In a progressive rant unworthy of the man who managed to get Claus von Bülow off the hook, famed Constitutional and criminal law professor Alan Dershowitz asked why “states can’t regulate guns, but they can ban abortions.”
“The Supreme Court has just limited substantially the power of the states to regulate the carrying of guns in public,” Dershowitz wrote in an op-ed for The Hill following the Supreme Court’s Thursday ruling in favor of the Second Amendment. “The justices refused to recognize that different states, or different areas within the states, have different needs with regard to gun control. They have ruled that one size fits all under the Second Amendment.”
“Defenders of this decision will argue that the right to bear arms is explicitly guaranteed by the Second Amendment, whereas there is no explicit reference to abortion in the Constitution,” he continued. “This argument has gone too far.”
SCOTUS delivers historic 6-3 ruling in favor of school choice; massive win for families, religious liberty https://t.co/7M02gyqnBI pic.twitter.com/Ldgk0VahXU
— Conservative News (@BIZPACReview) June 22, 2022
In a claim best described as “disingenuous,” Dershowitz then argued that “limiting language” exists in the Second Amendment.
“The Second Amendment itself has limiting language in the words ‘well-regulated militia,’ strongly suggesting that the states have the power to regulate gun ownership,” he wrote. “Moreover, even though the word ‘abortion’ is not in the Constitution, the Fourth Amendment guarantees the right of the people, including women, to be secure in their persons. At the time of the Framing, the words ‘secure’ described what we today call ‘the right of privacy.'”
What Dershowitz fails to address are the words “Shall not be infringed.”
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” the Second Amendment reads.
And while it does state that a “well regulated Militia” is vital to keep a state free, it does not say the state is to be the one to regulate the militia, nor does it say “shall not be infringed… except when the State wants to stomp all over it.”
Dershowitz also neglects to explain how killing a baby is a private matter.
So, perhaps next question for the astute professor needs to be, “If killing your baby is a private matter, why isn’t shooting your toddler or axing your grandmother?”
‘Thank you, President Trump!’ Reaction pours in over ‘momentous’ SCOTUS ruling on gun rights https://t.co/YtE3YOkHH0 pic.twitter.com/Wks2w8vpVq
— Conservative News (@BIZPACReview) June 24, 2022
The fact is, Dershowitz knows full well that the Tenth Amendment answers his question so simply that even a Harvard Law School professor can grasp it: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
And as Dershowitz himself acknowledged, “the word ‘abortion’ is not in the Constitution.”
But, in case he forgot he wrote it, Twitter users were quick to give him a refresher course on Constitutional law.
“Because there is a clearly stated recognition of a right to own and carry guns in the Constitution,” one user replied. “Stop pretending this is difficult or controversial.”
“There is no right to an abortion,” another said.
“Easy,” stated a third. “Gun rights are specifically called out in the Constitution. The right to murder an unborn child is not. Any further questions?”
Because there is a clearly stated recognition of a right to own and carry guns in the Constitution.
Stop pretending this is difficult or controversial. https://t.co/mh7fLnlC28
— Chad Felix Greene 🏳️🌈 (@chadfelixg) June 23, 2022
There is no right to an abortion.
— Denise (@neeceetx) June 23, 2022
Easy. Gun rights are specifically called out in the Constitution. The right to murder an unborn child is not. Any further questions? https://t.co/LcW9wP2UP5
— Stephen (@Neanderthal55) June 24, 2022
Others were just too disappointed with Dershowitz’s take on the historic SCOTUS decision to pick apart the flaws in his argument.
“Disgusting sickening UnAmerican,” tweeted one user.
Another summed up the op-ed with a brutal, plainly-spoken truth: “You’re better than this, Alan.”
Disgusting sickening UnAmerican https://t.co/b6Qjr7hNqH
— Becca Ray (@BeccaRay91) June 24, 2022
You’re better than this, Alan.
— Plato Spilaio 🇺🇸⚽️ (@socceruppy) June 23, 2022
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
Melissa Fine is the former executive editor of Casino Player, Strictly Slots, and Poker
Digest magazines. She is a UCLA graduate, news junkie, and dedicated Stargate SG-
1 fan. Melissa currently lives with her dog and two cats in a tiny town in the Sierra
Nevada foothills.
- Student suspended, coach father fired after complaining ‘a man shouldn’t be in the women’s locker room’ - October 28, 2022
- ‘Swimming in America is very racist’: Fetterman’s wife is more radical than her Senate-hopeful husband - October 28, 2022
- Dead body of missing Princeton student found on campus with cell phone, despite claims it pinged elsewhere - October 21, 2022
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
