British Left style.
The Mayor of London today took action on a pledge made during his election campaign to ban advertisements that could pressurise people to conform to unhealthy or unrealistic body images.
Because speech of which the Left disapproves must be barred. After all, the Left Knows Better. This is an aspect of Europe that our own Left so desperately wants our nation to emulate.
…but a correct rationale, also.
US District Judge Henry Hudson upheld Virginia’s voter ID law that requires prospective voters to show a State-approved photo ID before they vote. In response to the Democratic Party’s (it was the plaintiff, of course) claim that the law was politically motivated, Hudson held in part
The court’s mission is to judge not the wisdom of the Virginia voter ID law, but rather its constitutionality[.]
Hear, hear. Hudson went on:
While the merits of this voter identification law, and indeed all aspects of Virginia’s voting regime, can be reasonably debated, it remains true that Virginia has created a scheme of laws to accommodate all people in their right to vote[.]
Indeed. Such a debate is important to be held, in all of our States. But the debate is a political one, to be held among the citizens of each State and their elected representatives in their legislatures and governor’s mansions. It is outside the realm of our courts to conduct political debates.
Still, the cynicism persists.
Lawyers representing the state Democratic Party said in a filing that the Republican-dominated state legislature passed the photo ID law “to stall, if not reverse, the growing success of the Democratic Party in Virginia.”
Not at all. The suit is nothing other than a disingenuous effort by the Democratic Party to wage lawfare in an attempt to stall, if not reverse, the growing success of protections for the sanctity of each citizen’s vote in Virginia, a sanctity at risk from voter fraud.
A federal judge ruled Tuesday that a key provision of the District’s new gun law is probably unconstitutional, ordering DC police to stop requiring individuals to show “good reason” to obtain a permit to carry a firearm on the streets of the nation’s capital.
US District Judge Richard J Leon found that the law violates the “core right of self-defense” granted in the Second Amendment….
And another protection of our individual liberties. Here’s what the 2nd Amendment says (again, for those of you steady readers of this blog):
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Notice that (again…): there’s not a syllable of permission for the Federal government to dictate to us citizens what our purpose in keeping and bearing may be. The Federal government has no legitimate interest in our purpose, and so any demand that we satisfy the Federal government of our good reason is not merely unconstitutional, it’s dishonestly so.
We citizens do, through our government, restrict convicted felons’ right to keep and bear. It stops there, though: unless the Federal government can show that a citizen has been convicted of a felony, it cannot further restrict.
Full stop.
Zhang Dejiang, Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, and so the number three man in the People’s Republic of China’s government is on an inspection tour of Hong Kong this week. The Wall Street Journal‘s op-ed on the matter has a surprisingly naïve subtitle: …it’s a chance for China’s No 3 to hear local voices.
There’s this instead, though.
Officials say that 6,000 police will be on patrol and equipped to lock down roads and walkways whenever Mr Zhang moves about during his three-day stay.
And
Media interviews won’t be allowed during official events.
And the kicker:
The private purpose of Mr Zhang’s visit is to “inspect” Hong Kong, as state media put it, and to consider whether to give Mr [pro-Beijing Chief Executive of Hong Kong Leung Chun-ying] Leung a second five-year term.
Because Zhang and the PRC government will decide that, not the citizens of Hong Kong.
Doesn’t look to me like there’s much listening going on.
The 9th Circuit is going to release, soon, its ruling on a lawsuit that involves California’s claim that it can mandate that firearm manufacturers incorporate safety devices into their firearms.
Anthony Hakl, a lawyer for the state, said the gun-rights groups sought to establish a constitutional right to purchase any handgun of one’s choice from whomever one chooses.
“No such right exists,” he wrote in a September brief.
It’s impressive that a highly trained lawyer should make such a statement with a straight face. Alternatively, it’s depressing that our law schools do such a poor job of teaching our Constitution.
Here’s the 2nd Amendment on the matter:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Nothing in there about safety mechanisms, nor is there anything that addresses one way or the other the purchase of any handgun of one’s choice from whomever one chooses.
Here’s the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
There is no power to limit the sources of our Arms delegated to the United States by our Constitution. Even the power to require us to license our Arms is a power merely to require us to know how to use—to be safe—with them. Notice that, too: we have to be safe, not our Arms have to be safe in our stead. Although it’s true enough that a safe weapon helps us be safe with them, it’s our responsibility to be safe, not the responsibility of an inanimate object.
Now, here’s the 9th Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
As noted above, there is no power to limit the sources of our Arms, either delegated or enumerated (a delegation by our ratification). That’s a power retained by the people. That’s a power retained by We the People. The ability to purchase any handgun of one’s choice from whomever we might choose is already long established in our Constitution.
Only a Progressive lawyer would seek to rewrite the Constitution in so blatantly obvious a way.