Quote:
|
Both Courts are using the assumption that if something is not expressly prohibited, then it is permitted.
|
I would disagree that this is what the Covert opinion is saying. I think they took a broad view of the treaty making power and determined that this power had to be superior to the reserved powers to the States or Congress would effectively be unable to sign any treaty. I don't think the Covert opinion is suggesting that treaties can do anything not expressly prohibited.
Quote:
|
As long as the Court (and the Congress) hold to the idea that the government can do whatever it wants, as long as it is not "inconsistent" (that is, the Constitution does not expressly prohibit the action) with the Constitution, then we are at peril.
|
I would agree with the general sentiment that some in the Judicial and Legislative branches hold these ideas and that they are inconsistent with good government; but in the case of the Second Amendment, there is an express prohibition in the Constitution (despite a mighty effort by many legal scholars to read it out of existence).