Dick Cheney's Radical Idea about Shooting His Friends...... Including the Bush Administration

[fightthegoodfightnow]

DICK CHENEY AND THE GUN LOBBY............. TWO PEAS IN A POD

THE BUSH administration has long taken the position that if you're not with it, you're against it. This holds true, it seems, for everyone except Vice President Cheney, who gets to have it both ways.

This month Mr. Cheney joined a brief filed by 305 lawmakers in the Supreme Court case over the constitutionality of the District's gun control laws. A federal appeals court struck down the gun ban -- the most far-reaching in the nation -- as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The District appealed the case, which is scheduled to be argued on March 18; Mr. Cheney and the lawmakers urged the justices to uphold the lower court ruling, which concludes that "once it is determined -- as we have done -- that handguns are 'Arms' referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them."

The problem is, Mr. Cheney's position puts him at odds with the administration's official stance in the case. Rather than rubber-stamp the lower court decision, Solicitor General Paul D. Clement is arguing that the Second Amendment bestows an individual right but that "protection of individual rights does not render all laws limiting gun ownership automatically invalid." Mr. Clement worries that adopting the rationale of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit could invalidate a host of federal gun control laws; he argues for a more flexible approach that would, for example, allow a court to consider public safety concerns when analyzing the constitutionality of a firearms regulation. The brief is carefully written, thoughtful and apparently not radical enough for Mr. Cheney.

How did Mr. Cheney manage to weigh in against an administration he is a part of? By signing on to the lawmakers' brief as "President of the Senate." Mr. Cheney's move appears unprecedented; it is irresponsible, selfish and unnecessary. The president of the Senate seems to have forgotten that it is important for the executive branch to speak with one voice in legal matters to provide clarity and consistency. The gun lawsuit doesn't impinge on any special duties of the president of the Senate; it is highly likely that justices would have taken notice of the lawmakers' brief even without the vice president's involvement. Moreover, when disputes within the executive branch arise, as they have with regard to affirmative action or regulatory cases, the solicitor general and ultimately the president make the call about where the government stands.

Mr. Cheney clearly lost that battle in the gun case. Rather than respect the approach of the administration -- which, in this case, is well within the bounds of accepted jurisprudence -- Mr. Cheney packed up his shotgun and joined forces with the Capitol Hill gang. It's yet another indication that Mr. Cheney thinks the normal rules of American democracy don't apply to him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/23/AR2008022300757.html

I'm sure there are many advocates on DU who agree with Dick Cheney.

[SteveM]

1. Hey, I actually agree with WAPO! The writer's concern is process...

We all know the rabid anti-gun position of the Post; but for once, they looked at the issue in terms of propriety (something BushCo has little use for). Even if Bush, et al, are into gun-restriction (do you agree with Bush, FTGF?), it is appropriate that Bush make his position clear. Cheney is just swaggering in, looking or a fight in an empty bar.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

2. Cool

We agree Cheney is looking for a 'fight in an empty bar.' I'm more likely to characterize it as ........................ BS....... but alas, we agree.