“You hear some of these quotes: ‘I need a gun to protect myself from the government.’ ‘We can’t do background checks because the government is going to come take my guns away,’ Obama said. “Well, the government is us. These officials are elected by you. They are elected by you. I am elected by you. I am constrained, as they are constrained, by a system that our Founders put in place. It’s a government of and by and for the people.”As a lawprof, I read that to mean that he is not constrained. He's juggling a few ideas, but what he's getting at is: The Founders put into place a system that would be populated by elected officials, who are to act for the sake of the people and as the people want. If what the people want our government to do is control guns, then it is within the power of government to do it.
That's the constitutional argument he has in mind. It's an idea of constitutional government as a political system, within which rights are only another manifestation of what the people want. And, in the ultimate scary twist on the idea of rights: Government is not to be regarded as in need of limits, because the government is us. Anything we — the government — want to do is never tyranny, but freedom.
পোস্টগুলি
২৪৯টি মন্তব্য:
«সবচেয়ে পুরাতন ‹পুরাতন 249 এর 201 – থেকে 249Contra Althouse and most commenters above, I read it as a really clumsy way to say "the Government is not your enemy because it's you", combined with "of course the Constitution doesn't let it just take all your guns, honest".
I can reasonably doubt his sincerity on the last one, but it is at least in keeping with current precedent under Heller - there's no way general confiscation is compatible with that precedent.
I don't read it as a claim of unlimited government (because for one thing, if he was going to claim that, I think he'd do much better at it), but like I said - clumsy.
And thus very easy to read in that way.
(I thought he was supposed to be some Great Political Speaker! He sure ain't showin' it.)
Unless Obama believe that rights are given by God, his reasoning is correct.
I would provide you with a list of philosophers who reasoned the existence of natural rights derived from neither gods nor the state... but I'm pretty sure you already know how to use Google. :)
it is at least in keeping with current precedent under Heller - there's no way general confiscation is compatible with that precedent.
I'm fairly certain none of the justices in the Heller majority is immortal, and damned certain at least one of the five isn't.
The Heller decision is a slim reed to hang one's hopes on.
Revenant said:
"I would provide you with a list of philosophers who reasoned the existence of natural rights derived from neither gods nor the state... but I'm pretty sure you already know how to use Google. :)"
Philosophers have struggled to find a new universal standard, separate from God, but my understanding is that these schemes have failed. One philosopher I talked to even resorted to neuroanatomy and MRI scans to try to find a universal standard of morality. He reminded me of people looking at chicken entrails to determine the future.
Obama is 'constrained' just as Hitler was before he became Chancellor.
Once Hitler became that he did away with their representative government.
And Obama would love to do away with Congress.
I am constrained, as they are constrained, by a system that our Founders put in place.
That was the plan, numbnuts. One thing that the Founding Fathers forgot to add was a way to remove a fucking idiot.
The Heller decision is a slim reed to hang one's hopes on.
Agreed - not that it wasn't correctly decided, but that it would probably be too easy to distinguish, and ultimately overrule.
Now, I don't see a Court with a single conservative replaced with a liberal actually overturning the Heller decision. That would be too opportunistic and visible usurptation. But, what I think that they would likely do is progressively distinguish Heller essentially out of existance.
Which is why, I think, that the greater the number of positive gun rights decisions, the better, esp. out of the Supreme Court, because the more jurisprudence in a given direction, the harder it is to distinguish from.
One thing that might keep the Supreme Court from radically changing direction in the future is that if they didn't do it gradually, it would be seen as an usurptation. And, one thing that we have seen with that Court, esp. over the last couple of years, and esp. under CJ Roberts, is a sensitivity to public sensitivities. Remember, they have what is termed "soft power", which essentially means that their power is based on what the public is willing to grant them. A radical change in their stand on 2nd Amdt. rights would likely result in a great loss of that soft power.
Keep in mind that 2nd Amdt. rights is an area where there is a minority with extraordinary strong feelings (in support), and some somewhat diffuse opposition. Except for maybe DiFi, and a couple of other radicals, there don't seem to be that many for whom this is a defining issue, more important than growing government, abortion, immigration, etc. I think that you can see this in a number of different ways, and one of them is that the anti-2nd Amdt. crowd seemingly cannot get their facts straight - Obama talking about "automatic" weapons, DeGette about reuse of magazines, etc., all in the last week, months into the debate.
All totalitarians strip others of rights and steal money and claim its for the people and the people want this to happen, so its OK.
Yea, he's been talking like a totalitarian since 2008. He thinks that he can just do as he pleases. I am glad you are noticing, Prof. Althouse.
" I am constrained, as they are constrained, by a system that our Founders put in place. It’s a government of and by and for the people.”"
Excuse me... that's not in the Constitution, it is from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. But Obama's reality is whatever he wants it to be at the moment.
That was the plan, numbnuts. One thing that the Founding Fathers forgot to add was a way to remove a fucking idiot.
Actually they didn't. Unfortunately, there is nothing, literally nothing, that President Obama could do that would convince the spineless Republicans to propose impeachment, or the craven Democrats to support it.
Obama is 'constrained' just as Hitler was before he became Chancellor.
Once Hitler became that he did away with their representative government.
And Obama would love to do away with Congress.
Hitler was way ahead of his time. We don't have a quote, but he certainly knew better than to waste a crisis.
So if some one says Inga is a stupid fucking cunt and fatboy is a fat ass loser, that's stalking?
I like this definition of a right. It is Rand's contribution: "A 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life."
"...there is clear trickery in his words and it is a lawyer's trickery."
Then ConLaw posture is secondary and trickery is primary concern.
Their mastery of verbal, visual and legal trickery, and exclusive use thereof at all times and places, inspires not a few to say, "Anti-Christ." or "Devil/Satan." from observing this actor and her/his entourage.
No dumb Donald. If one posts personal information about someone's else's marriage, children or health on a public blog as a way of intimidating another commenter for stating their political views, over and over again, then yes it's stalking. He has gotten personal information that he was NOT given permission to repost here. He violated HIPAA laws and possibly stalking laws.
Somebody, anybody provide an example of when President Obama has been constrained by, or even concerned about, Constitutional limits to governmental power.
He's enforcing DOMA because he's required to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.
First Rule of Obama Watching: Whatever he says is a total lie. So watch for him do whatever he says that he is not doing.
So we're all onboard with voter ID?
Thought so.
Sigivald wrote:
I can reasonably doubt his sincerity on the last one, but it is at least in keeping with current precedent under Heller - there's no way general confiscation is compatible with that precedent.
Obama's history as prez is finding a way around constitutional restrictions. When did we declare war on Libya? When did congress approve allowing minor illegal aliens legal status and a path to citizenship?
Being a civil rights lawyer -- and this is what Obama claimed he was, though he worked for a law firm -- is all about finding ways to extend the meaning of the constitution.
Well, if the government is me, I must insist that a whole lot of things be done differently.
The Nazis won elections. So did the Soviets. So did the Roundheads. That's sort of the entire point of the American experiment. How can the President of the United States not understand this?
Philosophers have struggled to find a new universal standard, separate from God, but my understanding is that these schemes have failed.
Odd phrasing -- it implies there is a universal standard for God-based morality, which is of course ridiculous. The god-based moralities have been at bloody war with one another since the dawn of history.
Nope, I am not trying to silence him, there you are completely wrong. He s trying to silence Garage and myself using extortion by shaming, by using personal information he has no permission to repost here by myself and no doubt not by Garage either.
Perhaps you should mind your own business and know the FACTS before you interfere. It sounds as if you are attempting to silence me, hmmmm?
Commuter, you don't know WHERE he got his information. Perhaps you should not jump to the conclusion that it was obtained on a PUBLIC forum arguing politics. As I said you should know the FACTS before interfering.
And I speak for myself, not Garage, although Garage has been his victim also.
So he said he was essentially "constrained" about immigration back in July of 2011 and by August 2011 he had figured a way around that too.
Why should we believe him? And why do some commenters ridicule those of us who hear him say one thing and then watch him walk right over whatever it is that is one of those "bumps" in the road?
After all he is doing everything he can to get to the bottom of what happened at Benghazi, also.
He can, and does, executive order (v.) lots of stuff, working around Congress and every other thing that gets in his way.
He won. Remember? That's what he is telling us.
Obama: ‘I Am Constrained… by a System That Our Founders Put in Place.’
As a lawprof, I read that to mean that he is not constrained.
That is an idiotic statement by a law professor.
Perhaps you should mind your own business and know the FACTS before you interfere.
So explain the FACTS, then. It does no good to complain that people don't know them when you don't state what they are.
dangerous argument for him to take, since "the government is us" could also imply the government can't do anything beyond those powers that we possess as individuals. Can I can't make requirements of contracts I am not a party to, and I don't think the state is implicitly a party of all contracts, although it does inflate itself into that role. The left's whole political theory is based on the Government having the set of all powers, of which it surrenders some to the people. The right's theory is that the people have the set of all liberties which do not infringe on the liberties of others, of which we grant some of to the government for the defense of those liberties.
He's not explaining. He's complaining.
He's not explaining. He's complaining.
"If what the people want our government to do is control guns, then it is within the power of government to do it."
Maybe on paper - change the constitution - but a "War on Guns" would be even less effective than the War on Drugs.
As a lawprof, I read that to mean that he is not constrained.
As a practicing lawyer, I've got to say that that is an embarrasingly bad reading!
The system that the Founders put into place includes, among other things, an incredibly high bar to amending the Constitution.
You should be ashamed of this reading, Ms. Althouse, and especially ashamed of using your status as "lawprof" to demagogue on this issue!
Commuter,
You have the situation summed up pretty well, but I doubt that Inga is one to listen to your very sound advice.
Both Inga and Garage have written about marital status, parental status, and medical problems on this forum and others. Claiming HIPAA violations for things that SHE publicly posted in public forums on the internet is absurd and insane.
Absurd and insane is pretty much what to expect out of her though, as even a cursory reading of her posting history on Althouse shows.
I assumed that Inga was a serious person under some misapprehensions. I've looked through a few more threads and don't think that she is a serious person. I think I would prefer to bow out of this and have deleted my comments.
@ Althouse
So. You got complaints?
So. Why did you vote him into office?
Commuter= President Mom Jeans, surprise surprise.
You are delusional.
The system that the Founders put into place includes, among other things, an incredibly high bar to amending the Constitution.
Yet they still managed to pass that amendment legalizing abortion!
What mall do you lawyer at?
"By the way, where were all you patriots when GWBush was busy shredding the Constitution?
4/4/13, 1:54 PM
And where are you now with Obama's daily shredding? "
The things I opposed when Bush did them (eg: warrantless wiretapping, torture, Wall St. bailouts), I still oppose when Obama does them.
It's called "Intellectual Consistency".
You might look into it - it would make a refreshing change from "Reflexive Opposition Based on Party Label".
Meanwhile, we're in year 5 of the Obama presidency and the only "rights" you've lost is the "right" to be uninsured and have the rest of us pay for your medical treatment when something happens to you.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন