dc corrected

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM

See one can apply rhetoric to imply a perceived wrongdoing, and it always helps ones cause if it is pointed out the fallacy in ones opponents previous position. But a close reexamination of the supposed fallacy usually determines a misdefinition in an attempt at logic. Such is the case in the DC gun ban being overturned by the courts. Traditionally conservatives decry judicial activism which may mean different things to different conservatives depending on the sophistication of their understanding of the term. Modern liberals are decrying the ruling saying its a case of judicial activism overturned a local elected bodies laws. Well judicial activism properly defined is overstepping the courts delegated powers to decide the intent of the lawmakers who passed a law - and staying within constitutional bounds. In this case the court properly struck down a legislative bodies laws regarding gun ownership properly citing the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution which prevents government from banning guns. Judicial activism is not defending the Constitution as it was written and properly amended - justices take an oath to do that.