It has been a core principle of law in this country, under English law and dating back to at least the times of the Romans that ignorance of the law is no excuse. The legal maxim is sometimes referred to as “Ignorantia juris non excusat“.
On Tuesday, January 10, 2023, Tennessee’s legislators will be sworn in to the One Hundred Thirteenth General Assembly. Each of those legislators will take an oath of office. For legislators, the oath is set forth in Article X, Section 2. It provides:
Each member of the Senate and House of Representatives, shall before they proceed to business take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of this state, and of the United States and also the following oath: I______ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that as a member of this General Assembly, I will, in all appointments, vote without favor, affection, partiality, or prejudice; and that I will not propose or assent to any bill, vote or resolution, which shall appear to me injurious to the people, or consent to any act or thing, whatever, that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared by the Constitution of this state.
TN Constitution, Article X, Section 2
Indeed, the requirement that members of the Legislature take such an oath has been a requirement since Tennessee first became a state. It was found in the state’s constitution of 1796:
Section 2nd That each member of the senate and house of representatives shall, before they proceed to business, take an oath or affirmation to support the constitution of this State, and also the following oath:
“I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm that, as a member of this general assembly, I will in all appointments vote without favor, affection, partiality, or prejudice, and that I will not propose or assent to any bill, vote, or resolution which shall appear to me injurious to the people, or consent to any act or thing whatever that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared by the constitution of this State.’
Tennessee Constitution of 1796, Article 9, Section 2
In Tennessee, the requirement to take an oath of office applies to anyone holding a public office – whether elected or appointed:
Every person who shall be chosen or appointed to any office of trust or profit under this Constitution, or any law made in pursuance thereof, shall, before entering on the duties thereof, take an oath to support the Constitution of this State, and of the United States, and an oath of office.
Tennessee Constitution, Article X Section 1
As Justice Thomas discussed in June 2022 when he wrote the majority opinion in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen essentially said that if the right as protected by the Second Amendment was not regulated as shown by a national historical tradition as of 1791 (or in some instances in 1876) then it probably can’t be regulated constitutionally today.
When viewed in light of the Second Amendment particularly as that constitutional provision has been discussed by the United States Supreme Court in Heller (2008), McDonald (2010) and now Bruen (2022), there is little doubt that many existing Tennessee laws including its permitting laws, its prohibitions on certain individuals based on things like prior DUI convictions, and its overwhelming gun free zones fail to have any link to any national historical tradition that would render them even arguably constitutional.
Laws such as the 2021 permitless carry law were likely unconstitutional on their face when proposed. Others, which have been on the books for decades if not centuries, are unconstitutional but calls to repeal them have been ignored.
The legal maxium of “ignorance of the law” can easily been restated as “ignorance of the constitution is no excuse” when it comes to asking former and also newly elected legislative officials why they continue to tolerate the existence of unconstitutional infringements on the rights protected by the 2nd Amendment from any governmental infringements.
So if its not ignorance, is it political correctness? Is it an unwillingness to stand up to the administration? Is it fear of the news media? Is it a willingness to violate our constitutionally protected civil rights until the Supreme Court specifically rules on each statute? Or is it simply good ol’ “King George” tyranny?
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.