Government Officials' Knowledge of U.S. Constitution
Defense of 2nd Amendment Called by Judge "Antisemitic and Racist Tropes"
I feel particularly discouraged lately. This has happened to me many times during the past three years. It’s not that I don’t have constitutional subjects to discuss—I have too many!
This week’s frustration started when I read an article about a county in Oregon that has tried to return to the meaning of the Second Amendment:
Here is a part of that article:
“Our voters showed the desire to pass an ordinance to help better protect our Second Amendment rights. I appreciate that,” County Chair Casey Garrett said. “But the reality is, counties don’t necessarily get to make those decisions, whether I wish they could or not…”
Gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety praised the ruling, saying it struck a blow against the so-called “constitutional sheriffs” movement, which claims sheriffs can preempt all other law enforcement officials on any matter.
“Local officials, whether it’s a county commission or county sheriff, don’t have the authority in our legal system to decide for themselves that a law is not constitutional,” said Eric Tirschwell, director of the legal arm of the national Everytown group. “That’s just not how the American legal system works.”
In a passionate concurrence, Appeals Judge James Egan noted attorneys for the gun rights group that joined the suit had suggested the Columbia County ordinance was necessary to prevent the United Nations from promulgating international gun laws.
Egan dismissed the claim as an “entirely fictitious problem” and said it was a white supremacist dog whistle intended to invoke conspiracy theories of global cabals.
“Individual members of the court must call out illegitimate quasi-legal arguments and theories for what they are … antisemitic and racist tropes,” he wrote.
Sometimes I wonder if anyone who serves in government has even read the U.S. Constitution. Although there are many points in this article that are simply wrong and in direct opposition to the Constitution, the last three paragraphs are especially disturbing. Appeals Judge James Egan called the desire to uphold the Second Amendment “a white supremacist dog whistle…Individual members of the court must call out illegitimate quasi-legal arguments and theories for what they are …antisemitic and racist tropes.”
Does this sound like the type of argument that a judge should make? I would suggest that he is making a “quasi-legal argument.”
Even if few government officials understand the U.S. Constitution, couldn’t we at least demand that our judges understand and defend it?
I typed the following into Bing: “judicial hearings nominee doesn't know constitution”. This is the first page of the resulting articles:
I leave this discussion at the same place that I started it—I am overwhelmed by current problems, emergencies, and unconstitutional actions within our country.
In January, 1995, 29 years ago, I was studying Federalist Paper #1 for the first time. When I am feeling discouraged, like this morning, I go back to those first few paragraphs to remind myself that the Founding Fathers left us this most amazing document to help us keep our most wonderful country.
Number 1: Call to Study New Constitution*
You are asked to study and consider adopting a new Constitution for the United States of America to replace the current, ineffective federal government. This is a very important decision. Our country's existence depends on it. So does the safety and welfare of its people, communities, and States. We will decide the fate of a nation that is, in many respects, the most interesting in the world.
The people of this country will decide important questions: Can societies establish a good government by careful thought and choice? Or are people destined to be governed only by accident and force? The answers depend on our response to the current crisis. And the wrong decision will be unfortunate for all of mankind.
Special Interests, Prejudices will Influence Debate
2 Conscientious patriots understand the importance of deciding whether to adopt the new Constitution. And they know their decision will affect all human societies.
It would be wonderful if we based our decision only on the best interests of our society, unbiased by less noble interests not connected with the public good. Although we may sincerely wish this, it can't be expected. The Constitution affects many special interests and changes many local institutions. Subjects other than its merits will be discussed. The debate will include passions and prejudices unrelated to discovering the truth and meaning of the Constitution.
Politicians May Fear a Loss of Power
3 Many politicians will oppose the new Constitution. Some politicians are afraid that the Constitution will decrease the power and benefits of their current State offices. Others think that they can have more power if the country is in turmoil or is broken up into several small countries.
Moderation Urged; Remember Good Men Argue on Both Sides of an Issue
4 However, I don't plan to talk about political motives. I don't know if a person's opposition is due to self-interest or ambition even if their views seem suspicious. Even opponents of the new Constitution may be motivated by upright intentions. And much of the opposition will spring from blameless, if not valid, motivations. Jealousies and fears will lead arguments astray into honest errors in thinking.
A false bias can be created for a variety of good reasons. Wise and good men often argue on both the wrong and right side of society's most important questions. This fact should teach moderation to anyone who thinks they are always in the right in any argument.
There's a further reason for caution. People who support the right side of a question can also have ulterior motives like ambition, avarice, personal animosity, and party opposition.
Moderation is important. The mean spirit that characterizes political parties is awful. In politics, as in religion, it's absurd to try to persuade people with fire and sword. Bad ideas can rarely be defeated by persecution.
Constitution Called Thief of Liberty
5 Angry and malignant passions will be let loose about this subject, as in all former cases of great national debate. To get supporters, the opponents of the new Constitution will loudly and bitterly condemn it.
People supporting the energetic government proposed by the Constitution will be demonized as liking dictators and hating liberty. When supporters declare that the rights of the people must be very carefully protected, it will be called insincere and an obvious attempt to become popular while hurting the general public.
Dangers to the rights of people usually spring from the head rather than the heart. Enthusiasm for liberty is often infected with narrow-minded bigotry and distrust.
A healthy government is essential to secure liberty. A strong government and liberty can never be separated. Dangerous ambition is more often masked by a zeal for the rights of the people than the zeal for a firm and efficient government. History teaches us that most men who have overturned the liberties of republics began their career by proclaiming their devotion to the people. They gain position by arousing people's prejudices and end as tyrants.
I Support the New Constitution
6 My fellow citizens, guard against all attempts, from whatever side, to influence you. Your decision on the new Constitution, which is very important to your welfare, should be based on truth.
I'm sure you have noticed that I like the new Constitution. Yes, my countrymen, I admit that after giving it careful thought, I believe it is in your interest to adopt it. I am convinced that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness. The new Constitution has my full and unambiguous support.
I don't pretend that I am undecided about ratifying the Constitution. I have decided. And I will tell you why I think it is a good idea. I will try to make my arguments truthful. Everyone who reads them can judge for themselves whether I've succeeded.