Constitutional Weirdos?

Some of the liberal Justices are really walking on the wild side now. In the McDonald case, they claimed that if the electorate wants to ban something, they should be able to ban it.

Regardless of what the Constitution says:

In their dissenting opinions, Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer (joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor) worry that overturning gun control laws undermines democracy. If “the people” want to ban handguns, they say, “the people” should be allowed to implement that desire through their elected representatives.

What if the people want to ban books that offend them, establish an official church, or authorize police to conduct warrantless searches at will? Those options are also foreclosed by constitutional provisions that apply to the states by way of the 14th Amendment. The crucial difference between a pure democracy and a constitutional democracy like ours is that sometimes the majority does not decide.

Of course, that was the whole purpose of the bill of rights – to make sure that the legislature could not pass laws on certain subjects, because they were the rights of the people.

I haven’t read the dissent yet, but if they said that, they are really getting weird. If they said that, then they have just revealed that their preferred method of Constitutional interpretation has no validity at all, and is just a cover for them imposing their own opinions -if they said that.


Comments are closed.