Stunning news from the mind of Brad Johnson: Montana either should have or could have or did secede from the United States in 1939, when the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Miller that the right to own guns was subject to a two-part test: the type of weapon and its connection to a legitimate militia function.
Fortunately, wiser heads than the one possessed by Mr. Johnson did not conclude that day, nor in the intervening 70 years, that the Supreme Court decision invalidated Montana’s entry into the United States. According to a recent letter and legal brief, Secretary of State Johnson thinks we all ought to get ready for secession if the Supreme Court does not rule “correctly” in the upcoming Heller v. Washington D.C case.
Johnson’s letter, submitted to the Washington Times, is an embarrassment to the state. In terms of syntax and logic, it makes so little sense that Johnson comes across as an illiterate hillbilly, holed up with Johnny Reb, still fighting the War of Northern Aggression, desperately clinging to his guns. In the often over-heated and anti-intellectual debate about gun control, Johnson’s argument stands out as a towering monument to logical fallacies and absurd hyperbole.
It’s understandable that Mr. Johnson wants to pander to his base with a largely self-serving, public relations driven reminder that he’s pro-gun. Is it too much to ask that when he does his purely political work on the dime of Montana taxpayers that he construct a logical, well-written argument?
Article by Don Pogreba
Don has written 1332 posts for us. He is an English and debate teacher in Helena, MT. When not writing here or working on debate handbooks, he is writing about educational issues at Prairie Pedagogue.
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
Perhaps the MT SG’s mundane-sounding letter should be a reminder that the ultimate issues of governance are not controlled by an intellectually advanced nuanced understanding of a half-million words of legal briefs (submitted to SCOTUS regarding _DC_v_Heller_ alone), but by a simple visceral choice to cooperate – or not. This nation came into existence not by popular vote nor by elaborate legal constructs, but by a minority who decided to not be subjects of a rights-trampling entity. Be reminded as well that Mr. Johnson is not the only “illiterate hillbilly” currently sharing that sentiment.
There are many more interesting arguments to be made in support of secession. If we can’t become a state, maybe a nation state could be Montana’s destiny.
The Montana constitution does not affect the power of the federal government. If affects the power of the state and local government. While one may have a state constitutional right (such as a right to privacy) it does not mean that the Montana constitution prohibits the federal government from spying on Montana citizens. This is a really stupid letter. If the federal government chooses to regulate guns and the federal constitution does not prohibit it, then guns can be regulated by the federal government.
Absurdity. Absolute absurdity.
“If the federal government chooses to regulate guns and the federal constitution does not prohibit it, then guns can be regulated by the federal government.”
The federal government may NOT choose to regulate guns because the federal constitution explicitly prohibits it, so guns can NOT be regulated by the federal government.
That’s an interesting interpretation of the Constitution, Carl. I assume that your support of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights is equally categorical. So, no regulation of speech at all?
I usually agree with most of what you post here but I have to disagree with this one. It is an interesting argument – regardless of how you feel about Mr. Johnson. It is also an argument echoed by other government officials in at least seven other states.
The question of Federalism VS State rights is still one that gets tossed around a lot and there hasn’t really been a decent solution to the issue.
As far as whether it will effect the Supreme Court’s deliberations on the DC case will only be answered in time..
Moorcat
I find the federalism argument to be one of the least compelling pieces of conservative ideology. They advocate states’ rights when it comes to issues like challenging the ADA and opposing civil rights legislation, but when it comes to fundamental questions of rights, they are strangely silent.
Some of you people are sorry idiots. The intent of the US Constitution is to bind the federal government to preserve it as a servant of the people and to prevent it from becoming a fearful master.
{ 1 trackback }