Cheney bate

While masterbating over thoughts of Dick Cheney (there has to be a joke there somewhere), Andrew Sullivan completely avoids the gauntlet thrown down by the mighty Instapundit.

We're often told that Congressional efforts to repeal the D.C. gun ban are an affront to D.C. citizens' right to self-rule. (See this post by Andrew Sullivan.) But those efforts are in support of an explicit Constitutional right to keep and bear arms -- and since D.C. isn't a state, there's none of the usual argument about whether the Second Amendment should apply to its efforts or not.

So would a Congressional effort to overturn state bans on gay marriage in support of an unenumerated right to marry constitute a similar affront to local autonomy? I'm just, you know, asking. . . .

Glenn might be asking, but Andrew's just avoiding. . . . .

Glenn has an interesting post. I'm basically against gun control and for gay rights - for much the same reason. Liberty, and all that.

Yeah, liberty and all that . . . . except when it might actually interfere with the plans of his liberal mastahs

it's a disgusting assault on the basic principles of democracy

Yeah, right Sully.

Why not bother reading the constitution some time?

Thank goodness the blogsphere also includes more sane members of the gay brigade (blogade???), like Alphecca's Jeff Soyer who opens up a can of constitutional whup ass on Sully.

I agree that DC residents have no say about the laws passed that govern them. I also think (and liberal Democrat Sullivan doesn't) that those residents should be afforded all the rights granted in our nation's Bill of Rights.

Jeff, then goes on and forces Sullivan, indeed all liberals, to confront the fallacious reasoning that steers their political beliefs.

Let me ask this: Liberals decry the Supreme Court for supposedly deciding the election of 2000. Let's take one of their most dear causes. Should the right to abortion be decided by popular vote? Every poll ever taken suggests that most (the majority) of Americans are against abortion.

Popular vote would change the way we live in dramatic ways. Sometimes we (or they) need the Bill of Rights to ensure that the minority isn't legislated out of existence. Democracy isn't pretty, and our balance of powers as enumerated by the Constitution isn't necessarily perfect, but it has worked well for two plus centuries and I see no reason to change it.

Of course, if he's gonna just brush off Professor Reynolds, its beyond wishful to hope he might actually confront the problems inherent in his own thinking that Jeff so deflty points out.


Thanks to Yellowdog for the original image.