Skip to main content

View Diary: White House task force reviewing gun violence options pushes to meet end of month deadline (235 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The US Constitution does not... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bailey2001, FrankRose

    ...discuss drinks (ignoring, of course, the short lived Eighteenth Amendment). Thus, the operative portions of the Constitution are (mostly):

    Amendment IX

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Amendment X

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    Hence, the right to purchase a soda of a certain size is a right reserved to the states and/or people. The NYC ban is a state level issue subject to state level legislation (I'm assuming the NY Constitution or its penumbras does not address a right to drink large sodas).

    However, the Second Amendment is clearly a right, including the right to keep and bear arms for self defense, protected from infringement by the Federal government (Heller) and by the States (via application of the incorporation doctrine in McDonald).

    So, the analogy is fatally flawed in the context of this diary.

    •  Have you read Heller? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tytalus

      It's clear that even this radical Supreme Court has ruled that regulation of firearms, including banning certain types, is constitutional within limits.

      The second amendment is silent on such topics. Just because one can buy a particular firearm today, and if a constitutional law is passed banning such purchases tomorrow, doesn't mean a "right" has been infringed.

      Rather, the limits of the "right" have been clarified.

      That was my point.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site