Senator Russell Pearce And His Selective Protection for the U.S. Constitution

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for pearce2_lede.jpg
Arizona Senator Russell Pearce
When Arizona Senator Russell Pearce voted in favor of a law prohibiting protests and pickets near funeral services, he called it a "balance of rights," according to Arizona Republic reporter Alia Rau.

Where is that balance of rights when Pearce proposes other laws that impact the rights and freedoms of Arizona residents?

He and other like-minded politicians have successfully abolished training and licensing requirements to carry a concealed weapon. The Constitution, they say, is their license to carry. Now, they want to allow guns on college campuses.



When Governor Jan Brewer signed the funeral protection bill into law on Tuesday, she said that families have the right to grieve without feeling intimidated or harassed.

Lawmakers adopted the law specifically because they didn't want members of the Westboro Baptist Church, based in Topeka, Kansas, to protest too close to the funerals of a 9-year-old girl, federal judge and other victims of suspected shooter Jared Loughner.

The fundamentalist church preaches extreme and hate-filled messages, and keeping them away from the funerals of victims in this high-profile shooting rampage was a politically popular "balancing of rights."

Imagine if Pearce and other had voted against that measure? If they said that they could not even consider it because they stood in "full support" of the First Amendment?

But in Arizona's current political climate, there is no balancing of Second Amendment rights.

Guns on college campuses? Is there any consideration for students who might be intimidated sitting next to a gun-toting classmate? What about the rights of university or college officials to make decisions about creating the best learning environment for their students?

Second Amendment says that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."
  
When Pearce and the rest of Arizona's lawmakers voted on Tuesday to keep protesters 300 feet away from a funeral or burial service, they managed to find a balance by not outright banning protests of funerals, but limiting the protests in time and scope.

It's not the case when it comes to the Second Amendment. How can he and other politicians reconcile the hypocrisy?

They allow the discomfort or intimidation caused by a protester spewing hateful speech to abridge, if even in a small way, the First Amendment, but do not consider the discomfort or intimidation felt by students in a learning environment with guns.

It seems that when it comes to the First Amendment, Pearce stands with the grieving families of those who lost their lives in Saturday's shooting in Tucson. Yet, when it comes to the Second Amendment, Pearce stands with Jared Loughner.
My Voice Nation Help
3 comments
8811081
8811081

The westboro babtist is not a "church", it is a hate group. They are in it for the money and the press. Most of the members of this "church" are attorneys. If any other group showed up at your door, would they get away with this? No! Why do they? Any one can say they are a "church", that is not going to make you a Church! We in this country let a lot pass for "church". This is not about freedom, it is about being human. The hate is a way to make money, by bringing a Lawsuit against people THEY have provoked.

8811081
8811081

The westboro babtist is not a "church", it is a hate group. They are in it for the money and the press. Most of the members of this "church" are attorneys. If any other group showed up at your door, would they get away with this? No! Why do they? Any one can say they are a "church", that is not going to make you a Church! We in this country let a lot pass for "church". This is not about freedom, it is about being human. The hate is a way to make money, by bringing a Lawsuit against people THEY have provoked.

Steve Muratore
Steve Muratore

How, indeed? It occurs to me that Russell Pearce probably felt like he had no choice but to support the Funeral Protection Act. The tide of public opinion clearly overwhelmed any thought any of them, and I know there were some, who would like to have opposed that hastily enacted law.

And frankly, opposing that one could more easily be justified, if for no other reason than there were several thousand Arizonans who showed up to provide an impenetrable buffer zone that Westboro would have faced if they even dared try to fulfill their threat to obstruct Christina Green's funeral.

Now Trending

Phoenix Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Home

Loading...