Skip to comments.CNN's Toobin: 'Preposterous' to Believe in 2nd Amend. Right Back at Harvard
Posted on 07/15/2009 4:39:53 PM PDT by Pyro7480
...On Wednesday, legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin implied that the Supreme Courts 2008 decision to uphold the Second Amendment was revolutionary: When I was in law school...the idea that you had a Second Amendment right to a gun was considered preposterous....But the Supreme Court [in Heller]...said that...individuals have a personal right to bear arms.
...Anchor Wolf Blitzer raised the Second Amendment issue with Toobin, a graduate of Harvard Law School, and the others on their panel analyzing the hearings.... [and] asked...what were the nominees positions, specifically on the federal obligation to support the Second Amendment, as opposed to local communities..?
The CNN...analyst harkened back to his law school days...and possibly revealed a bit of his formation as a liberal:
TOOBIN: You know, its funny, the way that this hearing goes, you would think that Supreme Court precedent is some unchanging thing- that is just the law that is changed. But if you look at the Second Amendment, thats something thats changed dramatically over the last- for 50 years, including when I was in law school, which was more recently than 50 years ago- the idea that you had a Second Amendment right to a gun was considered preposterous. The text of the Second Amendment, I believe we have it- we have it in our system- you know, speaks of a well-regulated militia and the right to bear arms.
Well, courts used to say, well, this only affects the rights of state militias. But the Supreme Court, two years ago, in the famous Heller decision, said that when it comes to the federal government, we- individuals have a personal right to bear arms, and the D.C. gun control law was thus unconstitutional....
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
The second amendment is as much a right as the 1st
If we didn’t have liberals, the need for guns would probably drop drastically.
Maybe the idea was "preposterous" at Haaaaaavaad, you ignorant, arrogant, elitist, a$$hole, but the rest of us have known of this individual right for our entire lives.
I have grown weary of Harvard educated "analysts".
And since it doesn't apply to individuals, neither does the 16th
I am not a fan of guns. Hate them, actually.
That said, the language of the Constitution is plain. There is a right to bear arms, pure and simple. If I do not like it, I can work through the Congress and Ammendment process to get it changed. If not enough people agree to change it - that is if I cannot convince the percentages outlined in the Constitution required to ammend it - then that is my problem.
I wonder what Toobin’s idea on the existence of the right to privacy is? Considering it doesn’t actually exist in the Constitution, I assume he believes the right to privacy is preposterous....right? :-)
That is absolutely NOT true.
This man is either ignorant, stupid or he is a bald-faced liar.
“To preserve Liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, and member of the first Continental Congress, which passed the Bill of Rights)
Proving William F. Buckley’s statement that he would rather be governed by those in the first page of the Boston Phone Book than the entire Harvard Faculty.
I think that makes the silly question pretty much moot or academic at best.
This is part of the left's orchestrated effort to paint strict constructionists or movement conservatives as something of a new phenomenon as well as something a fringe movement. The MSM carries their water, as usual.
Yes, of course, the 2nd amendment only gives the state government the right to arm the National Guard.
While the deconstructionist Warren Court had to dig through mountains of papers to find one sentence in a Thomas Jefferson letter that they could torture into nullifying the “free exercise” clause in the 1st Amendment, their modern fellow travellers wouldn’t DARE to try looking for anything like that in the writings of ANY of the nation’s founders respecting the 2nd Amendment.
Their writings are so clear, that even the most cynical deconstructionist would have no success in trying to argue that the Founders would nullify the right to self-defense.
“...the idea that you had a Second Amendment right to a gun was considered preposterous.”
That certainly wasn’t true when I was in law school! Most of us took part of November off to go deer hunting. A few of us, myself included, would go bird hunting before and after classes. We’d take our shotguns right into school with us. I don’t remember anyone thinking it was odd at all. Of course, I didn’t go to Harvard....
If people had more guns, liberals would likely drop drastically too!
Funny. The Framers considered it preposterous that one might not have the right to arms.
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. -- Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 28I would demand a tuition refund.
I respect guns...they literally are the last resort to keep our Republic intact. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool and/or a traitor.
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.