Posted on 01/15/2008 11:52:32 AM PST by SJackson
How a clearly defined individual right isn’t a fundamental right I haven’t a clue, though I admit I haven’t a clue why the Bush Justice Dept. came down with this brief. Is he planning on running for Governor somewhere?
Would be nice. While the decision rests with the Supremes, the brief is significant, and may have an impact. And is the direct responsibility of the President. Of course they won't, this will be over by the time the general election rolls around.
You could be right, but it's his responsibility. I won't belabor the number of issues that weren't on his radar.
But what's the upside here.
I understand his position changes on Israel. And Dubai Ports. And immigration, he was always an open borders guy. And Harriet Myers. And McCain Feingold, maybe, though that was a breach of his responsibility. No child left behind, medicare drugs, ok votes.
What's going on here?
It seems to have been written by the BATFE. Their chief counsel's name is on it, all rest of the government lawyers, show as just being "Department of Justice", of which the BATFE is a part, but the rest are Deputy or Assistant Attorney Generals (IE. HQ types), other than Solicitor General who is in effect the lawyer for not just the Justice Department, but for the whole federal government.
Letting the BATFE write a brief on the meaning of the Second Amendment is definitely letting the coyote guard the chicken coop.
Perhaps "Dred Scott" would be a more predictive analogy?
Nah, Secretary General, usurping the slot from Billy Jeff.
Funny you mention that. I was thinking the other day that if he can’t be First Fellow, Bubba would probably have a ball in the Senate. Reinstitute an old tradition, party with Ted, show up when you want, and recapture a bit of power and pork.
They also maintain that the second is no bar to complete and total bans on firearms, by class or in toto, in the hands of ordinary citizens.
What many people are quietly stating here and there is that if SCOTUS trips up on the Heller case, we will see bloodshed, brief or no brief. This scares the hell out of me but it looks like a lot of Americans are just sick and tired of the crap that is happening. I’ve seen comments on “the soapbox hasn’t worked, the ballot box obviously isn’t working, time for the ammo box.” and others.
If these people are correct, I wonder how a civil war would effect the upcoming elections? If Bush is smart, he’ll get a clue and get the brief withdrawn and STFU. The presidential candidates really need to make comment on this issue or they will find a lack of voters this November.
As it stands now, we can only wait and see and pray that SCOTUS will stand head and shoulders above the rest of the Government by doing the right thing.
Mike
Face it, “compassionate conservative” is code for liberal.
I don't see that at all, nor would I in any way be supportive.
A very thin reed that is, but Hope springs eternal. And we haven't seen the briefs of *our* side yet. That comes about February 4th.
To obvious...but you are correct.
the president should order the brief withdrawn and re-written.
hopefully SCOTUS will do the right thing, since the government’s position could be applied equally to other individual rights with frightening results
and if the underlying issue was not about guns you can be damn sure that all manner of subversive organizations like the media and the ACLU would be rioting over this brief they’d be that pissed off
Now, I have changed my mind. Though weak, the US brief is treason.
The argument in the US brief is that the right of US citizens to keep and bear arms is no more than the common law right to use arms in defense of self and state.
This is equivalent to stating: "The protection of the right to keep and bear arms of the citizens of Boston in 1791 under the US Constitution was no different than the protection of the right of those same citizens of Boston on April 19th, 1775; the date when government troops killed their own citizens while attempting to disarm them."
The weakness of the argument lulled me into believing that the Supreme Court would view such an argument with the scorn that it deserves. Unfortunately, I am guilty of assuming the best when I should be preparing for the worst.
I will be writing a letter explaining the above to both the President of the United States and to the Solicitor General of the United States. The issue is too important to permit this brief, however weak and wrong, from going unchallenged by those who know better.
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.