Obama's Response to Heller

[TPaine7]

Obama's response to the habeas corpus ruling was quick and correct. (Time will tell if he follows through by actually flexing political muscle to kill Bush's immunity bill.)

As I see it, Obama has four basic choices if the Heller decision gives the District of Columbia the backhand it has coming:

1) Attempt to ignore the decision and dodge question on it. (Very stupid.)
2) Say that he will abide by the Court's decision and play the whole thing down. (Best political option, gives him cover and appears principled.)
3) Say that he will abide by the Court's decision and emphasize his policy of making Supreme Court appointments to overthrow it or minimize the "harm." (Politically dangerous.)
4) Praise the Court's decision. (Politically dangerous, but principled and correct.)

I suspect that Obama will take the politically smart and safe position, option 2, that gives him the maximum coverage and alienates no one. If he does that and fails to follow through on the telecom immunity bill, it will signify major weakness of character, at least to me.

In a way, I would actually respect it more if he took option 3, as violently as I disagree with it. At least it shows backbone. If he kills Bush's bill, or puts his prestige on the line trying, and choses option 2, I would feel better.

What do you think he will do? What do you think he should? Why?

[rateyes]

1. He should tell the truth about what he thinks. Wouldn't THAT

be a breath of fresh air coming from a politician?

[TPaine7]

6. Indeed.

I do, however, believe that silence is an honorable alternative in many cases.

It is not honorable as a pattern of avoiding tough choices and responsibilities.

[tburnsten]

22. Silence as an honorable alternative?

For a man holding high public office and campaigning for the highest public office?

I am sorry Tpaine7 but I cannot view silence as an attractive trait in a presidential candidate. If he gives any hints that he is even considering option #3 my vote will go to Nader, because four years of suck is better than a lifetime of judges who believe that the second amendment applies only to their bodyguards.

[Boomer 50]

2. choice 4 gets him the gun vote......

and steals part of the base from McCain. Choice 3 hands the presidency to McCain. Choice 2 is weak and won't gain him anything. Choice 1 will turn him into our version of the shrub.

He needs to address it and show respect for the Court. If he does anything but that, he'll enrage gun owners and Constitutionalists and they'll come out in droves for McCain.

Whatever decision he makes, he'll need to stick with it and not flip flop. (remember how that was used in the last couple of elections...). He'd do well to embrace gun owners but if he does, he better not stab them in the back, that's the best way to give control of the House and Senate to the Republicans.

[MyRV9]

18. He'll never get the right-wing gun vote

and steals part of the base from McCain. Choice 3 hands the presidency to McCain. Choice 2 is weak and won't gain him anything. Choice 1 will turn him into our version of the shrub.

His record on gun issues is too well documented to convert McCain's base on that issue alone. He is anti-gun and everyone knows it.

[Boomer 50]

20. yes he is.....

But by showing his respect for the decision of the Court, he'll likely keep some of the lazy voters at home that would have come out (pardon the pun) with guns blazing should he denounce this decision.

[MyRV9]

30. True n/t

[damntexdem]

3. He should get elected president.

There are other senators to deal with these issues.

[SteveM]

9. Yet, he will face this issue and must respond (nt)

[Anexio]

4. Thomas, good post...

Someone in this thread thought that option number 2 was weak. I disagree.

He can say he will abide by the courts decision all he wants but he really doesn't have a choice. Theoretically, the Judaical has just as much power as the Executive, (shut up, I theoretically.), so appearing that the matter is out of his hands it politically the smart move.

I dunno, I guess I want my President to at least act presidential when they are running for office, and clearly, Obama is doing exactly that.

NOTE: Saw him in Jacksonville last week. The crowd was off the hook!

[TPaine7]

5. I think it's weak, but only in the wrong context.

I think Obama should come out more strongly on "controversial" positions. I think he let McCain steal some of his thunder on energy. He also could have tried to rally House Democrats on spying immunity. (He still may make a strong stand in the Senate.) He appeared to let McCain cower him on visiting Iraq.

Heller is big and important--historical. I think I recall Obama dodging detailed Second Amendment comments in part based on a pending SC case. Option 2 is ok--and can even be strong--in a confident candidate who picks his battles. It is weak in a candidate who avoids conflict consistently or whose convictions are not firmly held.

I would really like to see Obama crush Bush in the telecom battle. If you can't defeat Bush with his (dis)approval ratings, just how strong are you? I want to see a no-holds barred defense of the Constitution--straight up and down vote, kill it in committee, filibuster, whatever. I don't really care, just crush him and his accomplices. Then silent acquiescence to Heller would be more palatable.

Just my humble opinion.

[57_TomCat]

24. Remember this...

...If you can't defeat Bush with his (dis)approval ratings, just how strong are you? ...

Remember that Bush's ratings are low but congresses' are lower and Obama is still part of congress at this point.

[TPaine7]

7. If it's part of a general pattern of ducking and compromising...

Obama on FISA: "National Security" Trumps Amnesty
by mcjoan
Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 05:15:24 PM PDT

In a reversal of previous policy statements, from October, 2007 and January, 2008, and again in February, 2008, Barack Obama now says telco amnesty just isn't that important.

Source: http://dailykos.com/ (Search on title)

It's not looking good for the constitutionalists.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. Saw this thread title and

thought maybe Obama had somehow obtained a Delorean and a Mr. Fusion. Thank's a lot.

[TPaine7]

13. You'll be getting a visit soon. That *was* super duper top secret!

[TPaine7]

10. Option 4 is looking better.

The closeness of the vote means that McCain can use the issue, combined with his appointment preferences, as a weapon.

Unless Obama goes with option 4.

I didn't expect the ruling to be so close. The closeness changed the political calculus. Option 4 may be his best option. Sure it will infuriate the anti Second Amendment minority, but they can't exactly vote for McCain and they have a long time to get over their anger.

I now predict option 4, though I suspect his praise may be muted.

[SlipperySlope]

11. 5) Praise the court's decision AND start sponsoring bills to strike existing gun laws.

It is the right thing to do. We shouldn't have our laws polluted with unconstitutional restrictions on our rights.

[TPaine7]

15. I would like to see a full conversion, but

a credible one.

If he convinced me he really believes it I would be overjoyed, but if it comes off as calculated it could backfire.

Turning on a dime can look bad.

[gorfle]

12. #2 is the safest course of action.

I believe he will go with #2. It does not alienate either pro or anti-firearm people. Basically you throw it all on the Supreme Court. Pro-gun people are happy, anti-gun people won't blame him, as they'll blame the (Republican) court. Win-win for Obama.

[TPaine7]

14. 5-4 will keep the issue in play.

[jody]

16. Obama has to recant his former NAY vote on S.397 recognizing the 2nd protected an individual right.

On Passage of the Bill (Passage of S. 397, As Amended

"(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms."

Given Obama's history with the Joyce Foundation, Violence Policy Center, support for handgun bans, and semiautomatic bans, he can expect sound bites like "Obama voted against RKBA until SCOTUS showed him the right view".

[TPaine7]

17. Here is his first cut

Full Text of Obama Statement:

“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.

“As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today’s decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.”

Source: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/candidates-react-to-supreme-courts-gun-ruling/

A kind of hybrid between 2 and 4, more 2 however.

"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms"

Sorry to have to say so, but given his history that line reeks of bullshit.

[jody]

23. I hope Obama does not use that approach. n/t

[TPaine7]

19. Obama has limited dancing space

McCain: Chicago Gun Ban Infringes On Rights
Obama: 'What Works In Chicago May Not Work In Cheyenne'
Gun Rights Ruling May Change Chicago Law
ARLINGTON, Va. (CBS) ― U.S. Sen. John McCain said Thursday that the Supreme Court ruling in favor of gun ownership showed that the Chicago handgun ban has "infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans."

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee called the ruling a "landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States."

"For the first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers," McCain said in a statement.

He criticized Sen. Barack Obama for not signing a bipartisan amicus brief supporting the ruling later issued by the Supreme Court, and singled out the Chicago ban in describing what the ruling should change.

"Today's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans," McCain said in the statement.

He also targeted a campaign comment by Obama that said residents of struggling small towns "get bitter, they cling to their guns or religion."
Source:http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/mccain.handgun.ban.2.757688.html

I hope Obama doesn't find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I really do.

[Wickerman]

21. Obama straddles issue

A but of an overstatement in the headline, I'd say. Seems like thus far he is handling it well. It supports state/community rights to fight local maladies and recognizes the individual right.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CANDIDATES_GUNS?SITE=IADES&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Jun 26, 5:23 PM EDT

McCain backs gun decision, Obama straddles issue

By LIZ SIDOTI
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (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.

--snip--

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."

"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 commonsense, effective safety measures," Obama said.

Obama said his view was supported by the court's ruling that the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns." That language "reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe," Obama said.

---more---

[jody]

25. Obama has a challenge trying to appease pro-gun and anti-gun communities. IMO Heller, such as it was

is pro-gun but Obama's statements "I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through commonsense, effective safety measures" IMO presents a clear either/or solution.

Either government allows law-abiding parents to keep and bear arms to "save their children from the violence that plagues our streets" or government prohibits law-abiding parents from keeping and bearing arms to "save their children from the violence that plagues our streets".

What would Solomon do?

[Wickerman]

26. I think he offers such statements in light of his often stated belief in

local control.

[jody]

27. Local control, i.e. states rights is the position Scalia took in a statement I once read and Thomas

made a similar statement in a side note to an opinion.

Of course I could be wrong. :shrug:

With that background on Scalia and Thomas, I was surprised the Heller opinion was not aggressively pro-states rights.

[Wickerman]

29. I believe you are correct

I know Bush ran for Tex Gov with a strong state rights stance. Funny how he lost that when he got to the Fed.

I always feel a little icky and like I need a bath when I find myself agreeing, at least in principle, with ANYTHING Scalia and Thomas have chimed in on.

[TPaine7]

28. The Framers of the 14th Amendment

Emphatically and unambiguously intended that the individual's Second Amendment rights be enforceable against the states. It was their stated goal.

"Local control," if it means continued defiance of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, cannot stand. The Second will be incorporated, or the Court will avoid the issue or lie.