Posted on 11/23/2008 4:23:02 AM PST by Kaslin
Edited on 11/23/2008 7:14:51 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON -- Of conservatives' few victories this year, the most cherished came when the Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller, held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. Now, however, a distinguished conservative jurist argues that the court's ruling was mistaken and had the principal flaws of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 abortion ruling that conservatives execrate as judicial overreaching. Both rulings, says J. Harvie Wilkinson, suddenly recognized a judicially enforceable right grounded in "an ambiguous constitutional text."
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
You might have thoughtfully considered this in the very first paragraph, George, rather than making us wait until paragraph seven.
"... When rights are unambiguously enumerated, courts should protect them vigorously. But Wilkinson says that when a right's definition is debatable, generous judicial deference should be accorded to legislative judgments -- particularly those of the states, which should enjoy constitutional space to function as laboratories for testing policy variations."
Uh huh. Brilliant. Leave the legislative judgments on RKBA up to the states for experiment and debate while at the same time the anti-gun laws rain down on our heads from the Federal level like artillery fire. This is the opinion of some iconoclast Conservative judge from a lower court than the US Supreme Court that George Will thinks needs to be heard.
Seriously, why is George Will even considered a conservative anymore? What in the hell is he even 'Conservative' about, anyway? Baseball?
Sorry, this so-called “distinguished conservative jurist” is an idiot.
The “newfound” right existed BEFORE the constitution was drafted. The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual right of self defense. It isn’t actually enumerated in the constitution. The constitution merely acknowledges it’s existence and goes on to say that it SHALL NOT be infringed.
What is ambiguous about "shall not be infringed'?
But Wilkinson says that when a right's definition is debatable, generous judicial deference should be accorded to legislative judgments -- particularly those of the states, which should enjoy constitutional space to function as laboratories for testing policy variations.
Too bad those judges can't see the connection between draconian gun laws and crime.
Years ago Will commented on a piece by Levinson entitled “The Embarassing Second Amendment”, which argued the individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment. Will wrote a column at the time, saying he was “braced” by Levinson’s argument, which had forced him to rethink the issue.
See also this piece before Heller:
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/related/173944.php
With the horse he rode in on.
Someone needs to punch George Will in the nose and tell him it’s not polite to pee in the punchbowl.
If they can link the Constitution to Conservatism, 52% of the American people will vote to eliminate it.
Well, it doesn't specify by whom it shall not be infringed. /libtard logic
By electing a Communist they already have.
They never get it right.
The Second Amendment enumerates a pre-existing right to bear arms in defense of self and country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.