Don't legislate from the bench, make change

Let me preface my comments by saying I don't own a gun and have never have. This isn't about that as much as the rule of law.

Less than four months ago Justice Sotomayor, in questioning by the Senate hearing to confirm her as a Justice, under oath, said she fully supported the Second Amendment, the right to have and bare arms. Her only exception was if it were prohibited by state law. This comment alone should have disqualified her in my opinion. States' rights don't trump federal law. Federal law trumps state law.

However, in the recent Supreme Court 5-4 decision involving Chicago, she sided with Chicago in banning all guns. Fortunately, the Chicago law was overturned. But how could she in a matter of days change her position on so simple an issue? Fact is, she didn't; she simply lied under oath.

She will likely say, using her logic, that states' rights extend to cities as well. So they can make their own laws contrary to federal law. Here's the problem. If states or cities can invalidate parts of the Constitution; i.e., the Second Amendment, then why not the First Amendment - the right to free speech? You see the slippery slope you're on?

By the way, the Civil War, was fought under similar justification by the South.

If you don't like the law, change it, don't legislate from the bench.

Richard Francke

Bartlett