Back In The Straddle Again

AP:

John McCain welcomed a Supreme Court decision invalidating a District of Columbia handgun ban. Barack Obama sought to straddle the subject by saying he favors an individual's right to bear firearms as well as a government's right to regulate them.
...
Voicing a stance that could help him woo conservatives and libertarians, McCain said, "This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms."

His Democratic rival, Obama, issued a more carefully worded statement apparently aimed at both moderate voters and his liberal base. The statement from Obama, who has long said local governments should be able to regulate guns, did not specifically say whether Obama agreed with overturning the specific D.C. ban. But he said Thursday's ruling "will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country."

Odd that McCain doesn't discuss the struggle for habeas, or First Amendment rights, or those silly Ninth and Tenth Amendments.  Just thank Dog that people can own handguns in DC!

But see, Obama has to "straddle" the issue according to the frame.  It's impossible for somebody to recognize that there are protected rights that might be limited in some fashion in a civil, diverse society.  Nobody would ever, for example, say that we have free speech but that it's only limited to "free speech zones" when protesting our President.  Nope, no nuance there.

It's funny that McCain is trying to pin a "simple question" on Obama regarding the DC law:

"Does Barack Obama believe that the D.C. handgun ban was constitutional or unconstitutional? We can't tell and Barack Obama won't say.

"One would think that a candidate for our nation's highest office and a self-described constitutional expert would be able to answer that simple question."

Of course all Constitutional questions are so simple to deal with.  Rulings are always so concise, after all.  In fact, we don't even need a Supreme Court to decide these things, they're that easy!  That's why we can absolutely reject what Obama said:

I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe.  Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.

So why can't Scalia answer such a simple question posed by a self-described experienced war hero?

Anyhoo, Obama once opined that he thought the law in question was constitutional.  The Court disagreed.  It is their job, not the Executive's, to interpret such issues as Publius reminds us:

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.

But McCain and the clever folks at the Corner don't get this.  Nor do they get that Courts generally make rulings not on an entire law or concept, but on a very narrow, specific provision that is contrary to the Constitution.  That's why the Court said the ban was not appropriate, but licensing was--clearly giving local governments the power of regulation, so long as it's not overly restrictive on the right.

Then of course comes one of my favorite passages to quote from Federalist 84:

[A] minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns. If, therefore, the loud clamors against the plan of the convention, on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this State. But the truth is, that both of them contain all which, in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired.

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to 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 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? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

It seems we can regulated the right of individual gun ownership, as Obama and the Court observed.  So what exactly is gramps shaking his fist at again?

ntodd