BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

New York Times Archive

Saturday

30

August 2014

0

COMMENTS

Risks Come in Many Forms

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Culture & Society, Foreign Affairs & Policy, Gun Rights, Liberty & Limited Government, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

The New York Times editorial board has some sound advice for Great Britain as it worries about the threat of home grown terrorists. It’s a serious problem, and one which the UK has largely invited on itself through a failed experiment in cultural appeasement that has only served to embolden extremism. Be that as it may, NYT editors are right to warn against overreactions that undermine civil rights by concluding that, “scrapping civil liberties should not be the first line of defense in a democracy.”

Terrorists pose a safety risk, and mitigating that risk should be done with respect to civil liberties rather than trampling them. But there are a great many risks in society, and unfortunately the NYT editorial board fails to consistently apply this principle on other issues. They have no problem curtailing rights for the illusion of security when doing so confirms their ideological biases, such as limiting speech in the name of removing money from politics, or scrapping the Second Amendment in the name of reducing violence.

In fact, just a day before sternly warning the Brits against overreacting to their homegrown extremism problem, the very same New York Times editorial board overreacted to a single gun accident caused by the irresponsibility of parents and an instructor that allowed a young girl who couldn’t handle the weapons and its kickback to shoot an Uzi, ultimately resulting in the instructor’s death. Not only did they use the unusual incident to finger wag at defenders of the Second Amendment and note in horror all the various ways in which gun enthusiasts enjoy their hobby, but they also demanded the restriction of rights in response. Citing a similar incident over half a decade ago (giving indication to  how rare these events are) where a young child accidentally killed himself at a gun range, the NYT editors praised his state of Connecticut for reacting by banning access to certain guns even at gun ranges for those under 16, regardless of the level of supervision, precautions taken, or capabilities of the shooter. They then lamented that there will be no “swift action in Arizona, where the gun culture is deeply entrenched.”

Rights are precarious things. They are at their most vulnerable when the populace is scared. The New York Times recognizes this when it comes to foreign threats, but fails to understand that domestic panics over extremely low risks of harm are just as dangerous.

Wednesday

5

January 2011

0

COMMENTS

Constitutional Deference is not Theater

Written by , Posted in Media Bias, Waste & Government Reform

The New York Times sneered yesterday at the apparent deference of the new Republican majority to the Constitution. They did not, mind you, call into question area where Republicans might not be as keen on Constitutional enforcement (the Drug War, for instance), which would have been legitimate. Instead they poo-pooed the whole idea of Constitutional government as “theatrical production.”

The Times complained:

[I]t is far from clear what message is being sent by, for instance, reading aloud the nation’s foundational document. Is this group of Republicans really trying to suggest that they care more deeply about the Constitution than anyone else and will follow it more closely?

In any case, it is a presumptuous and self-righteous act, suggesting that they alone understand the true meaning of a text that the founders wisely left open to generations of reinterpretation.

Someone should offer the New York Times editorial board a basic lesson in Constitutional history.  The document was not “left open to generations of reinterpretation.” It has one and only one interpretation, and that is the right one.  Rather, it is left open to amendment. That’s not reinterpretation, that’s changing the actual document.

There is plenty of room to debate just what is the one, correct interpretation of the Constitution. But the Times is not interested in doing that here, and has instead satisfied itself by sneering at the very idea that it matters at all.  That newly elected Speaker Boehner, just like all Speakers before him, was sworn in today by vowing to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States,” while affirming that he would “bear true faith and allegiance to the same,” must be all part of that theatrical production of which the Times has no use. One wonders anyway what, exactly, the oath is for if the document was intended to be reinterpreted at will by each new generation.

But despite the best effort of the Times, the Constitution will be, I dare hope, center stage once again in all political discussions. New House rules mandating that all legislation cite its Constitutional authority will hopefully force some public discussions about the document, its meaning, and its purpose in maintaining the integrity of our Constitutional Republic.