Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Patriotman
an individual's right to possess firearms.
At the same time, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer said the case need not test that principle now.

Wouldn't a test help the cause better?

Why this choice?

18 posted on 05/08/2002 12:28:35 PM PDT by flamefront
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: flamefront
What worries me is the same thing: why NOT bring it to the SC, if in fact the official policy is to agree with Emerson (and us)?

Unfortunately the effect is to take a case which was on its way to the SC and, correctly ruled, would have overturned many unConstitutional laws, and derail it. Or, the effect of a pro-2nd official stance is that anti-2nd laws shall remain in effect; and later, if an anti-2nd administration gets in, the structure of bad law will remain on which more bad law can be built.

The Administration (an ethical one, anyway) is not entitled not to enforce the law; that duty is only removed if the law is removed. Only the SC (effectively; since lower rulings are appealed) or the Congress can remove these bad laws, and we certainly know that Congress is not going to help us here. Even if we get some repeals through the House there is no glimmer of hope from the Senate.

Wish I was more optimistic; I hope only that the SC will choose to hear the case anyway and that since both sides (Emerson and the administration) agree now that the ruling would then be overwhelming and decisive.

49 posted on 05/08/2002 1:05:44 PM PDT by No.6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson