this is exactly what happened.

How is that situation going to be improved by allowing the executive to decline to enforce any laws he feels are unconstitutional? Having just seen three different branches of government compromising hundreds of men twist the constitution in a way that offends you, why on Earth would you ever think it wise to allow just one man the opportunity to neglect laws based on his sole decision?

Do you think the chances of more constitutional government are improved by such an arrangement? Do you think that just because the judiciary failed to live up to its job by your standards in this instance that they no longer have ANY ability to check or balane the other two branches? That is a fallacy.

To use an analogy, a gun is not always successful in self-defense use. Does this mean it is worthless for self-defense use? The courts may not always check abuses of power. Does this mean they are worthless in that regard?

 

[Publicola]

Bartholomew Roberts,
A lot of people assume that the courts are the only branch capable of voiding unconstitutional laws. This is a fallacy. The courts took it upon themselves as the sole arbitrators of the constitution, & through laziness the other two branches allowed them to do so.

As an aside it wasn't that the framers thought that justices would be alone capable of deciding constitutional questions, but jurors as well. The concept is called jury nullification & though it's downplayed today it was an integral part of the system as it was conceived. But since its widespread use during prohibition the courts have tried to tell juries that facts & not law are what they're to decide, despite SCOTUS rulkings to the contrary.

The way the system is designed, congress, the president or the courts could, singly or in combination, decide an action by one or two of the other branches conflicts with the constitution. A presidential veto is an example of the check you speak of, but so is refusal to enforce a law that is unconstitutional.

So one man deciding a law is void according to the constitution is just as appropriate as 9 people deciding the same, or a hundred, or a few hundred. But because presidents have neglected their constitutional duty congress has gotten away with a lot of laws they simply don't have the authority to enact.

Now if a president did refuse to enforce laws he felt were unconstitutional it would create a bit of tension in the government. But not the chaos I think you're afraid of. In any case a president putting his foot down & telling congress &/or the courts that laws must agree with the constitution is a desirable thing for a number of reasons. Chief among those is it would reinforce the system of checks that was designed, as oppossed to the system as it is now where the courts are presumed to be the only check.

Keep in mind I'm not saying the president alone should check unconstitutional laws, but all three branches ideally should check the other ones. Presidential non enforcement should be used in addition to, not in place of, judicial nullificiation.

If all 3 branches did that, then there'd be a lot less lawmaking going on, which I cannot understand how that would be a bad thing. After all, we're supposed to have a limited federal government. Even those rats in 1789 didn't mean "limited to anything they can get away with".

As to the principle v. practical nature of CCW - the practical benefits you seem to hang on are not that practical. Yes, more Texans can carry now, but because of the nature of CCW laws it is not a Right, but merely a privilige granted at the whim of the legislature. A vote could just as easily rescind that privilige as it allowed it. So in exchange for being allowed to carry if one jumps through the correct set of hoops, people are tricked into accepting it as a privilige thinking it's a Right. That, in the long run, is a very dangerous thing practically as well as principly.

& I'm aware the courts haven't incorporated the 14th. when you're in the mood for a real rant I'll expand on the BS theory of "incorporation" & why it's flawed. But just because the courts have used their legal sleight of hand to avoid dealing with an issue they don't care for does not mean that the issue isn't there. Courts are suppossed to follow the constitution & if they interpret soemthing into it that's not there, or intrpret something out of it that is there that does not make it right. It only means that the courts are indeed fallable & all too often unwilling to admit their error.


So Bush signing a CCW law is not a positive, even though it could be viewed as a practical positive int eh short term. In the long term it has too much potential for damage & as a matter of principle & constitutional law it is incorrect.

But I assume since you only brought up those two points that you don't have any other issues with the critique of Bush's pro & con list?

 

[Al Norris]

Bartholomew Roberts wrote:
OK, Al, let's say I buy into your argument as stated and we both agree that this is exactly what happened.

How about let's not? After all, it was you who made the checks and balances comment.

I'm just saying there is no longer any such thing. I used as a proof a recent decision that nullifies a certain type of political speech and makes it a felony to boot!

It took me much time, but I read the entire 298 pages of the decision, did you?

Did you understand the sleight of hand Stevens and O'Conner used to justify the ruling? The essence of this decision was to hold that constitutional rights, as they apply to individuals are overshadowed by the broader concerns of Congress. I am not making this stuff up. It's all there in precisely the manner in which Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. (1976) was expanded beyond all recognition.

Meanwhile, while you and several others are deep in arguement over whether Bush is a friend or not, Feingold and McCain have already announced that with this decision, they are ready to push ahead with more "reform."

What will you and your opponents have to say when such speech as you now are having is labeled seditious? What good will your guns be when you aren't allowed to talk about such things under pain of felony?

You think this won't happen? Justice Thomas closed his dissent with these words: "The press now operates at the whim of Congress." (pg 211) A more chilling statement could not have been made.

I won't bring this up again. It's tantamount to hijacking the thread. My apologies. :banghead:

 

[Omega_7]

Who nominated O'Conner? hmmm..?

(Rhetorical question for those with historical knowledge)

 

[redhead]

Who nominated O'Connor - lessee, my rememberer doesn't always work so well, and I wasn't really paying much attention to the political landscape in those days. It was either Reagan or George Herbert Walker Bush that nominated Ms. O'Connor to the high bench. I COULD look it up, I guess...

 

[redhead]

Well, this is interesting:

In 1981, President Reagan nominated her to the U.S. Supreme Court, where she became the first woman justice. Except in cases of sexual discrimination, she has generally resisted judicial activism, emerging in the 1990s as a frequent swing vote between more and less conservative blocs.

I didn't realize she had been on the Supreme Court for as long as she has, and I find it interesting that this bio says that she has resisted judicial activism. I think that that is changing.

Now, back to the regularly scheduled thread. I think I'm helping with the hijacking process.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Al Norris:

I'm just saying there is no longer any such thing. I used as a proof a recent decision that nullifies a certain type of political speech and makes it a felony to boot!

Actually Al, you are missing my argument almost entirely and misstating your own.

Does the Supreme Court still have the power to overturn decisions of Congress and the President? Yes, it does.

That is exactly what our system of checks and balances represents - no more and no less. Our founders were savvy enough to recognize that love of power would be a better motivating factor for our government than love of liberty - and so they set up a system where each branch would have an interest in maintaining its own power and the conflict for power among branches would help to guarantee our personal liberties by making it in each branches best interest to protect certain liberties.

As much as you dislike that decision, the Judicial branch can "re-interpret" it at any time it suits them and the executive and legislative branches would have little to say on the matter. The power to "check" the other branches is still there regardless of whether it is used to advance personal liberty or not.

Repeating to me over and over, the content of various judicial decisions you disagree with does nothing to change that. It may serve as an excellent example of how our system of checks and balances is about power first and personal liberty second; but it doesn't prove that there is no longer any such thing as checks and balances.


Publicola:

A presidential veto is an example of the check you speak of, but so is refusal to enforce a law that is unconstitutional.

Perhaps you could provide me an example of where the executive branch successfully refused to enforce a law on the grounds that it was unconstitutional so that I might better understand your argument?

As for judicial nullification, there is an author named Richard Stevens who has some interesting thoughts on that subject. The article was in a back issue of SWAT Magazine if you're interested though I can't remember the issue.

My major problem with your argument Publicola, is that it seems to assume that the legislative, executive and judicial branches will all act to interpret the Constitution in the same way you would. What happens when they act in the fashion Al Norris has been pointing out? What happens when say the President declines to enforce the portions of the Firearm Owners Protection Act preventing ammo registration because he feels it conflicts with the "militia" interpretation of the Second?

What do you think a George Bush or William Clinton would do with those powers?

 

[Russ]

Can't take anyone seriously when you refer to the President as "Shrub". The Molly Ivins and Al Franken fan clubs are just a click away. Go there

 

[fallingblock]

Publicola......

This comment borders on sophistry:
************************************************************
"the lesser of two evils is still evil (from Geek With A .45). Whether or not Bush is better than Gore is a side issue. The main issue is whether Bush is good for gun owners or not & the answer to that I have found is a resounding "no".
************************************************************

G.W. Bush is FAR better for gun owners than Gore in the white house would have been.

Bush is a vast improvement on the Clinton approach to gun owners.

You want perfection?

From the current two-party system?

Good luck, but you won't have any gun rights left long before you find it.


Russ:

************************************************************
"Can't take anyone seriously when you refer to the President as "Shrub". The Molly Ivins and Al Franken fan clubs are just a click away. Go there."
************************************************************

Agreed!

The use of that nickname implies an existing contempt for the man which suggests that the analysis of his policies is also biased.

 

[Justin Moore]

Don Galt, good job man

That is exactly what Margaret Thatcher called the "ratcheting effect". Leftists pass laws that undermine individual rights, then Conservatives get into government and strictly enforce those laws, because they want to be seen as "law and order" types. Then the leftists get into power again, and pass more laws, and the conservatives get into power and strictly enforce them, ad nauseum, ad infinitum. The bad laws never get removed, because the Conservatives don't have the courage to try and remove them. This is expecially applicable to the Republican party in this country.

Maggie was a smart woman.

 

[Publicola]

Bartholomew Roberts,
Sorry. No examples of a president refusing to enforce a law come to mind, although I won't say it's never happened.

What I am speaking of is the idea that all three branches are supposed to use their power to protect the constitution. Having just one branch assigned to constitutional enforcement &/or interpretation is akin to saying only one branch of government is to deciede how the others are bound by the constitution.

Imagine a business with three partners. One merely decides things, another merely carries out those decisions & the third tells them both what decisions they can & can't make according to the company charter. So if the partner who decides things tells the partner who carries out the decisions to do something that violates the company charter, then he's stuck with merely following his orders unless the thrid partner intervenes. That's the situation when only the judicial branch decides constitutional matters.

Now imagine a business where one partner makes decisions, but the other two partners decide on their own if those decisions are in line with the company charter. So if the partner that decides things instructs the one who carries out the decisions to do something violative of the company charter, the partner simply refuses to carry out the decision because ti would violate said charter. That's how I believe things should work according to the seperation of powers idea.

& whether all branches would interpret the constitution the same way I would is a non issue. You really think SCOTUS has gotten it right every time so far according to my understanding of the constitution? We'd be no worse off than now, but potentially a bit better since at least the legislative & executive branch would be obligated to read the constitution before they refuse to do something.

Congress is the big danger in our system./ They make the laws & all too often, with no consideration for the constitution. Having the executive branch provide an additional check would do more good than harm, unless you like the volume of laws congress puts out per year, or the flimsy justification behind them.

BTW, if a president refused to enforce the anti-registration provision of the FOPA of course that would be a bad thing. But what if a president refused to enforce the Hughes Amendment, the GCA of 68 & the NFA of 34 among others?

As to what Bush or Clinton would do - probably not much different than they have done. It still takes congress to make a law. A president can issue an executive order good only for federal jurisdictions, but other than that his option is simply to enforce the law congress made or to not enforce it. Creating law is not an option for him.

Fallinblock,
I disagree.
With Gore in office & the Repubs controlling congress, do you really think things would have gone as smoothly as they have with a Repub president & congress? But as I said, that's a side issue.

Yes, I want perfection in a president. At leats as close as humanly possible. But to use the relative judgements to justify a choice of president is to further the problem that led us where we are.

Yes, the two party system sucks for us & odds are that it won't change anytime soon. But whether or not you feel president A is better than his rival in the election, it's necessary to acknowledge their faults honestly. Most often when I talk about Bush's negatives I get a passionate discourse on how Bush would be better than Gore any day of the week. I'm talking totality & they're talking degrees.

So perhaps Bush would be better than Gore on a number of issues. Perhaps a cheating spouse is better than a murdering spouse. Not that these aren't issues to be addressed but of a more pressing concern is not how much better it is that my wife is a two timer than a murderer but how do I get myself free of that situation.

& it's not sophistry. Not even close. From Merriam-Webster

1 : subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation

It's not even sophism.

1 : an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid; especially : such an argument used to deceive

I don't see how I'm being deceptive when I say Bush isn't pro-gun, or good for gun owners. Neither do I see how it's invalid to bring it up. You may disagree with me, or feel that a relative judgement is all that matters & thus think I'm incorrect, but I don't see how you describe it as bordering on sophistry.

Now the Ashcroft statement about the 2nd amendment protecting individual rights subject to reasonable government restriction - that's sophistry. It intends to make people think that he supports an individual right, but most skim over the part about reasonable government restrictions which, subject to interpretation, could mean 1994 British style gun control laws.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

One merely decides things, another merely carries out those decisions & the third tells them both what decisions they can & can't make according to the company charter. So if the partner who decides things tells the partner who carries out the decisions to do something that violates the company charter, then he's stuck with merely following his orders unless the thrid partner intervenes.

Is the partner who carries out decisions being held incommunicado? What stops him from asking the third partner to intervene before he carries out those decisions (i.e. request an injunction while awaiting trial)?

So if the partner that decides things instructs the one who carries out the decisions to do something violative of the company charter, the partner simply refuses to carry out the decision because ti would violate said charter.

Do you see the critical difference in the two approaches you outlined? You are removing checks here, not adding them.

The President has the option to veto laws Congress passes if he feels they are unconstitutional (like say, Campaign Finance Reform). he doesn't have the option not to enforce them after the laws have been passed and signed by a previous President and he shouldn't have that option.

 

[Publicola]

Bartholomew Roberts,

Nothing would stop the second partner from asking the third partner to intervene. Similarly nothing would require the third partner to intervene.

& I am not removing checks - I'm adding. (actually restoring is more appropriate).

Just so we're on the same page, I'm saying the executive branch should use it's power (or more accurately not use its power) in order to check unconstitutional actions by congress. I'm saying this should be in addition to the judicial branches role, not as a substitute.

Veto of a law is a good thing (if it'd ever actually get used on constitutional as oppossed to partisan grounds that is) but it's not enough to say that a president is "just following orders".

after all, we wouldn't accept the Nuremburg defense of the thugs who carry out those orders, so why are you so willing to accept it from the one who orders those thugs to carry out such orders?


As simply as I can put it, all three branches should check the remaining two to ensure that the constitution is followed. If this means a judicial decision striking a law; a law passed clarifying an executive or legislative action; or a president refusing to execute an order or law that's contrary to the constitution then I fail to see the problem with it. In fact constitutionally a president refusing to execute a law on constitutional grounds is every bit as justified as the courts assuming the role of final arbitrator of the constitution. His oath is to protect & defend the constitution, not the whims of congress or the courts.

So tell me what in the constitution leads you to believe a president cannot refuse to enforce laws because of constitutional conflict? Now if a president just didn't like a law I would agree he's still bound to enforce it, but not if he doesn't like the law because it conflicts with the constitution.

 

[alan]

Gentlemen:

The theoritical diuscussions posted above, discussions some of which I've skimed, are certainly interesting BUT certain facts remain. The following is a short listing of things that I consider valid, important and worthy of attention. I realize that some perhaps many might disagree, so be it.

1. President Bush is clearly no friend of individual rights, this based on legislation he had pushed, legislation he has supported and legislation he recently signed, which greatly broadened the poowers of the FBI.

2. He has yet to back away from his stated support for renewal, if not a whole lot more than that, of this assault weapons ban, so-called.

3. He also recently signed legislation that extended for 10 years, a ban on a type of firearm that doesn't exist, that being "plastic firearms, that could pass undetected, through the type of metal detectors and or x-ray equipment used at airports.

4. President Bush also signed this Campaign Reform Act, so-called, which appears to have stuck a large knife between the ribs of FREEDOM OF SPEECH, causing what might possibly turn out to be FATAL DAMAGE THERETO.

Please note, this is important, that the original legislation was first passed in 1988 or thereabouts, and that the refered to "plastic firearms" did not then exist, nor do they now. Why then would the president, in his august wisdom, or what passes therefore, sign legislation that extends a ban on something that has never existed? I don't know either, but it does strike me as something worthy of some thought.

Pinocchio's nose, we are told, grew longer whenever he told a lie. Has anyone recently measured the length of the presidents nose? Has anyone recently measured the length of the noses of any of his advisors? Perhaps such measurments should be taken and recorded, for future use. Perhaps they should long since have been taken and preserved, if for no other reason than to establish a "baseline" reference.

I could, of course, be wrong in the following, I've certainly been wrong about one thing or another before, however I personally would not trust President Bush as far as I might be able to throw him. Given that I'm not terribly strong, I doubt that I could throw him at all far.

In case anyone might be wondering, I cannot offer the namre of anyone that I would trust particularly far these days, at least not amongst those in public office.