Defending Cheney (how'd I get into this position?)

A Washington Post editorial of a few days ago, "Mr. Cheney's Government," puts me in the odd, uncomfortable, and probably unprecedented (for me) position of feeling compelled to defend Dick Cheney. WaPo's editorial board clearly takes exception to Cheney's decision to join the majorities of both houses of Congress in signing an amicus brief in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, on the side of gun rights.

This month Mr. Cheney joined a brief filed by 305 lawmakers in the Supreme Court case over the constitutionality of the District's gun control laws. A federal appeals court struck down the gun ban -- the most far-reaching in the nation -- as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

I suppose "far-reaching" is one way to put it, although "draconian" seems rather more descriptive.

The problem is, Mr. Cheney's position puts him at odds with the administration's official stance in the case.

I wonder if WaPo's editors would have a "problem" with Cheney being at odds with the administration over anything else. Somehow, I doubt it.

Rather than rubber-stamp the lower court decision, Solicitor General Paul D. Clement is arguing that the Second Amendment bestows an individual right but that "protection of individual rights does not render all laws limiting gun ownership automatically invalid."

I wonder if Clement has figured out a way to reconcile that with shall not be infringed, yet. Setting that question aside, though, Heller comes nowhere near challenging "all laws limiting gun ownership"--as noble and worthy a goal as that would be, Heller aims much lower--overturning the total ban of all handguns (and any other firearm in operable condition) in Washington D.C.

Mr. Clement worries that adopting the rationale of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit could invalidate a host of federal gun control laws; he argues for a more flexible approach that would, for example, allow a court to consider public safety concerns when analyzing the constitutionality of a firearms regulation.

"Flexible" in "analyzing the constitutionality" referring, apparently, to the kind of flexibility that allows one to determine the Constitutionality of a law without being tied down to the actual, pesky text of the Constitution.

Mr. Cheney's move appears unprecedented; it is irresponsible, selfish and unnecessary.

I don't pretend to know what motivated Cheney to sign the brief. Perhaps, as War on Guns contends, it's just part of some "Good Cop/Bad Cop" ploy to mollify gun owners who have expressed outrage at Clement's, well . . . outrage. That could be, although I think even that might be giving this administration too much credit for cleverness.

In the end, though, Cheney is the president of the Senate, and is perfectly within his rights to sign on with legislators who disagree with "The Decider's" administration's position. His crime, apparently, was doing so in one of the few instances when the Washington Post's editors agree with the Bush administration.