Both Barack Obama and John McCain released statements on the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller.
I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.McCain:As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.
Today's decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense.Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is an important right- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.
This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Obama and Heller:
- The Candidates on Heller:
In strict scrutiny, the finger on the scale pushes heavily on the peoples' side. In rational basis, the finger pushes heavily on the government side.
I've had my head in the bar exam for the better part of the day, and perhaps I missed it, but I have yet to hear a repudiation of his previous commitment to appoint judges who are compassionate, understanding, and learned in the ways of the world. If Obama were truly outraged by yesterday's decision, and in agreement with today's, he would publicly commit to appointing justices of the calibre of Sam Alito or Antonin Scalia. He could declare an intention to move forward with the appointment of lower-court nominees during the waning months of this administration, regardless - or especially because of - strong conservative leanings.
While Obama is doing his best to remove this as a campaign issue that could benefit McCain, it ought to be something that ultimately hurts him; any opponent with a shred of sense would hammer him on a commitment to appoint the next Antonin Scalia.
Neither strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, nor rational basis are weighed tests. Strict scrutiny is passed if the government has a compelling interest and the infringement is tailored in a narrow manner and use the least restrictive means. You don't get a free rid on being narrowly tailored for a particularly good compelling internet, nor does a minimal but compelling interest require things to be especially less restrictive.
Intermediate scrutiny does not care what degree it gets in the way of individual rights, merely that the government have an important interest that is furthered in a substantially related mean. That's the case whether your time-place-manner restriction on free speech is cutting a half-hour at lunch or most of the week. Rational basis review is the same way.
These are only balancing tests in the same way a grocery checklist is : you can't fill up a cart with bread and expect to cover everything, nor by getting a smaller grocery bag does the list lose items.
A pure balancing test would means just a judge trying to eff the ineffable and measure the value of two entirely different things; in short, a blank check for the infringement of rights or the overturning of law.
As for Obama, his response was appropriate if he wished to defuse "guns" as a campaign issue. Whether he really believes in what is in that press release is beside point.
As I suspect the Courts will eventually conclude after they get done with the incorporation issue and then send Chicago's failed handgun ban into the dustbin of history...
.
ROTFL.
.
I'll echo the question, "Why didn't he sign on to the Congressional brief?" Chiming in now with a weasel-worded agreement with both the majority and dissent is rank non-committal opportunism.
Unless Obama is actualy packing heat in Chicago and challenging the law there, I think it is a safe assumption that O will take our guns in preperation for the AlQueda invasion.
Because Barack Obama doesn’t actually “believe[] that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms” and was lying when he said he did.
Harry Dresden. Wizard. Private Investigator. Gun Rights Activist.
Or, more plausibly I think, he didn't sign on to it because he believed that even though the 2nd amendment provides an individual right, he felt that the right is sufficiently weak or that the DC ban didn't sufficiently infringe on the that right to merit throwing the ban out.
Maybe I'm reading this incorrectly, but are you suggesting that Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Thomas are not compassionate, understanding, or learned in the ways of the world? For all the complaints about Scalia and Thomas that one hears, in particular, people I know who've interacted with them have had only the highest praise for their warmth, generosity, and pleasant humor.
Because it's inappropriate?
McCain asked the court to make the decision he wanted. This is perfectly legitimate, but being that he's a Presidential candidate, it's not a very good idea. It turns the decision of the court into a political statement. The court's decision ends up improperly being compared to the brief, and the 5-4 vote can be interpreted as a 5-4 preference for McCain.
All he had to do was include one minor statement to which Obama could not in good conscience sign his name, and he could claim the non-partisan crown for offering Obama the opportunity, while simultaneously ensuring the opportunity is not taken AND turning the decision (which most of us were pretty sure would come out this way) into an endorsement of McCain's candidacy.
I see this as the worst kind of political garbage, and applaud Obama's refusal to sign the brief. A Presidential candidate should not be sending an amicus brief to the court. It carries the danger that an appearance of impropriety could emerge. McCain, in my opinion, acted unethically - but as he is not a lawyer (Obama is), he is not bound to operate under the ethical restrictions of the legal profession.
As far as I'm concerned, this has shut the door on McCain's suitability as a candidate. After this, Obama could personally come to my house and shit on the lawn, and I'd still vote for him.
Suzy,
Yes, you did read my statement incorrectly.
It was a criticism of Obama's statement about the qualities he was looking for in a Supreme Court nominee - qualities which have little to do with intellect, writing ability, and judgment. Here is the Volokh thread discussing the issue.
If you were unfamiliar with Sen. Obama's prior statement, I can understand the confusion. I certainly did not mean that as an attack on the character of the conservative justices, which should be abundantly clear when you read Obama's standards for judges.