The Vice of Extremism in the Defense of Inarticulately Understood Liberty

The Vice of Extremism in the Defense of Inarticulately Understood Liberty

©2019  Ross Williams

This just in, maybe: President Donnie Combover today signed an Executive Order prohibiting garishly-colored iPhone cases.  Included in this ban are any iPhone cases which have a pattern, repeating or random, or having more than one color, or which give the appearance of being multi-colored.  The only iPhone cases allowed under this will be various shades of gray.  The ACLU has vowed to seek an injunction based on 1stAM free speech grounds.

…insert an interceding paragraph solely for the purpose of allowing the foregoing to sink in…

Any libertarian who employs intellect over emotion can tell you this is not a First Amendment issue.  An iPhone case is not free speech.  It being disallowed does not materially interfere with one’s exercise of Free Speech, even if an iPhone is the only means by which one can think to exercise it.  The libertarian would argue that the ACLU doesn’t understand the Constitution as well as they like to think they do.

But that same libertarian would also argue that the federal government still has no legitimate authority to regulate iPhone cases even if it isn’t a 1stAM free speech issue.  The body of the Constitution gives the government zero authority to do this, therefore the government may not − no matter how it tries to: ExOrd, Act of Congress, judicial decree… anything.

iPhone cases are not the government’s purview.  Period.  A libertarian would argue that the Constitution, legitimately enforced and upheld, would disallow this imposition despite it having nothing to do with the 1stAM.

This also just in [sorta]: President Cheeto announced a new federal regulation banning bump stocks and any other device which harnesses the energy of a long-barrel recoil to activate the trigger faster.  The NRA vows legal action over its 2ndAM implications.

…another interceding paragraph solely for the purpose of allowing the foregoing to sink in…

…let’s make it two, because for some reason this is not something that sinks in very quickly among certain people…

The libertarian who employs intellect over emotion can tell you this is not a Second Amendment issue any more than banning iPhone cases is a First Amendment thing.  A bump stock is not a gun, nor is it any other ‘arm’.  It is an accessory to an ‘arm’, just as a gorilla-hide shoulder strap would be, or a rhino-horn pistol grip, … or as a tiger-stripe iPhone case is an accessory to an iPhone.

A bump stock being banned does not materially interfere with one’s exercise of the 2ndAM, even if a long-barrel semi-auto is the only means by which one can think of to exercise the 2ndAM.  The libertarian would argue that the NRA − and all “libertarians” bawling about the 2ndAM − do not understand the Constitution as well as they like to think they do.

This thought-over-feelz libertarian would nevertheless argue, instead, just as with the iPhone case ban, that the federal government has no legitimate authority to regulate bump stocks even if it doesn’t fall under the 2ndAM.  It is also a body-of-the-Constitution matter.  Bump stock are not the government’s purview, and the Constitution, legitimately enforced and upheld, would disallow this imposition despite it having nothing to do with the 2ndAM.

But where does that leave us?

Anyone arguing that banning rainbow-colored iPhone cases is a 1stAM free speech matter and not that it exceeds baseline government authority makes a mockery of Constitutional Law.   Proponents of iPhonse case bans will be quick to point it out.  If free speech is the only constitutional argument made against the ban, it would surely lose.  For two reasons:
1] one branch of government is rarely likely to interfere with another branch of government’s attempt to hoover more power for itself despite limitations on those powers, because it will want quid pro quo in the future, and
2] courts are even more rarely likely to offer alternative [and proper] Constitutional argument on their own and in place of the moronic Constitutional argument because doing so would interfere with power-hoovering [see #1 immediately above].

This is the nature of government.  Of all government.

It is incumbent to make proper and appropriate Constitutional argument against the government seizing power it wasn’t given.  Inept constitutional argument gets dismissed by all but issue-driven acolytes as the inarticulate, anti-intellectual flailing it is. 

Do we not realize that equivocating a firearm accessory into a firearm itself is an inept constitutional argument demanding to be dismissed by everyone else as idiotic rationalization?  Those who would deny Americans their 2ndAM gun rights do.

The real issue is that the government − because of the nature of government − seeks to increase its own power irrespective of limitations on that power, or the rules it must follow.  Our government ignores the body-of-the-Constitution limitations on its power just as easily as it does the inviolable Bill of Rights assertion of peoples’ rights.  Why make it easier by arguing the wrong thing when the government exceeds its power?

The government was not given the authority to ban iPhone cases.  If and when it does, it’s not a 1stAM matter.  It’s a body-of-the-Constitution matter; argue it as such.  Arguing it as a 1stAM free speech issue is begging to have your ass be laughed out of court.

The government was not given the authority to ban bump stocks.  When it did, it was not a 2ndAM issue.  It was a body-of-the-Constitution matter; it needs to be argued as such.  Arguing it as a gun rights issue is demanding to be dismissed as one-dimensional crackpottery.

Dig it: banning an item tangential to guns can be anti-constitutional for reasons other than the 2ndAM.  Let’s pretend we’ve read the whole Constitution.