Why Does Liberal Weenie Antonin Scalia Not Love Guns At All?
When you think Antonin Scalia, you think squishy liberal, right? Who doesn't? He of the Throw Everyone Out Of The US But Whitey Decision and the distressingly narrow view of the 14th Amendment — he is our go-to guy for feel-good law!
That's why, according to Larry Pratt, prez of the Gun Owners of America (we think they are like the NRA's younger, even stupider, brother, but we do not care enough to actually look it up), tells us that Scalia is way too soft on the Second Amendment. He feels too much.
Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, said Sunday that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was wrong to assume that the government had the right to place limits on the Second Amendment. "He was not speaking from a constitutional perspective," Pratt said.
Larry Pratt, constitutional scholar, y'all. Please go on with your sound legal analysis , Mr. Pratt:
“[Scalia] was not speaking from a constitutional perspective,” Pratt said on “Fox News Sunday” after host Chris Wallace read the quote from Heller. ”The amendment does provide it’s own degree of scrutiny: It says, ‘shall not be infringed’ … This is not something where the government is supposed to be free to tell we the people, the government’s boss, how much — how far we can go with the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is there to constrain the government.”
It must be said... as much as it pains us to say it, we will trust playground bully Scalia over gun-toting terror Pratt any day, we guess. This one time.
Also, too, the Daily Dolt points out something that has been bothering yr Wonkette for quite some time now: There are, indeed, limits on other constitutional rights . For example, it is not cool to libel people. The First Amendment, much to our chagrin, does not allow us to straight-up lie about people and say bad things unless we couch it in delightful vague opinion language. DO YOU KNOW HOW HARD IT IS FOR YR WONKETTE NOT TO LIBEL PEOPLE EVERY DAY??? Allegedly, accused of, blah blah blah,they did it.
But let's recap this little trip down constitutional lane:
Limits on other amendments good! Don't get all libel-y, even if the First Amendment says you can say whatever you want!
Discriminate like crazy against teh gays and ladies, because the 14th Amendment can't be read to include You People. (SORRY FEMINISTS.)
But when it comes to the Second Amendment, there can never be any limits! A round of rocket launchers for everyone and screw you Scalia, you wuss.
<em>South Dakota vs Dole</em> is probably useful here (upholding the constitutionality of conditioning Federal highway funding on the state&#039;s legal drinking age, an area of authority traditionally reserved to states)
Yes, the Medicaid part of the Obamacare ruling did undermine this, although the way it did it could easily be circumvented with the meaningless formalism of repeal &amp; replace vs modify (which is why that part of the ruling was fucking stupid). So, repeal and replace Federal grants to states for law enforcement with something conditioned on an insurance requirement.
However did Shakespeare find a gentleman there?