In the comments of a recent post on attempts to ban guns at polling places, a reader asked what seems like a pretty simple question: How can one ban something that is constitutional?
Here’s the short answer to that: You ban it, let people bitch while they get used to it, and then move on to whatever fundamental, constitutionally protected right you want to assault next.
The longer answer is that you start with cases where ‘common sense’ says that restricting a right is necessary ‘for the common good.’ For example, most people think that convicted felons shouldn’t have guns. So we end up with laws regulating the ‘right’ of ‘law-abiding’ people to keep and bear arms, even though that’s not what the written constitution says.
Increasingly, people think that certain ‘bad’ kinds of speech (disinformation, misinformation, malinformation1, insults, electioneering, certain types of advertising) should be censored. So, we are moving towards laws regulating the ‘right’ to freedom of ‘acceptable’ speech.
Look at how many people are in favor of allowing the police to execute the equivalent of a general warrant during a traffic stop, who support searching passengers in airports, and who aren’t upset at all about the kind of surveillance that Edward Snowden warned us about. We are moving towards the understanding that you can be searched by government agents unless you can provide a compelling reason not to.
And once the camel’s nose is inside the tent, you’re cleared to start shoving the whole animal in there. All it takes is time and persistence.
That’s how you ban something that is constitutional.
Ruth Ward et Rick Ladd removenda est
1 Disinformation is false, and intentionally so. Misinformation is false, but unintentionally so. Malinformation is true, but inconvenient for the people who are currently in power.
