For instance, the city of Washington, D.C. said a man could carry a gun to protect other people’s property, but couldn’t to protect his own life and home. it may not have been “restrained” for the S.C. to uphold the man’s second amendment rights, but ti was the right thing to do.
And likewise, it might not have been “restrained” to prevent the enhancement of a person’s sentence based on facts that were not found beyond a reasonable doubt, but i think that was right, too.
And it won’t be restrained if the S.C. strikes down Obamacare, but the alternative is to remove every restraint the constitution places on congressional power.
One Comment
i don’t get why “restraint” is such a good thing.
For instance, the city of Washington, D.C. said a man could carry a gun to protect other people’s property, but couldn’t to protect his own life and home. it may not have been “restrained” for the S.C. to uphold the man’s second amendment rights, but ti was the right thing to do.
And likewise, it might not have been “restrained” to prevent the enhancement of a person’s sentence based on facts that were not found beyond a reasonable doubt, but i think that was right, too.
And it won’t be restrained if the S.C. strikes down Obamacare, but the alternative is to remove every restraint the constitution places on congressional power.