Chas.
http://www.star-telegram.com/245/story/514392.html
Star-Telegram wrote: Working in the best interests of Texans
By TED CRUZ
Special to the Star-Telegram
Last week, columnist Linda Campbell assailed Texas Attorney Greg Abbott for leading 31 states before the U.S. Supreme Court in defense of the Second Amendment. If we stand accused of vigorously protecting the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, we readily plead guilty as charged.
Nonetheless, the Feb. 28 column was wrong on multiple fronts:
As a legal matter, the text of the Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Those words have meaning, and any effort to read them out of the Constitution is profoundly wrong.
The attorney general did not act unilaterally. To the contrary, Abbott assembled a bipartisan coalition of 31 state attorneys general, all of whom agreed that the District of Columbia's draconian laws -- which criminalize the possession of any operable firearm in residents' private homes -- cannot be reconciled with basic constitutional rights.
Campbell seems to believe that the states' only interest in constitutional litigation should be in shifting power from the federal government to the states. Although state control is often preferable to expanded federal authority, she ignores a third option. What about more power for the citizenry? After all, the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the citizens against government, whether state or federal.
Campbell describes states' defending fundamental constitutional rights as a waste of "taxpayer expense." She explains that, in her judgment, doing so is not in the interests of any state. But 31 attorneys general -- Democrats and Republicans, all chosen to represent the interests of their states and their residents -- disagree.
Every lawyer in Texas, and every governmental official, swears an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Thus, as both a state official and a lawyer, the attorney general is faithfully fulfilling his sworn obligation to protect and defend fundamental constitutional rights.
Campbell rather oddly mischaracterizes her conversation with me, asserting that I told her this case's impact on Texans would be "none whatsoever." Nothing could be further from the truth.
I did tell her that no Texas laws would be likely invalidated by the Supreme Court's decision. And I told her I thought there was no chance that the Texas Legislature, at least as currently constituted, would ever vote to adopt a blanket gun ban such as that in Washington, D.C.
But neither statement means that the case doesn't affect Texans.
Every Texan, and every American, has an individual right to keep and bear arms under the plain text and the original understanding of the Constitution. If the Supreme Court reads that right out of the Constitution -- and that is exactly what D.C. wants the high court to do -- every Texan and every American would lose that fundamental right.
Campbell's response was that state legislatures might choose not to violate those rights. Perhaps. But constitutional rights do not exist simply as a hope for leniency from government.
To illustrate the point, I asked Campbell what she would think if her arguments were applied to the First Amendment. Both the First and the Second Amendments appear together at the outset of the Bill of Rights, and both, by their terms, protect the "right of the people." If the First Amendment were read to merely protect "collective" rights -- if every American were unable to assert any individual rights under the First Amendment -- would Campbell happily trust the legislatures to respect the freedoms of speech and the press?
Not surprisingly, she didn't like that idea. I wonder why.
And I also wonder which position best serves the residents of Tarrant County: that of Campbell, who argues that Texas has no business defending the right to bear arms, or that of Abbott, who is leading the fight to protect every Texan's constitutional rights?
READ IT YOURSELF
