D.C. Gun Rights Case is Heating Up
By AndrewHyman Posted in Analysis and Predictions — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The upcoming SCOTUS decision in District of Columbia v. Heller just got more interesting. Senator John McCain, as well as Vice President Dick Cheney, have signed onto a friend of the court brief. Together with bipartisan congressional majorities, they're urging SCOTUS to support the DC Circuit decision that struck down the DC handgun ban.
You can access all of the amicus briefs here. Strangely enough, VP Cheney (who is also President of the Senate) is now at odds with his own Justice Department, which is very unusual.
James Madison wrote in Federalist 43 that the District of Columbia would have a certain degree of home rule: "a municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed." But the framers never dreamt that the DC local government would cook up regulations that conflict with nationwide traditions of individual rights, and that conflict with national policy regarding fundamental freedoms. Even putting aside the constitutional issue regarding the Second Amendment, it’s difficult to see where the DC Home Rule Act provides any specific authority for the DC handgun ban.
I hope SCOTUS strikes down the DC handgun ban. As this amicus brief mentions, there’s no need to reach the Second Amendment issue; the ban was simply never authorized by Congress. And after the handgun ban is history, Congress ought to make some more history by approving a constitutional amendment giving DC citizens full representation in Congress --- DC citizens should be able to vote in Maryland's US Senate elections.
I feel as though I'm missing
by SimonDodd1
I feel as though I'm missing something. Congress has plenary power over D.C. There are 250 Representatives - a majority of the House - and 55 Senators - a majority of the Senate - signing this brief. If majorities of both bodies disapprove of the handgun ban, why doesn't Congress act to override the ban?
~Simon
"Our Constitution was not written in the sands to be washed away by each wave of new judges blown in by each successive political wind." - Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398, 426 (1970) (Black, dissenting)
Because....
by AndrewHyman
they would prefer SCOTUS to do the dirty work of impinging upon DC home rule. Plus, maybe they want to force SCOTUS to interpret the 2nd Amendment, so as to restrain the state governments via the 14th.
was about nominiations this week.
"As senators confirm these nominees, they must also confirm judges to the Federal bench. I have nominated highly qualified individuals who will rule by the letter of the law, not the whim of the gavel. Unfortunately, the Senate continues to delay votes for 28 of my judicial nominees. Three of my nominees for the Court of Appeals have waited nearly 600 days. These delays are irresponsible, they undermine the cause of justice, and I call on the United States Senate to give these nominees the up or down vote they deserve."
Full text:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/02/20080209.html