BO gets his Constitutional law completely wrong. The Constitution was written as a limit on the powers of government over the lives of private citizens. Plain Jane laws, within the scope of the powers granted by the Constitution, are what States and Federal government enact in order to govern how men can and cannot treat each other. He flat out gets this wrong:
Citing a series of recent mass shootings, Obama listed several amendments, as well as the defining phrase of the Declaration of Independence, to argue that a gunman’s right should not compromise any others’.
“We have the right to worship freely and safely — that right was denied to Sikhs in Oak Creek, Wisconsin,” he said. “The right to assemble peacefully — that right was denied shoppers in Clackamas, Oregon, and moviegoers in Aurora, Colorado.”
Obama added that “that most fundamental set of rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” were “denied to college students at Virginia Tech and high school students atColumbine and elementary school students in Newtown, and kids on street corners in Chicago on too frequent a basis to tolerate.”
BO deserves a big fat ‘F’ from his Constitutional Law professor on this one…he’s supposed to be an expert on this stuff. He probably is, er, was, but he’s a politician now.
Think I’m wrong? Thought experiment: Does BO (or anybody) evoke the same argument as above (essentially an appeal to the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence) when anybody inflicts any injury on anybody else? No. The appeal is to a law, not to the Constitution. For example, if I punch you, you don’t make a case against me based on the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence (namely, your right to life). You appeal to whatever kind of assault-type law is appropriate given the circumstance of the assault and the jurisdiction in which the assault happens in. The DofI and the Con. limit what the government can do in limiting the rights of citizens. These documents don’t limit or apply to how citizens interact with each other.