our responsibility to the constitution

[imind]

as stated in the thread about the dc gun laws, and touched on in that other thread questioning a prosecutors responsibilities, i offer this question...



is the integrity of the constitution worth so much to us the we would dismiss our reason in favor of maintaining it?

lets assume for a second that scotus all of a sudden interprets the constitution and legal precedent, etc., and determines anyone has the ability to purchase a gun with no regulation whatsoever, other than those who have been disqualified through due process. isn't it safe to assume deaths will result almost immediately from one loon or another purchasing a gun and having his way with those around him? sure, others will be armed, as well, but some will still die, as not everyone will be walking around with it at arms length, ready to fire. so reason tells us that some innocent people will die. don't we have a responsibility to acknowledge what reason tells us, and to those people's lives, over our responsibility to follow the constitution to the letter?

sure, amendments can be passed to ensure this doesn't happen, but in the meantime, and we know those amendments will not simply 'become' overnight, people will die.

[kinggovernor]

people will die when guns are banned and only criminals have access to them, oh wait that has already happened

[imind]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

people will die when guns are banned and only criminals have access to them, oh wait that has already happened

and what does that have to do with the question i've asked?

[DosEquis]

Just to address the question without touching the gun control issue, I would say that we go both ways when it comes to reason and following it and going against it. It seems to be something we follow when it supports what we want, otherwise we try to go around it.

Another example would be Iraq. If we had reasonable evidence and such to go to war with Iraq, why didn't we just have congress declare war like the constitution suggests/requires?

[Kytro]

The constitution serves a purpose. It is not written in stone, so logically if there is a problem, it should be modified to suit the problem at hand.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by imind

lets assume for a second that scotus all of a sudden interprets the constitution and legal precedent, etc., and determines anyone has the ability to purchase a gun with no regulation whatsoever, other than those who have been disqualified through due process.

This is largely the state of things now. In most states, anybody who wants a gun can buy one. The problem is that we have to jump through hoops and fill out paperwork that I'm opposed to. A form 4473 doesn't prevent crimes. It doesn't prevent anybody from buying. It only gives the government a paper trail to keep track of gun owners. I have no problem with the NICS background check, as long as it can't be used as a barrier to ownership to anybody other than a criminal or other disqualified person ("Oh, sorry sir. The system is down. You'll have to wait up to 10 days." ).

In fact, in most states you can buy machine guns, antitank weapons, etc. as long as you're willing to pay exorbitant amounts, register yourself and your guns with the BATFE, and subject yourself to intrusive in-depth background checks and fingerprinting.

You see, what I support is punishing people who have committed crimes. Not preventing everybody across the board from getting a gun in the hope that you'll keep a few crooks from getting one. It's a waste of effort, because criminals will get them anyway. If you want proof, look at Washington DC, New York City, Chicago, etc. All places where it's very difficult, if not impossible, for a law abiding citizen to even get a gun, let alone carry it legally. But the criminals, ostensibly the ones targeted by the draconian gun control laws, are still armed. The only thing that's been accomplished in those places is to create a class of victims, easy targets for the criminals. That's because the people who obey the law, and therefore are not the problem, obey the law and don't have guns. While the criminals, who by definition do not obey the law, ignore it and do get them. So the armed criminals are wolves among sheep. They're the only ones with teeth, so to speak. On the other hand, when EVERYBODY has teeth, they don't convey any peculiar advantage. A criminal with a gun is just one of hundreds or thousands of people who have guns - he's no longer the one armed man in a crowd of targets.

isn't it safe to assume deaths will result almost immediately from one loon or another purchasing a gun and having his way with those around him? sure, others will be armed, as well, but some will still die, as not everyone will be walking around with it at arms length, ready to fire. so reason tells us that some innocent people will die. don't we have a responsibility to acknowledge what reason tells us, and to those people's lives, over our responsibility to follow the constitution to the letter?

If you don't agree with the Constitution, push to get it amended. You don't get to just pretend it isn't there and ignore it.

But no, it is NOT safe to assume that increased gun ownership will lead to bloodbaths. Innocent people are dying NOW. Not depriving them of the means (guaranteed by the Constitution) to defend themselves will not lead to more people dying.

And even if it did, remember these words:

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
-Thomas Jefferson

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Just to address the question without touching the gun control issue, I would say that we go both ways when it comes to reason and following it and going against it. It seems to be something we follow when it supports what we want, otherwise we try to go around it.

Another example would be Iraq. If we had reasonable evidence and such to go to war with Iraq, why didn't we just have congress declare war like the constitution suggests/requires?

I don't agree that there's any such requirement. Nor does Congress, obviously.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

I don't agree that there's any such requirement. Nor does Congress, obviously.

Uhm, now you're the one ignoring the Constitution...

Article I, Section 8 (scope of the powers of Congress):

"To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;"

The only thing related to the military/war that is granted as a power to the President is in Article II, Section 2 (Powers of the President):

"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;"

Nowhere does the President have the authority to declare war.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by imind

sure, amendments can be passed to ensure this doesn't happen, but in the meantime, and we know those amendments will not simply 'become' overnight, people will die.

To keep things on topic...

The Constitution was made extraordinarily difficult to amend because of its weight in the American system. The goal of the constitution was not to save lives, or create a utopia, it was to put limits on powers and balance power among governmental branches.

Since "deaths" has nothing to do with the Constitution or its purpose, I don't think it has any relevance to an argument that any provision of that Constitution should be ignored.

The Constitution has worked well for our nation over the past few hundred years. I can't think of any circumstance where the founding rules of our country should simply be set aside for convenience...

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by Publius

Uhm, now you're the one ignoring the Constitution...

Article I, Section 8 (scope of the powers of Congress):

"To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;"

The only thing related to the military/war that is granted as a power to the President is in Article II, Section 2 (Powers of the President):

"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;"

Nowhere does the President have the authority to declare war.

The House has the power of impeachment. Does that mean they're required to impeach every President? Congress has the power to declare war. Show me where it says "force cannot be used absent a declaration of war". And, the President hasn't issued a declaration of war.

If the Commander In Chief didn't have the power to use military force without a declaration of war, then explain the War Powers Act, where Congress explicitly acknowledged that the President DOES have that power, within certain limits.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

The House has the power of impeachment. Does that mean they're required to impeach every President? Congress has the power to declare war. Show me where it says "force cannot be used absent a declaration of war". And, the President hasn't issued a declaration of war.

If the Commander In Chief didn't have the power to use military force without a declaration of war, then explain the War Powers Act, where Congress explicitly acknowledged that the President DOES have that power, within certain limits.

You're trying to wiggle around the requirement for Congressional war declarations in much the same way anti-gun advocates try to wiggle around the 2nd amendment. You know the common sense intent of the Constitution's stance: Congress declares war, otherwise we don't go to war.

Using an Act passed by Congress in the 1970s to support your statement is the equivalent of using the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act passed in the 90s to imply that there is a Constitutional allowance for banning firearms. Just because Congress passes a law does not mean that law is Constitutional.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by Publius

You're trying to wiggle around the requirement for Congressional war declarations in much the same way anti-gun advocates try to wiggle around the 2nd amendment. You know the common sense intent of the Constitution's stance: Congress declares war, otherwise we don't go to war.

Using an Act passed by Congress in the 1970s to support your statement is the equivalent of using the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act passed in the 90s to imply that there is a Constitutional allowance for banning firearms. Just because Congress passes a law does not mean that law is Constitutional.

Sorry you feel that way, but I see no requirement for a declaration of war before use of force. If you do, please correct me. Obviously, neither does Congress. If their powers were being usurped, I'd expect them to get pretty angry about it, wouldn't you? Yet they don't. In all the debate and argument over Iraq, I haven't heard anybody in Congress accuse Bush of violating Constitutional limits on his powers.

[Joe_Cool]

And how on earth can you compare this to the 2nd Amendment? The 2nd Amendment is crystal clear and protects the right to keep and bear arms in very strong language.

At worst, you can say the declaration of war/use of force issue is ambiguous. There is nothing in the text that says use of military force requires a declaration of war.

If you know of anything I should read (founders' thoughts on declaration of war, for example) for more background on this issue, please link me and I'll read it. But for now, I say that the text itself does not support your position.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

Sorry you feel that way, but I see no requirement for a declaration of war before use of force. If you do, please correct me. Obviously, neither does Congress. If their powers were being usurped, I'd expect them to get pretty angry about it, wouldn't you? Yet they don't. In all the debate and argument over Iraq, I haven't heard anybody in Congress accuse Bush of violating Constitutional limits on his powers.

Congress is a huge fan of abdicating their power. Look at the explosion of legislation in the 20th century that basically allows executive branch departments to set laws in order to reach some overarching goal that Congress only vaguely outlines. Constitutionally speaking, that is a breach of their responsibility and an unconstitutional transfer of power.

And the reason you don't see Congress saying Bush is violating his power limits with the Iraq War is because Congress, while not passing a formal declaration of war, DID pass an explicit authorization of military engagement, which amounts to much the same thing (H.J. Res. 114 on 10-16-02).

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by Publius

And the reason you don't see Congress saying Bush is violating his power limits with the Iraq War is because Congress, while not passing a formal declaration of war, DID pass an explicit authorization of military engagement, which amounts to much the same thing (H.J. Res. 114 on 10-16-02).

I was going to bring this up next. Doesn't that make this entire argument moot?

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

I was going to bring this up next. Doesn't that make this entire argument moot?

No it really doesn't, because we're not discussing the Iraq War in particular (we weren't, at least, until you brought it up) but rather the President's power to wage war in general.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Publius

No it really doesn't, because we're not discussing the Iraq War in particular (we weren't, at least, until you brought it up) but rather the President's power to wage war in general.

Joe_Cool was responding to this:

Another example would be Iraq. If we had reasonable evidence and such to go to war with Iraq, why didn't we just have congress declare war like the constitution suggests/requires?

So yes he was discussing the Iraq War. Little mix up.

[Joe_Cool]

Ok, I pulled out m y copy of On The Constitution of the United States by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story. This is what he has to say on the matter:

§185. The next power of Congress is, "to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water." That the power to declare war should belong exclusively to the National Government, would hardly seem matter of controversy. If it belonged to the States severally, it would be in the power of any one of them, at any time, to involve the whole Union in hostilities with a foreign country, not only against their interests, but against their judgement. Their very existence might thus be jeoparded without their consent, and their liberties sacrificed to private resentment, or popular prejudice. The power cannot, therefore, be safely deposited, except in the General Government; and, if in the General Government, it ought to belong to Congress, where all the States and all the people of the States are represented [at least until Amendment 17 was passed - J_C]; and where a majority of both Houses must concur, to authorize the declaration. War, indeed, is, in its mildest form, so dreadful a calamity; it destroys so many lives, wastes so much property, and introduces so much moral desolation; that nothing but the strongest state of necessity can justify, or excuse it. In a republican government, it should never be resorted to, except as a last expedient to vindicate its rights; for military power and military ambition have but too often fatally triumphed over the liberties of the people.

§186. The power to declare war, if vested in the General Government, might have been vested in the President, or in the Senate, or in both, or in the House of Representatives alone. In monarchies, the power is ordinarily vested in the Executive. But certainly, in a republic, the chief magistrate ought not to be clothed with a power so summary, and, at the same time, so full of dangers to the public interest and the public safety. It would be to commit the liberties, as well as the rights of the people, to the ambition, or resentment, or caprice, or rashness of a single mind. If the power were confided to the Senate, either alone, or in connection with the Executive, it might be more safe in its exercise, and the less liable to abuse. Still, however, in such a case, the people, who were to bear the burdens, and meet the sacrifices and sufferings of such a calamity, would have no direct voice in the matter [again, this was written before Amendment 17, when the Senator still represented his State, not its people - J_C]. Yet the taxes and the loans, which would be required to carry on the war, must be voted by their Representatives, or there would be an utter impossibility of urging it with success. If the Senate should be in favor of war, and the House of Representatives against it, an immediate conflict would arise between them, and in the distraction of the public councils, nothing but disaster or ruin would follow the nation. On the contrary, if the House of Representatives were called upon by the Constitution to join in the declaration of war, harmony in the public councils might fairly be presumed in carrying on all its operations; for it would be a war sustained by the authority of the voice of the people, as well as of the States. This reasoning was decisive in confiding the power to Congress.

He makes a strong case for keeping that power out of the hands of the President alone. I may be changing my mind on this. But the fact remains that President Bush did NOT unilaterally make war on Iraq. He had in hand Congressional approval. So the Constitution is satisfied either way you look at it.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Joe_Cool was responding to this:


So yes he was discussing the Iraq War. Little mix up.

Exactly. Although Publius is right in that this question transcends the particulars and we've kind of moved into the general.