It certainly seemed odd to me, but then I typically don’t read district attorneys’ press releases, and when I do they’re typically about a specific case. Thus, I didn’t want to comment.
I’ve certainly never seen another one in that breathless “woohoo” kind of tone, though.
It’s miserable having to enforce laws that are unjust, unreasonable, and/or unconstitutional. When one takes a job in law enforcement one enforces them though because we know laws have to be enforced to ensure an orderly society, and in a republic there are avenues to change such laws. One doesn’t have to be happy about it, though. When such laws are repealed by any legal means one has the right to be happy about it. I remember the day they repealed the national speed limit. I was quite “woohoo” about it.
Except he’s wrong. He’s throwing out the baby with the bathwater. He’s subverting the will of the Wisconsin legislature by refusing to enforce laws that are constitutional and still have legal force.
In this case, it appears to be more about how miserable it is enforcing laws that one personally dislikes.
That’s a fair read, but it could be parsed that Alito was talking about sensitive government buildings, say jails or courthouses, while the WI statute says:
ANY building that is owned by the government, like a public rest area. It could easily be said that this particular law is too broad to survive constitutional scrutiny.
No. His interpretation of the SCOTUS decision is that these laws are unconstitutional, and he’s avoiding a bunch of future legal challenges (which his office would lose) by doing this. It is his prerogative to do this.
Neither state statutes nor the will of the people over ride Constitutionality.
Like it or not abortion is still illegal in Wisconsin by statute. And like it or not that law cannot be enforced because it was ruled unconstitutional.
Right. Is Mr. Fox subverting the will of the Wisconsin legislature by not putting women in jail for having abortions?
I agree with Jefferson in that it is up to each branch of government to determine the constitutionality of the laws. If there is an error in that judgment, then the other two branches can correct the error.
Other thoughts. Surely the Court must eventually strike down the new Chicago and D.C. laws as they pertain to carrying guns outside the home. Sure, reasonable restrictions, blah blah, but if you are going to agree that people not only have the right to keep arms, but also to bear them, then such “bearing” of arms has to mean more than carrying it from your bedroom to your living room, no?
ETA: Would be like saying that a reasonable restriction on speech could be that you could only speak in your own home.
Either way, Mr. Fox is substituting his dubious interpretation of the law as gospel, which is outside the bounds of his authority.
Yes. Mr. Fox has selected a bunch of laws which have not been ruled unconstitutional, and decided not to enforce them either.
His interpretation has been pulled solely from his ass. Like I said, the full parameters of the 14th Amendment right to bear arms will not be established for quite a long time. All McDonald concluded is that, just like in Heller, Americans can keep handguns in the home. It said nothing about the right to carry concealed weapons, or possess firearms while in a vehicle or in public.
Roe v. Wade wasn’t the final word on abortion. The parameters of that right continue to be determined. The same holds true for McDonald and the right to bear arms.
Somewhere there’s a line between freedom of assembly and public speech, and inciting a riot or sedition. Where that line is has been the subject of numerous court cases. As recently as WW1, people were thrown in prison for publicly opposing the war.
One of the nineteenth century cases that declared that the Bill of Rights didn’t apply to the states was Presser v. Illinois, in which the court upheld the conviction of a man who had organized and led an unsanctioned self-defense group that had publically demonstrated while armed. Now that McDonald v. Chicago has overturned the reasoning of Presser… who knows? One case immediately effected by the McDonald ruling is Nordyke v. King - Wikipedia, concerning blanket bans on all county property.
Ultimately the battleline will be over whether something like “shall issue” will be a nationally recognized right or not.
He has total discretion to prosecute or not. That is within his authority. And see my post about Jefferson. If an official at any level believes that what he is about to do is unconstitutional, should he do it anyways?
But wouldn’t the equivalent be carrying a gun outside your house versus displaying it in a hostile manner?
I mean, how can you “bear” arms, if you can only do it at home, registered with the police, training certificate, with no kids in the house, in the dark, while standing on one foot?
Hey, no argument from me. I’ve always complained that if freedom of assembly had been treated the way the Second Amendment has up until now, there would have been city crowd control ordinances that pre-defined all unauthorized public gatherings as riots. I was pointing out that (1.) as I’ve said before, the Bill of Rights doesn’t confer a boundless libertarian immunity from government, (2) that wherever the Supreme Court is concerned, nothing’s certain, and (3). There would have to be some limits to gun carry. I wouldn’t for example endorse having guns in criminal court rooms. The problem with “reasonable” limits is that some people think banning guns entirely is reasonable. ETA: it comes down to whether laws in conflict with Second Amendment rights are held to “strict scrutiny” or some lesser standard.
He doesn’t believe it’s unconstitutional, because he can read. If he does believe it’s unconstitutional, he’s incompetent.