Well, first off, I have to say: Waaahhh!
Or who the phoque cares?
BUT. There was one "point" while, IMO of no consequence PER SE, I was kinda wondering why we didn't try the route suggested? NOT so much because it's how it should be done, as much as THEN when THEY bitched about "activist judges" we could throw THEIR BS back in their faces ;) (I'm just trying to LEARN here, I'm NOT "criticising, I'm just curious....)
(Re: Brown Vs.Plessy) Congress didn't overturn Plessy. The Supreme Court did. Its what separation of powers is all about in this country and while sometimes it means that things move more slowly than they would otherwise, sometimes (as in the case of Civil Rights) it is the courts, not Congress that forces change. So I prefer to respect separation of powers and if advocates of second amendment rights can find a way to bring the DC gun law case back up through the courts to the Supreme's and they get a ruling striking down the DC ban, then I'm going to have to live with it, the people of DC are going to have to live with it, and members of the US Congress who favor gun control are going to have to live with it. In the meantime, however, I suggest that George Allen and his crew should learn to live with the law as it stands today and not try to usurp the democratic rights of the citizens of DC or the role of the courts.
|
Now I think this DUers view is
severely skewed, but IF we did it through the COURTS, I can see many advantages.... AND if there are VALID reasons why we do NOT go that route, being able to throw THOSE back in the asshats face would be fun. ;)