As I have written before, I subscribe to The Economist but have mixed feelings about it. The magazine (or the 'newspaper' as it prefers to style itself) has a lot of good info and a droll and erudite style that is generally fun to read, but has gone a bit off the rails recently, particularly in regards to covering Politics in America. For a long time, its writers seem to have had a man-crush on Mitt Romney, endorsed Obama only reluctantly last year, and in their most recent editorial on the President, seemed gripped by the delusion that the deficit was the most pressing problem the country faced (nothing about long term unemployment, stagnant wages, economic inequality, the hollowing out of the middle class etc etc)
So It is with mixed feelings that I highlight last night's entry in "Democracy in America" about a racist Georgia cracker sheriff and his lizrd-brained reaction to the executive orders that might actually make America a little safer. Well, it is good ammunition for progressives anyway.
Besides, for all you Georgians, who may be reading this, it is why strenuous efforts are worthwhile to turn the state blue, or at least purple. C'mon Bulldawgs, I know you can do it.
Over the fold for the post, y'all
The post is called Round up the guns! Or don't
It starts off great:
REST easy, gun-owners of Cherokee County, Georgia: your sheriff is on your side. Roger Garrison, who won election last year to a sixth term as Cherokee County's sheriff despite questionable taste in Halloween costumes, is "a strong supporter of the Second Amendment", and has vowed not to "enforce any laws or regulations that negate the constitutional rights of the citizens of Cherokee County." In a letter he accuses the president, vice-president and "many members of Congress" of "exploiting the deaths of innocent victims by attempting to enact laws, restrictions; and, even through the use of executive orders, prevent law-abiding American citizens from possessing certain firearms and ammunition magazines." Even through executive orders!
And let me show you this
'questionable taste'
Says a lot, eh? Naturally this jerk won re-election
But here comes the takedown
Mr Garrison is not alone: the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers' Association (CSPOA) boasts "a growing list of sheriffs saying no to Obama gun control". The sheriff of Gilmer County, Georgia, says that he "would not be a part of going door-to-door and rounding up weapons", which is quite a relief. That precisely nobody in Mr Obama's administration—or indeed anyone outside the perfervid and overworked imaginations of the paranoid fringe right—has proposed doing such a thing seems to have passed unnoticed. In that vein, I wonder what the Gilmer County's sheriff's positions are on making Ashanti America's official language, or selling unicorn steaks without a permit.
Makes you question the wisdom of using the popular vote to elect officials entrusted to carry out the law. But be that as it may.
It may dismay Mr Garrison, but issuing executive orders is not an impeachable offense. Presidents do it all the time. And it may surprise Mr Garrison, but the executive orders Mr Obama has issued are in fact rather anodyne. They do not ban or attempt to ban any guns, accessories or magazines of any kind; in fact, by providing more money for "school resource officers" (armed police officers assigned to schools), they may well increase the number of regularly-armed Americans.
Such as, oh let me think, a certain Republican President recently who thought through executive orders he could become a revolutionary court and ignore the FISA act as well as Habeas Corpus and Due Process
This connection occurs even to the Economist:
The second [fallacy] is a misguided notion that the second amendment is the best and surest constitutional protection against tyranny. As Conor Friedersdorf sagely noted, the Bill of Rights offers much more effective and less costly checks on government power. There is the fourth amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure; the fifth amendment, which guarantees due process; the sixth amendment, which establishes fair trials; and so on. When these rights were hollowed out during the war on terror—by acts of Congress, the courts and even through executive orders—where was the outrage from those who see tyranny in every gun law?
This is after the blogger points out that any laws affecting gun ownership would have to be approved by congress, just like any other law. And of course it is obvious to Kossacks but not (I would imagine) to pea-brained sheriffs that nothing in the President's executive orders is even faintly unconstituional. Which Supreme Court Justice has explicitly written that some gun regulation laws are constitutional and that the second amendment is not unlimited? Give yourself a gold star if you answered
Antonin Scalia
Of course, there is also the question of whther state officals could nullify federal law. The blogger and I seem to have had the same thought: They already tried that once or twice before in Georgia. Not sure it really worked out well for them.
Here is the final paragraph that does it for me:
The second amendment has a lizard-brain appeal: it is sexier to imagine yourself a lone soldier for justice defending your loved ones against an oppressive, tyrannical government than it is to imagine yourself protesting warrantless wiretapping. Mr Garrison approvingly cites a letter written by another sheriff, which states: "We must not allow, nor shall we tolerate, the actions of criminals, no matter how heinous the crimes, to prompt politicians to enact laws that will infringe upon the liberties of responsible citizens who have broken no laws." Stirring words, and entirely unobjectionable. I wonder if he had the same response to the Patriot Act
.
Well, what can one say but 'Hear hear". Or maybe, 'cause I am American "Right on, brother".