STM: Constitutional Quizzery
Tom sends this from Starving the Monkeys.
Agree or disagree, it’s worth reading.
My personal take, is that Tom misses the point of Constitutional enforcement. The Federal Constitution (I’ll steer clear of the of versus for debate), is a contract between the States and the Federal. However, if the issue of (dare we use the term) Constitutional insurrection comes up, whether that action is sanctioned by the Federal Constitution or not, is moot.
Because… the contract has already been broken.
It would be… silly at best, (suicidal at worst) for one party of a contract to continue to be bound by it when the other party has broken the confines of said contract. You follow?
It is my opinion, that the ‘protection’ offered by 2A is there precisely in the instance for when the Constitution no longer governs the government. The particular ‘how-to’ of it doesn’t much matter, since the means are available. That is its purpose. If the mere unspoken threat (which it is) is not enough to keep the public servants in line, the means of follow through will be there regardless.
That’s just my $.02.
– Cato, the American