Category Archives: supreme court

I THINK … Mayor Daley should be made to to write the Second Amendment on a blackboard 100 times, so he gets it.

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley is again showing that the “Chicago Way” is his way only. He will not be dissuaded from the imposition of his edicts by the law, the Supreme Court, the will of the people, American traditions, the U.S. Constitution or common sense.

Following the rejection of the Chicago gun ban on Constitutional grounds, Daley has forced the passage of a series of Draconian regulations that effectively make gun ownership in Chicago a meaningless right. In all probability, most of the new law will be stricken again by the Supreme Court, but only after years of meandering through lower court decisions.

In what can only be described as a fit of civic petulance worthy of any despot, Daley will cause Chicago to endure years of uncertainty, and millions of dollars in legal fees – which the Mayor will gladly dole out to his lawyer friends. In fact, this law is just another form of creative patronage.

It is also another example of Daley’s willingness to add more needless costs on the already reeling city. It should not go without notice that Hizzoner does not mind spending lavishly in pursuit of his personal agenda, even as funding for critical services is evaporating.

And to the central issue, what has all his gun control efforts accomplished? The gang bangers and the crooks remain immune to the Mayor’s laws, killing hundreds of his constituents each year. Virtually ever week some teenager is gunned down by “accident” – the victim of misidentification or a stray round.

In the name of public safety, Daley disarms the innocent for the benefit of the criminals. Perhaps crime control should have priority over gun control. Just maybe, with an armed public, we would have more dead crooks than vulnerable victims.

If a man breaks into a home to rape a woman, and she blows him to his eternal judgment, it seems to me society is the beneficiary. At least it takes some pressure of the judicial docket. I am all for making crime a high risk business.

The Mayor creates criminals out of people who are not – and in the process he sends the innocent to jail while those who commit real crimes roam the streets.

Of course, this makes no difference to the rubber stamp Chicago City Council, which passed his hand scribbled ordinance without so much as a public hearing. In a move a unfathomable hypocrisy, the good alderpersons of Chicago continue to exempt themselves from Daley’s gun restrictions. As part of the government elite, their safety is paramount – and how could Daley get their votes if he did not accede to the worthiness of their exception.

Maybe there was time that the experiment in gun control was warranted as an untested theory. But, after the generational failure of feel good gun laws, Daley loses the benefit of the doubt. He is just wrong in this.

Advertisements

>OBSERVATION: Figures do not lie, but liars figure.

>I was about to give the progressives (nee radical lefties) the benefit of ignorance. However, I have come to the conclusion that their distortions are malicious propaganda mongering. Shakespeare said “a rose is a rose.” For the off-the-chart-liberals, apparently a rose is what ever they choose it to be.

Hot Seat, one of the informal opinion surveys that pop up on my computer screen posed this question after General (nuisance) Wesley Clark demeaned the military hero record of John McCain. “Should John McCain’s war record be an issue in his presidential bid?”

(Let’s pause here. First, in terms of useful information, I personally think these “informal’ [read that unscientific] opinion surveys are akin to newspaper horoscopes, advice to the lovelorn columns and check-out counter newspapers. Worthless. Second, any reader of this blog will know that I am not the most enthusiastic McCain supporter on the planet.)

Having said all that, I was interested to hear (hot) Air America’s gab maestros noting that according to Hot Seat, 57 percent of the nation said the war record was pertinent. It carried a majority in every state except Maine. Apparently “as goes Maine, so goes the nation” is as anachronistic an adage as “two chickens in very pot.” (For the younger readers, no, the latter was not an advertisement for the soup at KFC. They are both ancient political rallying cries.)

The on-air liberal talk show hosts were all a twitter in their opinion that the pseudo poll validated General Clark’s unseemly assault on McCain’s war record and its value to his perspective on the presidency. A cheap shot, to be sure. It never occurred to these wishful thinkers that maybe a lot of those who said “yes” to the online survey thought his experience was relevant and valuable in a positive way. Duh!

Now least you think this is a stretch. It was only last week that these same counterclockwise media spinners were alleging great public opposition to the Supreme Court’s gun ruling by noting that only 23 percent of the public approve of the work of the highest court in the land. This, they proffered, proves that the conservative court if not very well like.

Again, it did not occur to these ethereal radio voices that a lot of the disdain of the Court is from conservatives who do not like a lot old rulings, such as election reform, abortion, affirmative action, etc. I am an example of what I say. My one-time contempt of court has gradually given way to greater respect as the newer justices have restored a strict constructionist, originalist majority. Without qualifying the source of the disdain, the general opinion cited on (hot) Air America is meaningless. Duh!

The left seems particularly conditioned to using statistics like the drunk uses the lamp post – more for support than enlightenment.

>REACT: The Supreme Court was right (part 2)

>

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringe.”
Second Amendment of the United States Constitution


The words look simple enough, but for liberals and conservatvies they might as well be writtin Chinese and German and read by Ugandans.

For liberals, the words “well regulated Militia” jump out like a neon sign. To them, this means the Second Amendment only provides for an organized military force under the authority of the state – the National Guard. Of course. Liberals naturally see government as the essential source of almost any civic services.

Conservaitves tend to focus on the statement, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This means that no law is constitutional that would prevent an individual from owning a gun. Period. I see no articulated exceptions. The right to “keep and bear” shall not even be “infringed” much less taken away.

We have to understand that the Second Amendment was written when personal weapons were almost the full range of armament. I know. There were a few cannons around, but that was it. We did not have bazookas … hand grenades … rocket launchers … fighter jets … and atomic bombs. The new technology, and all the perils personal possession today presents, led to a broad public acceptance of some level of regulation. This is the slippery slope that the right and left wingers slide down in a form of free fall. The words “…shal not be infinged” seems to mean no regulation. Then, how do we rationalize regulations?

Even as a society that revers the Constitution, we are not about to allow our neighbor, sane or not, to store platoon level munitions in his basement. Although growing up, one of my neighbors did have an authentic gatling gun in his yard as a decoration.

Apart from some regulations, the Second Amendment cleary allows ownership, personal possession. We are entitled by Constitutional right to “keep” arms, as in our home, and “bear” them in open display. So, no regulation can deny us ownership. We can regulate in the absense of specific prohibitions, but we cannot use “regulation” as a vehicle to prevent us from keeping and bearing arms.

We know, with great certainty, that the founder’s did not provide for a militia as an alternative to personal gun ownership. It would take a fool, and a great distortion of history, to argue that the founder’s language even implied the creation of the militia as an opportunity to disarm the general public. They considered the gun as much a tool as a weapon. Hunting was not a sport but a from of shopping in the days before Sam’s Club. Guns were an integral part of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” envisioned by the men of Williamsburg.

The liberal position loses out, I believe, because they do not recognize both rights preserved in the Second Amendment. Conseratives see the right to maintian a state standing militia as being separate from the right to personally “keep and bear arms.” Liberals say the militia language trumps the personal right, but nothing in the Amendment seems to support that theory.

Those who argue that the Second Amendment does not confer the right of individual self protection have not studied that founder’s commentaries on this subject.

“No free man shall ever be debarred for the use of arms.”


“Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who do not.”

Thomas Jefferson (pictured with his gun)


They viewed the gun as an essential tool of self protection in a nation were danger lurked in every corner – whether conflicts with native Americans, attacks by wild animals, family feuds and the ever-present criminal class. There is no doubt that the “original intent’ was for every citizen to be able to own and openly carry guns. They did even consider regulations, such as registration, background checks, trigger locks and owner-only hand grips. They belived in an unfettered right to own, wear and use a gun at will. Sure, we have fettered that a bit with regulation, but the fundamental right remains

Contrary to some criticism, the Court did not create new law, but strictly adhered to more limited definition of the terms and the ancient explanations of the signers of the Constitution. Critics cite the 1932 decision as conferring unlimited regulatory rights over guns, including banning and confisction. The current Court can only be accused of “judicial activism” IF you accept the 1932 decision as constitutionally correct. In a sense, the Court is correcting that past error.

It is perfectly legitimate to argue that times have so changed that the Second Amendment must be amended, itself, or abolished. In the past, we changed the Constituion to allow for the income tax (BIG mistake). We changed the Constitution to prohibit the sale of demon run (BIG mistake), and then we passed another amendment to reinstate the individual right to liquor up on Friday night at the local pub (corrected BIG mistake). But, until such time as we the people change the Second Amendment, it stands — and the Court honored its obligation to adhere to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

>REACT: The Supremes … with Guns and Robes.

>The left wing progressives continue to talk like the represent America, or at least that America is coming round to their way of thinking. It has been their trait and fault for a long time. If you had judged the mood of the nation by the statements of liberal politicians, pundits, press and radio personalities, their could not have been a Ronald Reagan, a Newt Gingrich or a Chief Justice Roberts. The so-called progressive Air America would be more than a narrow cast radio network compared to the highly popular conservative talk shows.

This has not been a good week for true believers on the left. Realty has upset their fantasies — again. First and foremost, the Supreme Court threw out a 32-year ban on guns in the District of Columbia – and threw every other local gun ban into the shadow of judicial doubt. They have finally settled the question: Do private citizens have a constitutional right to own guns – albeit with reasonable restriction? For the first time, the high court has affirmed the definition of “well regulated militia” to include the right to personally possess weaponry.

Liberals say “militia” means a government run military, such as the National Guard. The Supreme Court, however, believes that a “militia” can be a locally organized, grassroots outfit which has to rely on their own arms because there is no central procurement authority. In other words, liberals believe that even a “militia” must be a service of government. (No surprise there.) Conservatives, the nation’s founders and the current Supreme Court believe that a “militia’ can be formed even in opposition to the government. (Even by nuns with guns.) The inalienable right to rise up against a tyrannical government requires access to the means. Thus, the right to bear arms. In other words, you do not need the approval of government to form a “militia,” as defined in the Constitution — even a well regulated one.

The liberal gabbers are whining that the new ruling breaks the precedence establish by the 1932 ruling establishing the right to regulate guns, with banning one of the assumptive options. They indignantly argue that precedents are not to be overturned. If that is the case, however, slavery would be legal, 18-year-olds would not be voting, the nation would still be dry and the Dred Scott decision would stand.

In another decision, the liberal members or the Supreme court carried the day by striking down the death penalty for child rapists. Currently, the death penalty is reserved for cases of murder. No death, no death penalty. The justices, at least five of them, were not of a mind expand the traditional death penalty coverage to non-lethal crimes.

The very liberal Barack Obama, however, disagrees with the Court, and favors the expansion of capital punishment to cover child rapists. Obama and John McCain agree on this one. That is because the Court looks at the law and other academic stuff, and the politicians look at public opinion. There is no doubt that the public would support even the most “cruel and unusual” punishments for pedophile rapists. Laws and the Supreme Court are the guardians against unbridled majority rule – the tyranny of the majority, as they say.

On the death penalty issue, Air America is hitting turbulence. They are resorting to parsing and double talk to bridge the conflict between their pleasure with the decision and their unwritten rule to never criticize Obama. I kind of enjoy the verbal squirming.

What is striking terror in the bleeding heart club is the fact that the next president could fill at least three vacancies in his first term – and all three are senior liberals. Should it play out that way, a President Obama could only preserve the ideological balance with three liberal choices. A President McCain, however, could tilt the court further to the conservative strict constructionist viewpoint even with moderate appointments – and he has pledged to follow the Roberts/Alito model. Uh, we’ll see.

The conservatives currently not only have the advantage of majority, but even Air America’s court expert noted that the conservative justices were young and energetic, while some of the older liberal jurists are hardly able to stay conscious through public proceedings.

Three more appointments on the right would create a generational conservative court. It could easily be 25 years before such a “Roberts Court” would give way to a successor.