Constitution Fail
Posted by Jeff Pruitt - 7/19/09 @ 3:48 pm - Filed Under National Politics
As much as I deplore the circus revolving around Supreme Court confirmation hearings, I thought it was important to highlight one exchange between Senator Coburn and justice nominee Sotomayor:
COBURN: Thank you. Let me follow up with one other question. As a citizen of this country, do you believe innately in my ability to have self-defense of myself — personal self-defense? Do I have a right to personal self- defense?
SOTOMAYOR: I’m trying to think if I remember a case where the Supreme Court has addressed that particular question. Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? And I can’t think of one. I could be wrong, but I can’t think of one.
This is an extremely scary answer to me. While I have no doubt that Sotomayor is an intelligent person, she appears to have a basic misunderstanding of our Constitution. Our Constitution, and democratic government in general, does not provide rights to the people. It is a document written by the people to define the powers granted to government. There is a big difference between those viewpoints.
The founders of this country, albeit every bit as hypocritical as current politicians, believed in unalienable rights that could not be granted or taken away by government. In fact there was much debate at the time as to whether or not to include a Bill of Rights for fear that it would be construed as an all-encompassing list of rights granted by government and not a list restricting certain government activity. In Federalist #84 Alexander Hamilton wrote:
Bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was “Magna Charta”, obtained by the Barons, swords in hand, from King John.
[...]
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?
Sotomayor’s comments show that Hamilton’s fears were well founded. The real question at hand is whether or not defending one’s own life is an unalienable right. I’m not sure evidence needs to be presented on this question as most would simply stipulate it. However, there is ample evidence as can be found in our own country’s adoption of a Declaration of Independence. As first written by George Mason and then by Thomas Jefferson:
That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. (Mason)
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Given these historical facts it’s quite implausable, and scary, that a Supreme Court nominee could not honestly answer the question about whether or not a citizen has the right to self-defense - of course you do. The debate probably lies in the definition of self-defense. If say a President were to go and order the murder hundreds of thousands of foreigners because they allegedly had a nuclear weapon that could some day be used against him - is that self-defense?
My hope is that Sotomayor understands the historical underpinnings of our US Constitution, and the bedrock principles of democratic government in general, and simply didn’t want to provide an answer to a question she felt lacked sufficient details. Having said that, the simple and correct answer to Senator Coburn’s question should’ve been an emphatic YES.
Comments
6 Responses to “Constitution Fail”
Leave a Reply
Judicial activism is the name of the game among liberal politicians and judges. Neither Obama nor Sotomayor have personal backgrounds that have steeped them in the spirit of liberty that permeates America’s historic roots. They do not understand or even approve of America’s greatness.
Statists want control over the population. Attaining that control is accomplished in anyway they can, including making new law through the court to achieve and maintain power.
Politicans, especially Presidents, should follow guidelines espoused by Gerald Magliocca at Concurring Opinions blog.
“So, my agenda is your agenda, and it’s quite simple: to appoint judges . . . who don’t confuse the criminals with the victims; judges who don’t invent new or fanciful constitutional rights for those criminals; judges who believe the courts should interpret the law, not make it; judges, in short, who understand the principle of judicial restraint. That starts with the Supreme Court. It takes leadership from the Supreme Court to help shape the attitudes of the courts in our land and to make sure that principles of law are based on the Constitution. That is the standard to judge those who seek to serve on the courts: qualifications, not distortions; judicial temperament, not campaign disinformation.”
—
My only question is: are Obama and Sotomayor merely ignorant, or are they *intentionally* trying to undermine the foundation of our nation?
Gadfly, maybe you should explain your comment:
“Neither Obama nor Sotomayor have personal backgrounds that have steeped them in the spirit of liberty that permeates America’s historic roots.”
Are you saying that Obama and Sotomayor are not “steeped” in the spirit of liberty since each had at least one parent who was not born on the American mainland? If that’s the case there have been thousands of people in our history who fought and died for this country without backgrounds “steeped in the spirit of liberty.”
If this isn’t the case, please explain.
Jeff, really, did you even read the ENTIRE transcript?
The Senator was asking if there was any case law on “personal self-defense.” (He should have just said self-defense, otherwise it’s redundant.)
SOTOMAYOR: Exactly. That’s exactly right, but let me try to address what you’re saying in the context that I can, OK, which is what I have experience with, all right, which is New York criminal law, because I was a former prosecutor. And I’m talking in very broad terms.
But, under New York law, if you’re being threatened with eminent death or very serious injury, you can use force to repel that, and that would be legal. The question that would come up, and does come up before juries and judges, is how eminent is the threat. If the threat was in this room, “I’m going to come get you,” and you go home and get — or I go home.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/15/AR2009071501414.html
It’s “scary” Jeff, that you didn’t read the entire exchange!
Charles,
I read the entire exchange and I believe you are still missing the point. She is hemming and hawing between state law and constitutional “rights”. My point being that the constitution need not define a “right” to self-defense because it is unalienable. Furthermore the constitution doesn’t define citizens’ rights. It defines the powers for government. This is not just semantics - it’s fundamental to how one views the role of government.
What you posted seems to have little to do with the argument I’m making.
Also, senator coburn was NOT asking about case law as you suggest. He was very clearly trying to get her to answer whether or not she felt he had an innate right to self-defense. She turned it into one of case law which, in my opinion, was immaterial.
As I said in the post there are certainly legislative limits that can be set to define self-defense but to ask whether or not there is a constitutional right to self defense is a historically inaccurate question