What’s more dangerous than a handgun? People who don’t understand the role of the Supreme Court.

In this story about the reaction to yesterday’s Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment there is a lot of handwringing about how the Court made the wrong decision.

Now, viagra usa help what’s funny, best cialis and is not one of those arguments state that the Supreme Court was wrong about their interpretation of the Second Amendment.

(They were, sales but only in that they didn’t give enough weight to the “shall not be infringed part.” As far as I’m concerned very few, if any, regulations should be able to withstand being measured by that phrase.)

The complaints in the story are that allowing guns in big cities is dangerous and thus the Supreme Court should have ignored the Second Amendment and voted the other way.

This is where the real problem lies. People do not understand the role the Supreme Court was meant to play in our balance of powers structure.

The Supreme Court is NOT meant to set policy.

It’s not supposed to decide whether or not a law is a “good” one.

It simply rules on whether or not a law violates the U.S. Constitution.

In this case, there really shouldn’t have even been an argument. There’s no way D.C.’s law conformed with the Second Amendment.

Now here’s the thing…if you don’t like the Second Amendment don’t blame the Supreme Court…amend it.

Quit being pissed when the Court does its (very limited) job.

What you should be pissed about is that FOUR of Supreme Court Justices think their job IS to decide whether or not they personally think a law is a good one regardless of what the Constitution says on the matter.

That’s more dangerous than any handgun.

Add comment June 27th, 2008