The Constitution Is Meaningless

As regular readers of this blog may very well know, I'm no fan of the Constitution. Sure, we'd have more freedom today than we actually do if representatives of our federal government at least pretended to respect the limitations on power that the founders outlined, but any legal document that allows the state to collect taxes lays the foundation for a society that ultimately will be overrun by tyranny.

Simply put, for all its good intentions, the Constitution itself allows for the very abuses of authority that have contributed to its own irrelevance.

As if this weren't bad enough, decades of judicial misinterpretation also have ensured that there's very little chance of regaining liberty lost through both the intentional and unwitting mischaracterization of original precedent. And what's the point of having a constitution if its tenets can be widely misconstrued in courts of law and such misrepresentations then go on to become the new laws of the land?

Nothing better illustrates this tendency than some of the reaction to the Plaxico Burress gun incident. For example, libertarian Dave Kopel writes in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that while Burress's conduct may have been careless, his prosecution over merely possessing a firearm without a license is "unjust and perhaps unconstitutional."

To be sure, the treatment of Plaxico Burress is entirely unjust, as he is being raked over the coals despite doing no harm to anyone other than himself. However, I struggle to see how New York's gun laws can run afoul of the U.S. Constitution when our founding document prevents the federal government, not the states, from abridging our right to bear arms.

Writes Kopel:

The Heller decision did not say that requiring a license to carry a gun was unconstitutional. But in New York State, nonresidents cannot even apply for the licenses to possess or carry a handgun. Unlike most other states, New York refuses to honor carry permits issued by sister states. Most observers believe that the Supreme Court will eventually make state and local governments obey the Second Amendment. If it does, New York's discrimination against nonresidents will probably be ruled unconstitutional.

Although I oppose any and all federal and state restrictions on gun ownership, New York, being a sovereign state, has the right to enact its own gun laws. That's democracy for you. As I argued at the time of the Heller decision, the Supreme Court exercised extrajudicial authority by even ruling on the case, given that the District of Columbia almost certainly retains "pseudo-state" status and therefore should not be constrained by limitations set forth by the Constitution. So it goes for New York, as well, as it quite clearly enjoys statehood.

The biggest culprit in modern federal abuses of power vis a vis the states is the Fourteenth Amendment, which has been so extensively misinterpreted that it has resulted in handing the federal government sweeping authority to regulate every state in the union. Instead of respecting the vertical separation of powers, it has created subordinate governments. However, to believe that the founders, who drafted the Bill of Rights explicitly to guard against an omnipotent central state, would believe a federal judge has the right and the authority to strike down valid state laws is to border on the absurd.

But that's where we are today, as even reliable defenders of liberty like Dave Kopel have essentially been conditioned to accept improper judicial rulings. Instead of adhering to the origins of the Constitution despite any number of unconstitutional rulings, we instead allow these opinions to override original precedent simply because they have been offered.

Weigh in with your own opinions in comments.

Comments

[Patrick]

Good article Trevor.

Tho, I disagree when you say that the state of NY has the right to enact its own gun laws.

According to which theory of rights? The theory that rights are granted by the State?
Definitely, not according to natural rights...
Cheers

[trevor]

Patrick-
Yes, I oppose the enactment of any and all limitations on gun rights, as I oppose the very existence of the state.

However, in this case I was narrowly arguing from the legal standpoint as perceived by Mr. Kopel. Legally, New York has the right to enact any laws it chooses so long as they don't run afoul of its constitution.

Morally, of course, no state has the right to usurp natural rights (which it does by its very existence).