May 10, 2002
From the desk of Jane Galt:So I'm reading this Washington
So I'm reading this Washington Post Editorial on "Justice and Guns" -- justice being the Department, rather than the concept, the statue, or the baseball player, any of which would probably made a more interesting editorial. But anyway. This phrase caught my eye:
The Justice Department traditionally errs on the other side -- arguing for constitutional interpretations that increase congressional flexibility and law enforcement policy options. The great weight of judicial precedent holds that there is no fundamental individual right to own a gun. Staking out a contrary position may help ingratiate the Bush administration to the gun lobby. But it greatly disserves the interests of the United States.
How delightful. May we assume now that the Washington Post will come out full force behind the traditional law enforcement activity of seeking to narrow Fourth Amendment rights in order to "increase congressional flexibility and law enforcement policy options"? Mmmm? Or argue that the "great weight of judicial precedent" in favor of separate but equal should have restrained Bobby Kennedy from pushing those nasty de-segregation cases?
Didn't think so. Of course the policy conforms to the administration's position on gun control (a position I, and a growing number of constitutional scholars, happen to think is the right one). But it's more than hypocritical, it's down right ridiculous, for the Post to chastise Ashcroft merely for choosing to have the organization he heads support stricter interpretations of some amendments than others, when in order to even make the argument, the WaPo has to do exactly the same thing.
Posted by Jane Galt at May 10, 2002 02:09 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links