Replies

My guess is that Mr. Paul voted against the bill because he believes that the Congress doesn't have the Constitutional power to be passing legislation concerning or regulating private arms ownership or commerce in any way.

Perhaps he found the findings in the bill objectionable?

That may be the case.

My question to you is, if his was the deciding vote on this specific issue, which way would have you wanted him to vote?

From a real world standpoint, would the clear intent of the Constituion be more supported by a yes vote based on content or a no vote based on process?

My question to you is, if his was the deciding vote on this specific issue, which way would have you wanted him to vote?

From a real world standpoint, would the clear intent of the Constituion be more supported by a yes vote based on content or a no vote based on process?

Tough question. Obviously my first act would be to offer an amendment to strike the findings with a memorandum explaining the operant constitutional principles inserted into the record.

Failing that, the choice to make a principled decsion to vote no based upon process would depend upon on a couple of prerequisites: 1) confidence in the ability of activist groups or the DOJ to set up a case correctly and and bring an effective suit on the constitutionality of the law, AND 2)confidence in the appelate and supreme court system to come to an expeditious decision and confine the case to constitutional principles rather than boot it on political grounds.

I know; that's a tall order, one that is unsupported by historical performance of the courts and the justice department in bringing the cases to a head (note how the administration just booted Emerson). Some might say it's a totally unrealistic choice. Thank goodness we aren't in a position where Mr. Paul was faced with that choice.

Failing any confidence in the courts and faced with having to make the deciding vote, my choice would be to go with the second, obviously more expedient though "unprincipled" option. My reason would hinge upon what I call "feed-forward" in political processes. A good example is leftist schools that produce leftist professors that train leftist teachers... Without gun owners, there simply wouldn't be an organized and effective constituency for armed self-defense. Sometimes you just have to throw a wrench in the spokes to buy time, all self-righteousness to the contrary.

The reason for my apparent breach of principle is the key distinction between our current situation and that faced by the founders. It illustrates why such choices now carry such import and peril:

The accrual of civic power is increasingly irreversible;
The disparity in firepower and organizational technology between government and an armed citizenry has become immense;
The performance of the justice system is so tedious, expensive, and protracted that irreversible harm can be done while in pursuit of a judgment; and finally
The bureaucratic propensity to simply ignore the law has become depressingly commonplace.

We are so far down the road to serfdom that one must grab a rope on the way into the vortex not knowing how secure it might be. Hence the non-optimal choice is still supported by principle.