Yesterday, President Obama held a joint press conference with Mexico's President Calderon, during which a Mexican reporter challenged Obama to explain why he doesn't just veto the 2nd amendment in order to stop the murder of Mexicans -- "and not just Mexicans, but Americans as well."  Here's the reporter's  question in full:

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution allows American citizens to carry weapons and this principle is defended.  However, President Calderón has said that this law in Congress–this could actually go against U.S. agents, and this has happened. So, President Obama, in Mexico we have the veto, the power of veto. I don’t know how far you have the ability to veto that law that has been approved. And if you have that responsibility, why don’t you do so, sir? How long are we going to allow Mexicans to be murdered–and not just Mexicans, but now Americans, as well?

The cool, measured professorial tone that Obama is so often criticized for, actually seems to work here in his response, as he explains why we have the 2nd amendment in the first place, and why an American president can't just go changing the Constitution at whim.

So does this mean that gun control legislation is off the table?  Don't count on it.

(h/t Hot Air)

  • Comment Filters
Contributor Comments
Member Comments
Comment Popularity

Comments :

Jaydee_007
Joined
Jul '10
Jaydee_007

 I Beleive him!

But then I also believe in Unicorns, Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, Wind and Solar Power and a Booming Green Economy.

anon_academic
Joined
Aug '10
anon_academic

Seems like the Mexican journalist has no idea how American democracy works, both in the sense that the president is not a dictator and that it's extremely difficult to amend the constitution. I'm not sure how difficult it is to amend the Mexican constitution (probably easier than here, as it is in most places) but I know that they have a much stronger executive than we do. 

TeeJaw
Joined
Nov '10
TeeJaw

Mexico has the strictest gun laws on the earth, and the most heavily armed criminals on earth.  Who thinks that is a good thing?  Why criminals, of course.

Aaron Miller
Joined
May '10
Aaron Miller

Diane Ellis, Ed.:

Provided he can't put such legislation past a Republican House, I couldn't care less.

Pseudodionysius
Joined
Sep '10
Pseudodionysius

If that Mexican reporter isn't careful, he'll be in line for a czar post with the Obama administration.


Joined
Dec '10
Nickolas
anon_academic: Seems like the Mexican journalist has no idea how American democracy works, both in the sense that the president is not a dictator and that it's extremely difficult to amend the constitution.

I think ignorance of how American democracy works is fairly common throughout much of the world. The notion that our president has almost unlimited power is probably common, too.

Mark Wilson
Joined
May '10
Mark Wilson

I think it's quite a development that he acknowledged the Second Amendment is not about hunting, nor contingent on militias: "It does provide for Americans the right to bear arms for their protection, for their safety, for hunting, for a wide range of uses."

It's also unusual that he decided to defend the United States, particularly on a right-wing issue, against criticism originating from a foreign country.  That goes against his instincts.

ManBearPig
Joined
May '10
Ryan Gaines

 What's that bumper sticker say? "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will hav guns"... Yeah, that's it! Welcome to any quasi-socialist country. Criminals have free run of the place in Mexico because they have nobody to fear.

ManBearPig
Joined
May '10
Ryan Gaines

 What does that bumber sticker say, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"... Yeah, that's it. Any country with strict gunlaws gives criminals free run of the joint because they don't have to worry about an armed citizenry.

ManBearPig
Joined
May '10
Ryan Gaines

 bumper... oops. On a side note, I sure am glad I don't have the ambition, education, or intelligence (I may actually be smarter than Obama though) to run for president. I would have asked that guy if he's been to Juarez lately!

show jrb's comment (#11)
Snow Bird
Joined
Feb '11
jrb

President Obama's assertion that, "part of that job is to enforce the laws that are already on the books more effectively" would be more convincing if he and his administration were less selective about performing that duty. Perhaps he would like to explain why his job does not include enforcing laws already on the books pertaining to illegal immigration, voter intimidation, etc, etc.

Diane Ellis, Ed.

Mark Wilson: I think it's quite a development that he acknowledged the Second Amendment is not about hunting, nor contingent on militias: "It does provide for Americans the right to bear arms for their protection, for their safety, for hunting, for a wide range of uses."

It's also unusual that he decided to defend the United States, particularly on a right-wing issue, against criticism originating from a foreign country.  That goes against his instincts. · Mar 4 at 12:33pm

It is unusual.  I want to laud him for it, but my inner skeptic is sure that some sort of clarification is sure to emerge from the WH in a day or two explaining that he didn't really mean things the way they sounded.

Jimmy Carter
Joined
Jul '10
Jimmy Carter

Diane Ellis, Ed.

It is unusual.  I want to laud him for it, but my inner skeptic is sure that some sort of clarification is sure to emerge from the WH in a day or two explaining that he didn't really mean things the way they sounded. · Mar 4 at 1:20pm

Right. Obama is never clear until he says, "Now, let me be clear..." And even then...

Edited on Mar 4, 2011 at 1:28pm
Aaron Miller
Joined
May '10
Aaron Miller

If you ever take Obama at his word, Diane, I'll grab the ice water.

Kervinlee
Joined
May '10
Kervinlee

 Yeah, he believes in the 2nd Amendment, sure he does, yeah, right.

wilber forge
Joined
Oct '10
wilber forge

The question from the Mexican media really means something other than what is being stated here. The Mexican system rules in an incomprehensible fashion to folks in the states.

What is missing here is that when the reply is made, Obama states, The President is bound by the Second Amendment.  He does not speak to it for himself....

It is clear to most by ths point, Obama has not accepted the mantle of Presidency as the rest of the populace know it, or expect of the office holder. 

anon_academic
Joined
Aug '10
anon_academic
Kervinlee:  Yeah, he believes in the 2nd Amendment, sure he does, yeah, right. · Mar 4 at 4:51pm

That depends on what the word "believe" means. As implied by the word "bound," the president seems to be using the verb in the James 2:19 sense of the word -- that is, believe that something exists and is a constraint on one's actions regardless of whether one is happy about it. At the very least the president understands that individual ownership is the current case law of the SCOTUS, though it's debatable whether he thinks this was the correct reading of what Sandy Levinson calls "The Embarrassing Second Amendment." Certainly his SCOTUS appointee (Sotomayor) overcame the legendary liberal respect for precedent and signed on to a McDonald dissent that argued Heller was wrongly decided.

Overall, I rather liked the president's answer. It included a basic lesson in American civics and a reasonable substantive policy (i.e., helping the Mexicans on the gun-running issue to the extent that doing so does not violate the individual rights of US citizens).

John Marzan
Joined
Oct '10
John Marzan

"I believe in the 2nd amendment."

That too, has an expiration date.

Joseph Eagar
Joined
Oct '10
Joseph Eagar

Well.  I for one am all for restricting gun flows into Mexico, including a temporary assault weapons ban until the violence there subsides.  I think its reasonable to enact measures when one of our border nations is having a mini-civil war.

Of course the left is still in power-grab mode, and won't be reasonable at all.  It's infuriating.

Roque Nuevo
Joined
Mar '11
Roque Nuevo

How is the constitution amended in Mexico? Short answer: it isn't. An amendment whatever is added on after ratification. The Constitution itself doesn't change. One huge difference between Mex and US constitutions is that the Mexican one was never ratified. There never was a "we the people" moment for Mexico. It's constitution was framed and voted on buy a closed body of "delegates." the constitution can be changed, or "modified" as they call it here by legislative process too. In practice this has meant at the whim of the president, although today's president lacks the power to get and ordinary de regulation law passed, let alone change the constitution. The Mexican constitution is more a rough draft. If you want to read it you have to get the "updated" edition or it's useless. The supressed parts are indicated, if at all, by elipsis and brackets. They are only interesting for so-called juridical scholars. Obama just pulled a Mickey Mouse civics lesson out of his sleeve. It has nothing to do with his beliefs or intentions. If you want to see what the old bumper sticker, "When guns are out lawed..." looks like in real life, come to Mexico!


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading
Welcome Visitor

Already a Member?
Please Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Join Ricochet today!

Already a Member? Sign In