Don Fotheringham

Mack v U.S. (listed as Prinz v U.S.) is often said to be a landmark case against federal firearms laws. This is hardly a correct representation. The Supreme Court case, Mack v U.S., did not invalidate the Brady Bill, nor is it a Second Amendment issue. It simply re-affirms previous Court decisions to the effect that Congress cannot require a state to administer, finance, or enforce a federal law. It removes the state burden of making federal firearms background checks, and requires the federal government either to do the checks, or to pay the state the cost of doing them.

We must marvel at the foresight of America’s founders. They looked centuries beyond their time and provided ways to save us from the dreadful effects of our own negligence. They gave us the means to correct a remiss Congress, to contain a power-prone president, and to limit an out-of-control Supreme Court. We may not deserve the safety measures handed down to us, but those provisions are clearly spelled out in the Constitution just waiting for us to use them.

From among the many wise provisions of our founders we find one particular safeguard we should welcome like fresh air in a stuffy courtroom. It’s that clause found in Article III, Section 2, providentially written as follows: “...the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

Is a treaty with a foreign country superior to the U.S. Constitution? Some would like you to think so. It’s not a new idea, but it pops up every few years and is about to surface again as President Obama revives a very bad treaty. The measure at hand is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). It was signed almost 20 years ago by President Bush (the elder) and again later by the Clinton administration, but never ratified by the Senate.

America’s founders never intended for the people at large to choose a president, at least not directly. History and experience prove that most people do not do their homework and tend to be influenced by promises of political opportunists. This fact of life was well known by the men who laid the foundation of our country. Having learned from the colonial experience and other models dating back to Europe and Rome, our Founding Fathers were unwilling to leave the choice of president to a poorly informed — or misinformed — general public. Moreover, the creators of our country took great pains to prevent a national, billion dollar popularity contest every four years.

For a brittle old piece of parchment, the U.S. Constitution certainly lives a charmed life. Since the day it was born, the Constitution has been battered by aspiring rulers, demagogues, reformers, collectivists, conceited intellectuals, deluded students, journalists, ambitious presidents, and creative members of the Supreme Court.

Since the terrorist attacks of 9-11, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has challenged the federal government's warrantless surveillance of telephone calls and emails. In this context, the ACLU properly employs the Bill of Rights as a force against federal usurpation. Is this the same ACLU that applies the Bill of Rights against the states in matters of religion, firearms, voting, and due process? It's nice to pick your situation and apply your ethics at random, but when the ACLU goes to court, do they protect your rights or do they help centralize federal power?

History tells the sad story of citizens whose rights were injured by leaders they trusted. For this reason the departments of power in the United States were not given the means of injuring the rights of the people. In making one nation out of thirteen states, our founders knew the danger of consolidated power, and therefore the 1787 Convention was driven by a two-fold objective: The creation of a national government armed with enough power to defend the people, but not enough power to enslave them. The final draft of our Constitution certifies that remarkable accomplishment.