Betteridge aside, is it?
We're already seeing some small moves in that direction, with marijuana legalization at the state level, and lack of federal enthusiasm for opposing it. We're also seeing something like it with Sanctuary Cities, though there the feds have been somewhat less sanguine.
Abortion's a pretty easy one. States that want to guarantee it as a right aren't falling afoul of any federal regulation, nor even of the Constitution.
Gun control will be a tricky one, though. Unlike the other examples, it would be a prohibition, rather than a removing of restrictions. So there would be legal contests. If the state courts weren't on board with the prohibition, it would die there. If the state courts were on board with the prohibition, it would become a question of whether - and how - the federal government would intervene.
Obviously the Supreme Court has no enforcement powers. But a ruling against state prohibition would give the Executive Branch complete legitimacy to do... Something. But what, exactly? How would the President go about compelling a state government to allow personal firearms in keeping with the Supreme Court's ruling? What could he possibly do, short of a coup?
I mean, that's how I would do it, if I had to do something. Declare that if the state government can't or won't govern constitutionally, then it will be deposed, and the state will come under military occupation and martial law, until a constitutionally-compliant government can be formed there.
Which, if I were president, I would absolutely not want to do, in response to state-level firearms prohibitions. A state would have to get into slavery, genocide, ethnic cleansing, or a serious epidemic they couldn't manage, for me to want to go in there and force them to do it differently. I do believe that some firearms restrictions go too far, and infringe on a human right, but the cure in this case seems like it would be much worse than the disease.
We're already seeing some small moves in that direction, with marijuana legalization at the state level, and lack of federal enthusiasm for opposing it. We're also seeing something like it with Sanctuary Cities, though there the feds have been somewhat less sanguine.
Abortion's a pretty easy one. States that want to guarantee it as a right aren't falling afoul of any federal regulation, nor even of the Constitution.
Gun control will be a tricky one, though. Unlike the other examples, it would be a prohibition, rather than a removing of restrictions. So there would be legal contests. If the state courts weren't on board with the prohibition, it would die there. If the state courts were on board with the prohibition, it would become a question of whether - and how - the federal government would intervene.
Obviously the Supreme Court has no enforcement powers. But a ruling against state prohibition would give the Executive Branch complete legitimacy to do... Something. But what, exactly? How would the President go about compelling a state government to allow personal firearms in keeping with the Supreme Court's ruling? What could he possibly do, short of a coup?
I mean, that's how I would do it, if I had to do something. Declare that if the state government can't or won't govern constitutionally, then it will be deposed, and the state will come under military occupation and martial law, until a constitutionally-compliant government can be formed there.
Which, if I were president, I would absolutely not want to do, in response to state-level firearms prohibitions. A state would have to get into slavery, genocide, ethnic cleansing, or a serious epidemic they couldn't manage, for me to want to go in there and force them to do it differently. I do believe that some firearms restrictions go too far, and infringe on a human right, but the cure in this case seems like it would be much worse than the disease.
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/IH2K9r5
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire