PDA

View Full Version : Interesting take on the DC Gun Ban case



Little-Acorn
01-10-2008, 11:08 AM
Quite aside from the question of whather a gun ban violates our right to keep and bear arms, is the question of whether the DC Metro Government has ANY authority to make any laws at all, much less unconstitutional ones. This author points out that the Constitution flatly says NO... and suggests that that fact might be brought out before the Supreme Court when it hears the DC Gun Ban case this summer.

Could the entire DC Metro government be dissolved as a result of this case and the facts it is bringing to light, about constitutional requirements upon the government of the city of Washington DC?

---------------------------------------------------

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/kovach/080107

District of Columbia: open mouth, insert gun

Loony Left may have bitten off more than it can chew

Tom Kovach
January 7, 2008

Like a spoiled toddler trying to punch a parent, the District of Columbia is about to lash out against the Congress that gave it birth. Given that the issue is gun possession, the District may be in a suicidal situation. At the very least, Congress should give the DC Metro Government the spanking that it so richly deserves.

The ultimate question to be decided in a pending case before the United States Supreme Court is, "Who's in charge here?" According to District "leaders," the case hinges upon the question of whether the Second Amendment preserves an individual right or a collective right to keep and bear arms. But, in the minds of most sensible citizens, that question is stare decisis (Latin for "already decided"; a legal doctrine that prevents the same question from being repeatedly brought into court). The District is appealing to the Supreme Court against a decision by the Court of Appeals last year. That decision upheld the traditional understanding of the Second Amendment, and thereby overturned the District's ban on handgun possession. Given that all other rights specified in the Bill of Rights are individual rights (except for the Tenth Amendment, which protects states' rights), it would seem to be a "no-brainer" that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

But, given the Metro DC penchant to have repeatedly elected cocaine user Marion Berry as its village idiot — oops, I meant "mayor" — for so many years, it seems that common sense is as rare in DC as a legal handgun was during Mr. Berry's tenure. [1]

The anti-gunners of the Loony Left have painted themselves into a corner with their court case. By taking an appeal all the way to the United States Supreme Court, and basing an argument on the interpretation of a key tenet of the Constitution, the anti-gun crowd in DC Metro Government has opened to door for their own demise. How? According to the very Constitution that they are attempting to redefine, there is no such thing as a DC Metro Government. Under the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 16), it is the duty of Congress to "exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district..." The Founders of this country were highly intelligent men, skilled in linguistics. The fact that they used the terms "exclusive," "in all cases" and "whatsoever" all in the same clause showed that there was no ambiguity in their emphasis of who was in charge of the District of Columbia. Under the Constitution, there is no such thing as a DC Metro Government. Therefore, there can be no such thing as a "mayor" to bring such a lawsuit, and no such thing as a "DC gun ban."


Rest at Link.

5stringJeff
01-10-2008, 06:10 PM
I understand his point, but I think he's wrong. Congress is the exclusive legislative power. If I understand correctly, the DC Metro government exercises executive and judicial authority.

Joe Steel
01-11-2008, 12:47 PM
From the linked article:


There is a terrible irony in all of this. The anti-gunners have already admitted defeat. How? In their own papers to the Court of Appeals, the attorneys argue (on page 27) that Congress has plenary jurisdiction over the District.

The irony is that Congress' plenary power is what could win the issue for the City. If the City refuses to respect a possible Supreme Court's decision against the gun law, who would make DC stop enforcing it as if no decision existed? No state has authority to force them to stop. Only Congress can force DC to cease and desist.

Would Nancy Pelosi take self-government away from a black city?

Gunny
01-11-2008, 04:23 PM
From the linked article:



The irony is that Congress' plenary power is what could win the issue for the City. If the City refuses to respect a possible Supreme Court's decision against the gun law, who would make DC stop enforcing it as if no decision existed? No state has authority to force them to stop. Only Congress can force DC to cease and desist.

Would Nancy Pelosi take self-government away from a black city?

If you can't win it by being right, cheat.:smoke:

Joe Steel
01-11-2008, 05:45 PM
If you can't win it by being right, cheat.:smoke:

Cheating?

Congress' plenary power comes from the Constitution just as the Supreme Court's does.

Where's the cheating?

5stringJeff
01-11-2008, 08:00 PM
From the linked article:



The irony is that Congress' plenary power is what could win the issue for the City. If the City refuses to respect a possible Supreme Court's decision against the gun law, who would make DC stop enforcing it as if no decision existed? No state has authority to force them to stop. Only Congress can force DC to cease and desist.

Would Nancy Pelosi take self-government away from a black city?

Not true. The Court could enter an injunction, legally binding on the DC government.

Joe Steel
01-11-2008, 08:58 PM
Not true. The Court could enter an injunction, legally binding on the DC government.

Says who?

Give me a citation or some kind of reference.

5stringJeff
01-12-2008, 09:11 AM
Says who?

Give me a citation or some kind of reference.

U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Clause 1:

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;"

Gunny
01-12-2008, 10:52 AM
Cheating?

Congress' plenary power comes from the Constitution just as the Supreme Court's does.

Where's the cheating?

I'm just curious so perhaps you can explain.

It's none of my business what goes on behind closed doors in a homosexual's house, right?

If I want to practice Christianity (for some reason all other religions are okay) I can only do so and/or express my religious beliefs in the privacy of my own home, right?

How come it is YOU want to be in my gunsafe; which, is in the privacy of my own home?

Joe Steel
01-12-2008, 11:23 AM
U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Clause 1:

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;"

I see you point. The Court seems to have jurisdiction.

However, I don't think it can interfere with a Constitutional power of another branch. I think Congress could ignore any injunction.

5stringJeff
01-12-2008, 12:03 PM
I see you point. The Court seems to have jurisdiction.

However, I don't think it can interfere with a Constitutional power of another branch. I think Congress could ignore any injunction.

As a co-equal branch, Congress could pass a law overriding an injunction. But do you really think Congress will vote to ban guns in DC?