It depends on if your definition of "rights" is right

During the SCOTUS case, District of Columbia v. Heller, Obama was asked at a debate what he thought about the case. He responded that he thought the court would rule in favor of an individual right but added, "But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right."

I am sorry, did I hear that correctly? State and local Governments have the power to trample over Constitutional rights? What happened to "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."? As a lawyer he should know that federal law has supremacy over state and local and the Constitution over federal.

Let's step back for a minute and make-believe we are in Obama's world, (a scary thought I know) where unalienable rights are not guarantied by law and subject to the whims of lesser courts and lawmakers.

Right to Habeas Corpus:
Lets say a locality in the south decides to restrict the right of Habeas Corpus seeing as it is such a bother to tell blacks why the are in jail.......After all, do you even need a reason to arrest blacks? Isn't their skin color reason enough?

Right to have a lawyer present during questioning:
So expensive to provide a public defender to all the poor people, especially the ones we "know" are guilty. Let's have our city "restrict" public defenders to only those we think could be innocent not those SOBs we know are guilty.

Right against unreasonable search and seizure:
Waiting to get a search warrant hampers the Sheriff's office from busting suspected meth labs. Restrict need for a search warrant in drug related cases.

Right against self-incrimination:
We have ways to make you talk...........

Right to peaceably assemble:
Let's restrict gatherings of over 30 people to social events only so my opponent can't hold rallies.

Right to petition the government for redress of grievances:
"Hey, I am getting tried of people coming into city council taking up our time whining. Let's restrict access to the meetings to only those here to compliment or bribe us."

Freedom of the press:
"Newspapers keep running negative stories on the mayor, from now on all stories must first be approved by the mayor's office before publishing."

Freedom of religion:
"Our town church is now officially the First Baptist Church of Christ. Those not attending Sunday services will be subject to a $500 fine for first offense, 30 days jail for repeat offenders."


I could go on and on but you see what I am getting at: Rights are rights and if lower courts are free to "restrict" them then where does it end and what good is the Constitution? Talk about opening Pandora's Box, the best way to go about destroying the Constitution I have heard in a while.

Or maybe I have funny ideas about the meanings of words like "Unalienable" and phrases like "Shall not be infringed."