A Letter to the Editor...
Dear Dr. Chemerinsky,
I am writing in response to your March 14th editorial in the Washington Post. As a current student of both History and Law, I would ask for a moment of your time to please clarify a question of mine in regard to your interpretations of Constitutional law and precedent, vis-?-vis your editorial.
You stated in your editorial that "...courts give great deference to the legislatures and uphold laws so long as they are reasonably related to a legitimate government purpose...Even rights enumerated in the Constitution, such as property rights, generally receive only this relaxed level of
judicial review."
You further stated: "I believe that there is a strong argument that the regulation of guns should be treated the same as other regulation of property under modern constitutional law: The regulation should be allowed so long as it is rationally related to achieving a legitimate
government purpose."
Considering this argument, could it not be extrapolated that, individual vs. collective liberties aside, the other Amendments could be equally subject to this standard? The notion of allowing "legitimate government purpose" to trump the bare writing of the Framers seems a tremendously slippery slope, even if restricted to the arena of personal property rights. Indeed, what would prevent the passage of a regulation banning subversive literature under the "legitimate government purpose" of addressing a clear and present danger to national security? Surely the purpose is legitimate enough, and though the Right to Free Discourse is explicitly protected by the bare words of the Constitution, books and newspapers are material things which would unquestionably fall into the realm of personal property (and thus find their protection superseded).
Indeed, the comparison bears much fruit: books and guns are inanimate corporeal objects both; it is the incorporeal notions they represent in the American psyche which give them their power, and demand our protection. They are the totemic twin images of our collective hunger for freedom from tyranny. I ask, would it be possible to reduce them to mere objects without destroying what they represent?
I greatly appreciate your time, attention, and expertise in this matter, and eagerly await your response.
Sincerely Yours,
-(my name)
I am writing in response to your March 14th editorial in the Washington Post. As a current student of both History and Law, I would ask for a moment of your time to please clarify a question of mine in regard to your interpretations of Constitutional law and precedent, vis-?-vis your editorial.
You stated in your editorial that "...courts give great deference to the legislatures and uphold laws so long as they are reasonably related to a legitimate government purpose...Even rights enumerated in the Constitution, such as property rights, generally receive only this relaxed level of
judicial review."
You further stated: "I believe that there is a strong argument that the regulation of guns should be treated the same as other regulation of property under modern constitutional law: The regulation should be allowed so long as it is rationally related to achieving a legitimate
government purpose."
Considering this argument, could it not be extrapolated that, individual vs. collective liberties aside, the other Amendments could be equally subject to this standard? The notion of allowing "legitimate government purpose" to trump the bare writing of the Framers seems a tremendously slippery slope, even if restricted to the arena of personal property rights. Indeed, what would prevent the passage of a regulation banning subversive literature under the "legitimate government purpose" of addressing a clear and present danger to national security? Surely the purpose is legitimate enough, and though the Right to Free Discourse is explicitly protected by the bare words of the Constitution, books and newspapers are material things which would unquestionably fall into the realm of personal property (and thus find their protection superseded).
Indeed, the comparison bears much fruit: books and guns are inanimate corporeal objects both; it is the incorporeal notions they represent in the American psyche which give them their power, and demand our protection. They are the totemic twin images of our collective hunger for freedom from tyranny. I ask, would it be possible to reduce them to mere objects without destroying what they represent?
I greatly appreciate your time, attention, and expertise in this matter, and eagerly await your response.
Sincerely Yours,
-(my name)
0
-
nice rebuttal sir. 0 -
Good job! 0 -
May I suggest that you refrain from holding your breath, while you await an answer??
Good letter, well written.
D.0 -
Courtland Milloy had an article in the same issue (front page of the Metro section). I sent this reply to his.
Mr. Milloy
I have a hard time believing that someone who makes their livelihood based on the protection of the US Constitution would be so active in trying to undermine other parts of it. Just a reminder:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The framers of the Constitution knew full well the power a government wields against their citizens.. They had just fought, and many died because of it. As such, they built in a safeguard to insure that it would not happen again.
They were not referring to the military, or the police. They were referring to the citizen. Citizens willing to take up arms if necessary, and repel foreign invaders as well as keep their own government in check.
It is reported that Admiral Yamamoto said "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." Clearly our current enemies do not share the same respect.
Politicians and responsible journalists should be spending their efforts to lessen the restrictive controls placed on firearm ownership. The disarming of the law abiding citizens have made us as a nation vulnerable. Vulnerable to the criminals that roam our streets, knowing that their law-abiding prey has been stripped of its ability to defend itself, and vulnerable to our enemies who have slipped into our borders, and used our freedoms to travel to turn aircraft into missiles, and attack our citizens.
The examples you cite reflect both stupidity and irresponsibility on the part of parents, and some firearm owners. If Jennifer Guthrie had followed the most basic rules of firearm safety, she would still be alive. If your inner-child wishes to enjoy the illusion of power and security along with a 40 ounce, then you have also made the right choice in saying no way.
I do not believe you are either stupid or irresponsible though. You are a gifted writer that drives his point home using selected examples and embellishment. A husband pulling a gun on an annoying wife is not held by any reasonable person as self defense. It is called domestic violence.
When you have some free time, see if you can locate Suzanne Hupp's testimony before Congress. She makes a some very compelling points. There is a video on Youtube at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71YpogEUCDI
The audio is understandable, but the video leaves a lot to be desired.
Thank you for your time,0 -
Yeah, see, and you've got about 200 too many words. It'll never get published in a newspaper. 0 -
I agree with you. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
6 comments