The Constitution was written to replace the Articles of Confederation – but we tend to forget that the title of those articles included ‘perpetual union.’ The ‘perpetual union’ question was resolved either by a superior Union army during the war between the states or by the Supreme Court in 1869 (in Texas v White, the court ruled that Texas had never left the Union – despite the state’s formal secession).
The founders didn’t keep all of the articles – we have a stronger federal government under the Constitution – and part of the preamble shows the view was ‘to form a more perfect union’. That seems more an unachievable goal as I watch the distance between the two major parties of our political system.
I have taken the Constitution seriously since the first time I took the oath of office – “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” It’s hard to repeat those few words and not understand what you have pledged.
I have watched people pick and choose the parts of the Constitution that they support – from the time I was a little kid, when segregationists chose to ignore the 15th amendment and as late as yesterday when I read another comment about restricting gun availability. My oath was to support and defend the Constitution – all of it. There was no weasel wording in it.
Article 1, Section 2, clause 3 begins with “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.” It says persons, not citizens. Can’t say that I’m in favor of having representatives apportioned by persons – California and New York, with large non-citizen percentages of their populations get more representation than Montana, where most of the residents are citizens. But that oath says I support it as written. I could rewrite the Enumeration clause to my satisfaction – but I doubt if I could convince the nation to pass my amendment. So I support the Constitution – all of it.
In the fifties and sixties, the news showed otherwise patriotic Americans choosing segregation in schools. Some were police officers, some were elected officials – both groups had taken the same oath I did in the seventies. They were picking the parts they supported. The elected gun control supporters somehow have no qualms about infringing on the second amendment. They too have taken that same oath.
So now, in Texas (Jensen v ATF) a district court judge has ruled that parts of the National Firearms Act are unconstitutional. The big, beautiful bill ruled out taxes on short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and silencers, and Judge Hendrix ruled that, since Congress (back in 1934) passed the NFA as a taxation measure, if they aren’t collecting taxes, that part of the act is unconstitutional. Makes sense to me – the full title of the act is: An Act to provide for the taxation of manufacturers, importers, and dealers in certain firearms and machine guns, to tax the sale or other disposal of such weapons, and to restrict importation and regulate interstate transportation thereof. When the title includes the phrase “to provide for taxation” it’s hard to disagree with Judge Hendrix.
Still, I figure that I’ll wait before I get a stock to fit my Thompson Center Contender. I’m not sure that the next couple of levels of courts are going to agree with Judge Hendrix – even if his ruling makes sense to me.
Leave a Reply