....and I'm getting just kinda uncomfy sitting here.
A pro-gun editorial, that makes an honest case for the fact that you can't defend just some Constitutional liberties - in the LA Times:
But if the court would identify an important individual right -- in this case, the right to bear arms -- and then deny that it applied to the states, those who never accepted the incorporation doctrine might try to "de-incorporate" other rights. That's not a risk worth taking.Isn't that a peach??
-
And the NYT as well ...
Excuse me for a bit. I've gotta go clean some pig poo off the roof.
There's zero surprise here, folks.
To the extent there's surprise here, it's that these 2 newspapers in particular weren't blatantly dishonest, in a way that would have undermined any principles they might claim to hold.
That fact that such a thing should be surprising, speaks volumes.
But there's a good and a bad example between these 2 editorials.
The incorporation clause has been used to create new rights from nothing, mostly by the Left, thus protecting controversial decisions from competing in the political process. The LA Times sees that as far too profitable for their allies to give up. Whether it's right or wrong doesn't really enter into it for them. Their editorial is actually quite explicit about this reasoning.
In case you were wondering, I find that reasoning contemptible.
But I have a lot more respect for the New York Times here. They make an argument that is explicitly constitutional, and advocate shifting the doctrine of judicial reasoning to the 14th Amendment snippet that reads "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Which does seem a lot saner than the contortions around "due process" and "equal protection" that have surfaced instead.
Agree or disagree, that's an argument about the constitution that's rooted in the constitution, not today's temporary political advantage. Good on them.