The constitution is supposed to protect the government from the people. I can’t see how this will help.
jy151310
February 13, 2014
Comment to Ninth Circuit holds Second Amendment secures a right to carry a gun
[Sarcasm?
Maybe. But I know people that are mentally messed up enough to believe that and yet they are professionally functional.
I believe that people like this actually exist and this is part of why we have the IRS, NSA, and TSA routinely abusing their power.—Joe]
Update: It’s sarcasm.
Fortunately it is indeed sarcasm. In the reply thread to the quoted comment he states: “Sorry. I’m just channeling the inside the beltway view.” (2/13/2014 2:47 PM PST)
Good. It wasn’t there when I last looked yesterday afternoon.
Thanks.
Channeling the beltway, indeed.
Unfortunately there are way too many judges, and justices, who actually believe this. Consider how often you see something like “balancing the individual rights against the legitimate state interest…”
But states HAVE no legitimate interests. Or rights. Only individuals have rights and interests. Saying otherwise exposes the speaker as a collectivist and best, and a statist at worst.
No, you’re parroting a very common (and wholely mistaken) view.
States have interests and rights — those interests and rights are SUBORDINATE to their superiors (in the case of Anglo-American philosophy, those superiors are the individuals).
For example, Virgnia has rights, as a state, enforceable against, say, North Carolina or the federal government (the right not to be divided up without the consent of the state legislature, for instance). And yes, Supreme Court cases HAVE used the terminology “rights” to describe these.
A state only has anything resembling “rights” enforceable against individuals in property rights — where the state is acting as custodian of some particular property (say, a state police cruiser) on behalf of their superiors — the individuals. (In other words, the only reason the state has a “property right” in government property, is becuase if you steal it, you’re stealing it from ALL the citizens.) (And if you don’t accept this interpretation, I have an experiment for you to run: go steal a police car, then as your defense in court, state that since the state cannot have any rights under any circumstances, they have no property right to the car — so you were just claiming property with no owner at all, and should be freed.)
Props to the author though… The best satire is hard to distinguish from the truth. Sadly this one got caught up in the fact there is no doubt some people think that way.
I half expect to see Joan Peterson quoting this, and hailing it as “a voice of reason” or “…someone who ‘gets it’..”
Gee, I’m glad to hear that it was sarcasm… I’ve seen too many of PJ Boy’s kin to assume that’s what it was.
Jeff B.
“The constitution is supposed to protect the government from the people.”
Well, taking that sentence in isolation I CAN see how it could be considered truthful and in-keeping with America’s founding principles. Oh yes.
“The government” in that case would mean “our FORM of government” in which government’s purpose is to secure the rights of the People. The constitution protects that form of government from the people by NOT establishing a pure democracy. There are many and serious limitations on democracy built into it. Thus, by limiting what the majority may do to the minority, our form of government (security of rights and liberty) is protected from the People. QED.
In its original context however, yes, the statement is properly sarcastic.
Being a liberal is like being a functioning alcoholic.
“The constitution is supposed to protect the government from the people.”
I have to associate with too many people who would not see this as satire. Constitutions all deal with what the government can and cannot do, it’s hard to see how restrictions on government are intended to act as protections for said government from the people. Laws passed by the legislature on the other hand, almost exclusively state what the people can and cannot do, which indicates to me that the legislature is out to protect their phoney-baloney jobs from the people who hire them and can fire them. That’s the reason I think legislatures should have strict limits on their power to make laws, but then as Juvenal wrote, who watches the watchers?