Jim Geraghty has some observations:

It’s easy to wonder whether the candidate who talks about “real change” and pledges a government that will “heal the sick” and “stop the oceans from rising” actually knows how to get big things done – or whether he had the patience. Obama would seem to have the skills and brains to be a legendary community organizer, or state legislator, or U.S. senator. But momentous accomplishments in each of those positions take time, and at each level, Obama hit a wall, and turned his attention to a position of greater power.

This election will be about form (and glamour) over substance.

Jim Geraghty has some observations:

It’s easy to wonder whether the candidate who talks about “real change” and pledges a government that will “heal the sick” and “stop the oceans from rising” actually knows how to get big things done – or whether he had the patience. Obama would seem to have the skills and brains to be a legendary community organizer, or state legislator, or U.S. senator. But momentous accomplishments in each of those positions take time, and at each level, Obama hit a wall, and turned his attention to a position of greater power.

This election will be about form (and glamour) over substance.

I agree with Jonah Goldberg that George Bush did commit an impeachable offense when he signed McCain-Feingold. He took an oath of office to defend and uphold the Constitution, yet when confronted with legislation that he himself declared to be unconstitutional, he signed it anyway, and punted to the Supreme Court which (as has been the case much of late, though fortunately not yesterday) flubbed it as well. I wish that someone, like Karl Rove, had said, “You know, Mr. President, that’s a violation of your oath of office. It’s an impeachable offense.” But Karl Rove was never going to do that–the bill was perceived to be too popular.

I don’t think that he should have been removed from office for it, but he should have been impeached. It might have wonderfully concentrated his mind for future signings. And that of future presidents as well.

Of course, that was never going to happen, because the grounds of impeachment would have been that he signed an unconstitutional bill that Congress had passed, so why would they complain? It would have required that the Congress itself take the Constitution seriously, something that, as Jonah points out, hasn’t happened in decades. And of course, if they did, they never would have passed the abominable legislation in the first place and given the president an opportunity to violate his oath of office.

[Update a few minutes later]

Here’s a useful follow-up post on how disastrous the 17th Amendment has been:

The reason why Congress debated whether proposed legislation violated the U.S. Constitution in the 19th century is that U.S. Senators were elected by the state legislatures at that time. The U.S. Senate was a check on the power of the federal government by giving the states as a group a collective veto over proposed federal action. Any time a state governor or a powerful state legislator was unhappy about the federal government trampling on the prerogatives of a state, they could call their man in Washington and have him do something about this problem. A U.S. Senator knew he had to keep the governor and majority leaders in his state legislature happy or he was out of office. This meant keeping the federal government small and not going beyond the enumerated powers listed out in the U.S. Constitution. Also, it meant being able to explain the constitutionality of proposed legislation to a small number of very sophisticated constituents back home at the various state capitals.

The tragedy of the Civil War was that, in order to rectify the (perhaps unavoidable at the time) toxic nature of the founding, and grant universal freedom, it ended up significantly enhancing the power of the central government far beyond what the Founders ever envisioned.

…but are Supreme Court justices entitled to their own facts?

The call for impeachment in comments is a little harsh, but shouldn’t there at least be a call for extreme embarrassment and apology? I mean, this was a fundamental plank in the foundation of the dissent, and none of the justices, or their clerks, caught it?

It makes one wonder how unfactually based many of their other opinions are. And it really emphasizes that “opinions” are all they are, which is a pretty sad commentary on the state of the SCOTUS. Unfortunately, an Obama would appoint more just like them.

[Update a few minutes later]

Jim Lindgren writes that Breyer’s dissent is self refuting.

If you’re waiting for me to be surprised, don’t hold your breath. This court is an embarrassment. Or at least a minority of it is.

…but are Supreme Court justices entitled to their own facts?

The call for impeachment in comments is a little harsh, but shouldn’t there at least be a call for extreme embarrassment and apology? I mean, this was a fundamental plank in the foundation of the dissent, and none of the justices, or their clerks, caught it?

It makes one wonder how unfactually based many of their other opinions are. And it really emphasizes that “opinions” are all they are, which is a pretty sad commentary on the state of the SCOTUS. Unfortunately, an Obama would appoint more just like them.

[Update a few minutes later]

Jim Lindgren writes that Breyer’s dissent is self refuting.

If you’re waiting for me to be surprised, don’t hold your breath. This court is an embarrassment. Or at least a minority of it is.

…begins.

I explained to Chief McCann my history as a freedom activist. Notably, my role in helping defeat the Communication Decency Act back in 1996.

I told him that I had been intending to speak with him for several weeks, to inform him that I intend to begin exercising my right to open carry of a firearm (quite legal in Pennsylvania and in most other states as well). I explained that I thought it best he and the local police knew of this in advance in order to avoid any unfortunate misunderstandings. See opencarry.org for background on this fast-growing form of civil-rights activism.

I also told him that, in the wake of the Heller ruling, I intend at some future point to deliberately violate the Pennsylvania state law forbidding concealed carry without a state-issued permit. The Heller ruling does not enumerate those among permissible restrictions, and I would be happy to be PA’s test case on this point. As a citizen of the United States (I explained) I believe I have not only the right but the affirmative duty to challenge unjust and unconstitutional laws; and that since the founders of the U.S. pledged their lives and fortunes and sacred honor to sign the Declaration of Independence, merely risking imprisonment to challenge this law seems to me no more than my duty.

And by a tested and true freedom fighter.

I haven’t read the dissents on this morning’s ruling (and don’t know if or when I will, given time constraints), but is it possible that the majority isn’t as narrow as it looks? Four justices ruled that the DC ban was Constitutional, but they didn’t necessarily do so on the basis that the right to keep and bear isn’t individual. For instance, as Ed Whelan notes:

Stevens doesn’t dispute that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, but he finds the scope of that right limited to using weapons for certain military purposes. He argues that the text of the Second Amendment (5-17), its drafting history (17-27), and the Court’s precedents–especially its 1939 ruling in United States v. Miller (42-45)–support his reading.

Breyer argues that even if the Second Amendment does protect a right of personal self-defense, D.C.’s law is constitutional because the burdens it imposes are not disproportionate in light of the law’s legitimate objectives. (That sure sounds like a meaningful test, doesn’t it?)

So now we have at least six justices who agree that it is an individual right (Whelan doesn’t say what Breyer’s opinion on that score is, since Breyer doesn’t accept that the ban would be Constitutional under that interpretation). And since Ginsburg and Souter joined the Stevens dissent, and didn’t write one of their own disputing the individual right interpretation, doesn’t it really make it at least eight to one?

I think that it’s going to be pretty untenable at this point to argue that the right is a collective one in light of both the ruling and the dissents.

[Evening update]

Dale Carpenter agrees with me, and confirms that the acknowledgment of it as an individual right was in fact unanimous:

Chief Justice Roberts came in with the hope of producing more unanimous decisions from the Court. While today’s decision was 5-4, it was actually unanimous on one point: there is an individual right protected by the Second Amendment. The split came over the important question of the scope of the right and whether the D.C. law itself was constitutional, but the underlying individual-right theory prevailed over a collective- or states-right interpretation that would give no single person the ability to challenge any type of arms regulation. Thus, an idea that not so long ago seemed radical and even frivolous to many academics and judges now has the assent of all of the Justices, representing a wide range of views about constitutional law and theory.

Emphasis mine. It was a huge victory when Bellesilles’ propaganda was shown to be fraudulent. I think that it was the beginning of the end for the nonsensical notion that the right only applied to members of the National Guard, partly because the proponents had so overreached with his nonsense about few people having or using guns in colonial times. He has a lot of other good comments about the ruling as well.