The Constitutional Rights of Americans: Examining the Gold and Gun Comparisons
In recent discussions, there have been comparisons between the measures taken by Franklin Delano Roosevelt during World War II and the potential for similar actions today. Critics argue that requiring Americans to surrender their guns is unconstitutional and akin to earlier unconstitutional acts, such as FDR's gold seizure. However, a closer examination reveals significant differences in both the legal and constitutional contexts.
Gold Seizure vs. Gun Control: Constitutional Differences
The ability to regulate gold or any form of currency is explicitly outlined in Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution. This clause grants the Congress the power to coin money, regulate the value of foreign coin, and regulate the value of domestic currencies. On the other hand, the right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment, which is a separate and distinct provision. However, some argue that this distinction is merely formal and that the Second Amendment is being misinterpreted in modern times.
Arguments against the Gold/Silver Seizure and Parallel to Gun Control Debate
The gold seizure under FDR's administration, a measure taken during a time of war, is rarely portrayed without controversy. Critics often classify FDR's actions as unconstitutional and even fascist, primarily because it represented a significant infringement on personal property rights. While these arguments may hold some merit, they tend to overlook the specific clauses and historical context of the Constitution that govern these actions.
Provisions and Legal Context
When FDR required Americans to turn in their gold, it was done under the authority of the 1933 Gold Recalibration Act and the Trading With the Enemy Act. A court upheld that such an order could be made by the Secretary of the Treasury, not the President. It was the successful enforcement of the legal framework that allowed the administration to proceed. In this context, it is important to understand that the authority for such actions is not present in relation to gun control.
No Comparable Act or Authority for Gun Seizures
The lack of a comparable act or official charged with regulating gun ownership is a key point. The Second Amendment is a fundamental protection of individual rights, which the government cannot "buy back" or merely bypass through executive order. The right to bear arms is not just a temporary measure but a permanent constitutional right.
Constitutional Guarantees and Natural Rights
It is widely recognized that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental natural right to bear arms, which is inherent to our system of governance. Just as the government cannot regulate gold or property without due process, they cannot force free citizens to surrender their firearms without compensation. The comparison between the gold seizure and gun control is flawed because the nature of the property and the protections afforded under the Constitution are fundamentally different.
The Future of Gun Rights: Compliance and Enforcement
In the event that an unconstitutional law was passed mandating the surrender of firearms, citizens would not comply. If the government tried to enforce it, it would result in massive resistance, possibly leading to civil unrest. The idea that compel an unwilling populace would be met with enforcers and body bags is highly unlikely given the sheer size and diversity of the American citizenry.
Conclusion
While the actions of FDR during World War II are subject to historic scrutiny, any comparison to current debates on gun control must take into account the distinct constitutional underpinnings of the Second Amendment. The unambiguous protection this amendment offers is a critical part of our constitutional framework. The right to bear arms is not merely a right to be restricted or abolished by executive fiat but a fundamental and inherent natural right protected by law.