Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
And in the category of No. Wrong. Bad.
This does not translate into a healthy economy, or even into a long term healthy situation for business; business only thrives when there is a demand for products and services. There is no demand without adequate wages creating the capacity to buy things. It equate literally to killing the goose that lays the golden egg. That is substantively what is profoundly wrong about right wing economic and taxation policies - they are not sustainable, they do not work, they wreck the entire country. They lower all boats, while creating more sinking yachts.
Rights and Religion and History
There were religious leaders who supported slavery because it was included in the Bible. Most of us, except for conservatives in varying degrees (as we saw at CPAC) find slavery unethical and immoral and an unacceptable violation of the rights of human beings.
There were religious leaders who led the Abolitionist movement, just as there are religious leader on the right side of history on this issue. It is the conservative position, religious or otherwise, that is consistently wrong, and which consistently denies rights and liberty, when one looks at history.
There were religious leaders who led the Abolitionist movement, just as there are religious leader on the right side of history on this issue. It is the conservative position, religious or otherwise, that is consistently wrong, and which consistently denies rights and liberty, when one looks at history.
Shame on all of them
Controlling women's bodies is a way of controlling women's lives, of trying to dominate and subordinate them.
They would never allow anything similar to happen to them; we need female autonomy, and gender equality.
It is time for us to end male dominance; it is time to end male misogyny. It is time to force the right to relinquish their attempts to run and ruin women's lives, especially our reproductive rights.
Men are not, generally, the enemy; but these men are the enemy of all of us, other men, women, and children. They are the enemy of the advancement of our society and our economy.
They would never allow anything similar to happen to them; we need female autonomy, and gender equality.
It is time for us to end male dominance; it is time to end male misogyny. It is time to force the right to relinquish their attempts to run and ruin women's lives, especially our reproductive rights.
Men are not, generally, the enemy; but these men are the enemy of all of us, other men, women, and children. They are the enemy of the advancement of our society and our economy.
Monday, March 25, 2013
Proposition 8 - Why is the Supreme Court involved
In hearing various commentary about Proposition 8, one of the consistent questions I hear being asked, and not adroitly answered, is, "Why is the Supreme Court involving itself in (potentially) overturning the will of the people?"
As I said, the asnwers I've heard aren't adroit. One answer which is being given is that it will take years if not decades to bring to bear public opinion to overturn laws like Prop 8 (or a similar law here in Minnesota). That's true, and like anti-sodomy laws, it may in fact take 100 years. It's not morally right that people be denied rights for 100 years while the political process works itself out, but in a nation of laws, letting the "will of the people" decide things sometimes isn't pretty. Consequenntly, this very meanginful point is not, unfortunately, a winning argument.
No, here's the answer so many of you may be unaware of, looking for, denying, or whatever it is you are doing or seeking.
Quite simply, the majority aren't allowed to strip fundamental rights from the minority. Just because the majority gets together and passes a law, it doesn't make it constitutional. If the majority got together and banned criticism of President Obama about his Iraq policy, doesn't mean that law gets to stand.
Prop 8 was struck down because the judge in the case basically said, "You can't show a valid reason for denying people this right, there, furthermore, is not good cause to do so (which is the test when we NEED to limit a right), and so the majority doesn't get to strip these rights."
That's the reason, and it's one of the basic reasons for the Supreme Court, to prevent the legislature (or through direct ballot action - the majority) from improperly stripping rights from people.
In this case, California sought to prevent churches from performing a sacriment they were willing to perform (marraige) for people they approved of marrying (gays and lesbians). They (the majority) ALSO sought to prevent gays and lesbians from excersing a fundamental right (to marry the person of their choice, presumably whom they love) - the majority sought to deny them that right. So Prop 8 intruded on the "free expression" right of the church and upon the right to marry by choice. Their was no good reason to do so, and so the court is asked, rightly, to tell the majoirty they don't get to strip rights from people simply because they are the majority. It's a fundamental check against excess, and without question, Prop 8 is an overstep by the majority. Unless you think a simple majority vote should be allowed to keep you from voting, from speaking out, or from due process, you should be appalled by Prop 8 and you certainly should undertand the reason why SCOTUS is involved. It's their job.
As I said, the asnwers I've heard aren't adroit. One answer which is being given is that it will take years if not decades to bring to bear public opinion to overturn laws like Prop 8 (or a similar law here in Minnesota). That's true, and like anti-sodomy laws, it may in fact take 100 years. It's not morally right that people be denied rights for 100 years while the political process works itself out, but in a nation of laws, letting the "will of the people" decide things sometimes isn't pretty. Consequenntly, this very meanginful point is not, unfortunately, a winning argument.
No, here's the answer so many of you may be unaware of, looking for, denying, or whatever it is you are doing or seeking.
Quite simply, the majority aren't allowed to strip fundamental rights from the minority. Just because the majority gets together and passes a law, it doesn't make it constitutional. If the majority got together and banned criticism of President Obama about his Iraq policy, doesn't mean that law gets to stand.
Prop 8 was struck down because the judge in the case basically said, "You can't show a valid reason for denying people this right, there, furthermore, is not good cause to do so (which is the test when we NEED to limit a right), and so the majority doesn't get to strip these rights."
That's the reason, and it's one of the basic reasons for the Supreme Court, to prevent the legislature (or through direct ballot action - the majority) from improperly stripping rights from people.
In this case, California sought to prevent churches from performing a sacriment they were willing to perform (marraige) for people they approved of marrying (gays and lesbians). They (the majority) ALSO sought to prevent gays and lesbians from excersing a fundamental right (to marry the person of their choice, presumably whom they love) - the majority sought to deny them that right. So Prop 8 intruded on the "free expression" right of the church and upon the right to marry by choice. Their was no good reason to do so, and so the court is asked, rightly, to tell the majoirty they don't get to strip rights from people simply because they are the majority. It's a fundamental check against excess, and without question, Prop 8 is an overstep by the majority. Unless you think a simple majority vote should be allowed to keep you from voting, from speaking out, or from due process, you should be appalled by Prop 8 and you certainly should undertand the reason why SCOTUS is involved. It's their job.
Racism and the Zimmerman family
Racism is when people make negative or derogatory, instead of looking at people as individuals. It is all about disparaging assumptions. Sometimes this is directed at an entire race or gender, other times it is directed as a subset of people in a distinct group.
That is true of many of the assumptions and generalities expressed on the right and especially by some of the more rabid talking heads and bloggers. And now we see it expressed in the Zimmerman family, a continuation of the obvious racism of George Zimmerman's assumption that all black teens were criminals. His brother shares that bias, that prejudice, that ugly assumption about black teen-aged males, missing the key differences, the differences which are not obvious.
Trayvon Martin did not have a criminal record, he did not have a history of violence, he was a good student, he was unarmed and minding his own business on the night he was apparently murdered by George Zimmerman, returning home with a container of ice tea and skittles, harming no one, behaving perfectly legally. Trayvon Martin was as much a victim of this internal hatred and fear inside George Zimmerman, qualities shared by his brother, as he was a victim of gun violence.
People who think this way are incapable of distinguishing anything else about individuals other than those things they assume and believe, that act as filters to their perceptions. Nothing that Trayvon Martin could have done would have changed these assumptions and perceptions and hateful bias that equates all black male teens as the same, as evil and criminal. This is part of the problem with the judgment of men with guns, this is why they are inherently incapable too much of the time in forming valid assessments of when it is appropriate to use lethal force -- they are incapable of seeing clearly, of discerning valid differences between individuals.
It is at the core of the epic failure of our gun culture that relies on flawed individual judgment without the checks, balances and oversight that we have for those in positions of those we authorize to use force, and whom we insure against errors and inequities. It is not that the authority of law enforcement is without error, but rather the difference in accountability and resources for compensation to at least attempt to redress wrongs. Individuals like George Zimmerman feel empowered by firearms to be punitive and coercive, as some sort of authority or superior, to other human beings who are entirely their equals, and over whom they have no such authority and no real superiority.
It explains why George Zimmerman exceeded the directions of the police when forming a neighborhood watch, and why George Zimmerman flouted the instructions of the 911 dispatcher. He didn't want to relinquish his imaginary notion that he could order Trayvon Martin around, that he could try to make himself superior and act as an authority at his expense. When you have to try to boost your own self-image by bossing around a kid, you're a pretty pathetic human being, apparently from an equally hateful right wing family that thinks the same way. It is part of the gun carrying appeal, of the vigilantism appeal. These racists attempt to justify their racism by exaggerating threats, by exaggerating, for example, any misconduct by Trayvon Martin that would not raise much of an eyebrow with them if it was something done by a middle class white kid, male or female.
It makes the claims of not being a racist show all the more clearly why that is so very thoroughly deserved by the brothers Zimmerman. This is why we distrust the judgment of those who carry other than law enforcement, this is why we see those people - mostly men - as being weak, fearful and badly flawed, as being incapable of making the important distinctions, or even to be able to acknowledge that such differences exist and can exist, and as posing a public danger for reacting emotionally rather than rationally. It makes me question as well the impartiality of their father as a judge; certainly this kind of thinking explains, at least partially, the disproportionate number of black males behind bars too.
Here we have the other Zimmerman brother doing the same thing, trying to equate dissimilar conduct and individuals who are only similar in the most superficial characteristics as the same, when they were not the same in any serious, substantive way. It is the epitome of the epic fail of conservatives, of gun culture, of right wing Americans.
From Think Progress: George Zimmerman’s Brother: ‘Black Teens’ Are Killers
en on Mar 25, 2013 at 9:04 am
Since he shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin last year, George
Zimmerman has been trying to convince the public that he was not acting
simply out of racist aggression but because Martin attacked him.
Zimmerman’s brother, Robert Zimmerman Jr, is not helping his cause. On
Saturday, Zimmerman went on a Twitter tirade against “black teens,”
equating the boy killed by his brother with De’Marquise Elkins, the 17-year-old suspect in the murder of a Georgia infant.
As highlighted by Mediaite, Zimmerman tweeted a photo comparison between Elkins and Martin flipping their middle fingers with the caption, “A picture speaks a thousand words…Any questions?”
Zimmerman tweeted the photo at Michael Moore, the NAACP, the NRA, and a Breitbart.com editor. He followed it up with another comparison between the two, tweeting “Teen to West: “Do you want me to shoot your baby?” #TrayvonMartin to #GeorgeZimmerman: You’re gonna die tonight Motherf**ker.”
In case the reason for his comparison of the two young black men was unclear, Zimmerman later tweeted:
Trayvon Martin was unarmed when Zimmerman allegedly followed him and shot him. He had no criminal record. Zimmerman had a history of calling the police to report suspicious black individuals, one as young as 7-9 years old. By his brother’s logic, this frequent suspicion of black people was not due to prejudice but because black people pose a genuine and constant threat to everyone around them.
Zimmerman’s trial is scheduled for June 10.
That is true of many of the assumptions and generalities expressed on the right and especially by some of the more rabid talking heads and bloggers. And now we see it expressed in the Zimmerman family, a continuation of the obvious racism of George Zimmerman's assumption that all black teens were criminals. His brother shares that bias, that prejudice, that ugly assumption about black teen-aged males, missing the key differences, the differences which are not obvious.
Trayvon Martin did not have a criminal record, he did not have a history of violence, he was a good student, he was unarmed and minding his own business on the night he was apparently murdered by George Zimmerman, returning home with a container of ice tea and skittles, harming no one, behaving perfectly legally. Trayvon Martin was as much a victim of this internal hatred and fear inside George Zimmerman, qualities shared by his brother, as he was a victim of gun violence.
People who think this way are incapable of distinguishing anything else about individuals other than those things they assume and believe, that act as filters to their perceptions. Nothing that Trayvon Martin could have done would have changed these assumptions and perceptions and hateful bias that equates all black male teens as the same, as evil and criminal. This is part of the problem with the judgment of men with guns, this is why they are inherently incapable too much of the time in forming valid assessments of when it is appropriate to use lethal force -- they are incapable of seeing clearly, of discerning valid differences between individuals.
It is at the core of the epic failure of our gun culture that relies on flawed individual judgment without the checks, balances and oversight that we have for those in positions of those we authorize to use force, and whom we insure against errors and inequities. It is not that the authority of law enforcement is without error, but rather the difference in accountability and resources for compensation to at least attempt to redress wrongs. Individuals like George Zimmerman feel empowered by firearms to be punitive and coercive, as some sort of authority or superior, to other human beings who are entirely their equals, and over whom they have no such authority and no real superiority.
It explains why George Zimmerman exceeded the directions of the police when forming a neighborhood watch, and why George Zimmerman flouted the instructions of the 911 dispatcher. He didn't want to relinquish his imaginary notion that he could order Trayvon Martin around, that he could try to make himself superior and act as an authority at his expense. When you have to try to boost your own self-image by bossing around a kid, you're a pretty pathetic human being, apparently from an equally hateful right wing family that thinks the same way. It is part of the gun carrying appeal, of the vigilantism appeal. These racists attempt to justify their racism by exaggerating threats, by exaggerating, for example, any misconduct by Trayvon Martin that would not raise much of an eyebrow with them if it was something done by a middle class white kid, male or female.
It makes the claims of not being a racist show all the more clearly why that is so very thoroughly deserved by the brothers Zimmerman. This is why we distrust the judgment of those who carry other than law enforcement, this is why we see those people - mostly men - as being weak, fearful and badly flawed, as being incapable of making the important distinctions, or even to be able to acknowledge that such differences exist and can exist, and as posing a public danger for reacting emotionally rather than rationally. It makes me question as well the impartiality of their father as a judge; certainly this kind of thinking explains, at least partially, the disproportionate number of black males behind bars too.
Here we have the other Zimmerman brother doing the same thing, trying to equate dissimilar conduct and individuals who are only similar in the most superficial characteristics as the same, when they were not the same in any serious, substantive way. It is the epitome of the epic fail of conservatives, of gun culture, of right wing Americans.
From Think Progress: George Zimmerman’s Brother: ‘Black Teens’ Are Killers
en on Mar 25, 2013 at 9:04 am
Since he shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin last year, George
Zimmerman has been trying to convince the public that he was not acting
simply out of racist aggression but because Martin attacked him.
Zimmerman’s brother, Robert Zimmerman Jr, is not helping his cause. On
Saturday, Zimmerman went on a Twitter tirade against “black teens,”
equating the boy killed by his brother with De’Marquise Elkins, the 17-year-old suspect in the murder of a Georgia infant.As highlighted by Mediaite, Zimmerman tweeted a photo comparison between Elkins and Martin flipping their middle fingers with the caption, “A picture speaks a thousand words…Any questions?”
Zimmerman tweeted the photo at Michael Moore, the NAACP, the NRA, and a Breitbart.com editor. He followed it up with another comparison between the two, tweeting “Teen to West: “Do you want me to shoot your baby?” #TrayvonMartin to #GeorgeZimmerman: You’re gonna die tonight Motherf**ker.”
In case the reason for his comparison of the two young black men was unclear, Zimmerman later tweeted:
Robert Zimmerman Jr @rzimmermanjr
.@TheRealPest @michaelskolnik - Lib media shld ask if what these2 black teens did 2 a woman&baby is the reason ppl think blacks mightB risky
33 Retweets 4 favorites
Trayvon Martin was unarmed when Zimmerman allegedly followed him and shot him. He had no criminal record. Zimmerman had a history of calling the police to report suspicious black individuals, one as young as 7-9 years old. By his brother’s logic, this frequent suspicion of black people was not due to prejudice but because black people pose a genuine and constant threat to everyone around them.
Zimmerman’s trial is scheduled for June 10.
The Tea Party boycotts Fox News - you can't make this shit up!
The Tea Party wants to be lied to, they want to avoid anything resembling facts in favor instead of being told the propaganda they WANT to hear, no matter how false it is. So now they're mad at Fox News because the real world is not the same as their silly fact-free fact-averse alternate reality. It's fun to laugh at the Tea Party for their willful ignorance, intentional stupidity (they really work at it) and their utter disconnect from objective reality in favor of a badly flawed, epic fail ideology.
No wonder they are disappearing, going the way of the Dodo bird. The GOP will remain the party of stupid so long as they are welcome, along with the other extremists, conspiracy theorists, and other drek that have no business being part of serious political thought or influence in this country. Send the fringe back into the shadows, where they can seethe in hatred and fear and ugliness!
In the meantime, they prove that fact is stranger than fiction when dealing with the fringe extremists. Ya gotta laugh at them, poor old dears. It reflects the nexus of mean with geriatric dementia.
No wonder they are disappearing, going the way of the Dodo bird. The GOP will remain the party of stupid so long as they are welcome, along with the other extremists, conspiracy theorists, and other drek that have no business being part of serious political thought or influence in this country. Send the fringe back into the shadows, where they can seethe in hatred and fear and ugliness!
In the meantime, they prove that fact is stranger than fiction when dealing with the fringe extremists. Ya gotta laugh at them, poor old dears. It reflects the nexus of mean with geriatric dementia.
GOP = Racism
Why do ANY conservatives tolerate this? It is rampant on right wing blogs, lowering their level of credibility and significance.
The argument for cutting negativity and negative people our of our lives
We all know people who seem to inject negativity into relationships and the very atmosphere of their surroundings, like frightened or angry squid ejecting ink. We don't need to accept that negativity, and in fact should reject it, and if necessary the people for whom it is systemic.
Corporate pollution hurts ALL of us, now and into the future
Corporate polluters foist their production costs onto all of us, without our knowledge or consent, while reaping and keeping the profits for themselves -- mostly for their executives, and to a lesser extent, sometimes (but not always) their investors. We get left holding the bag, they walk away with bags of money -- OUR money. Polluters need to be held accountable, they need to be regulated and well-policed, and they must pay or the costs of their pollution, or to prevent pollution, and to clean up the pollution they have caused to date.
Bad, corrupt politicians like Paul Ryan take money from these corporate polluters, to act against our interests and instead represent the special interests who gave them money.
We need to reject this corruption, we need to reject and punish this failed, corrupt right wing ideology.
Bad, corrupt politicians like Paul Ryan take money from these corporate polluters, to act against our interests and instead represent the special interests who gave them money.
We need to reject this corruption, we need to reject and punish this failed, corrupt right wing ideology.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
We can't afford oil subsidies
We can't afford the cost of ignorance that results from NOT hiring enough good teachers and paying them well. Right wing priorities - corrupt rather than penny wise, and utterly pound foolish.
A strategy that can only work with fact-averse, fact-deficient conservatives.
Lying to mean old white men, and a few crabby old white women; rejected by the majority and the minorities who are part of the larger majority. What you are saying is wrong, and we get that, no matter how you spin it until you're dizzy...and thirsty.
GOP Fiscal responsibility my ass, GOP concern for the deficit and debt, my ass
Yes, we have a spending problem, and yes, we have a revenue problem too --- and it is from Republicans, not Democrats. We will not get out of our current economic woes, or any future economic woes either, by following their economic policies, which are consistently and have been for decades an unmitigated disaster - not unlike the right wing foreign policies. In fact, there are NO right wing policies that have been successful, only crooked failures, and oppressive cultural wars on the wrong side of history. Shame, shame, shame; history will excoriate conservatives for their epic fails and intolerant and illicit conduct. Conservatives CLAIM to be patriots, but their conduct shows they hate democracy, hate minorities and women, hate liberty and the Constitution. If we allow them to dominate any branch of government, they will destroy this country; they're already turning us into a third world nation without a viable middle class, which has ALWAYS resulted in instability and vulnerability in our national security, economically, politically, and militarily.
GOP = Hypocrisy
Michele Bachmann tried to claim that she was concerned about Benghazi when she went off on her rant that made a false accusation against the President, claiming non-existent extravagance. Nice ploy - use one lie to try to excuse another, an unsuccessful bait-and-switch tactic.
Loopy Lindsay, and the sadly deteriorating John McCain and their fact-deficient colleagues made claims of non-existent live-feed video and other nonsense to try to obstruct action in the senate on a variety of confirmations, yet they failed to show up to briefings where they could have had answers to any questions. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz disgraced themselves with their ill-founded accusations, and were handed their collective asses by Hillary Clinton.
I have to give a pass to those who were not serving during the Bush administration, to a degree; they were not in the position of those in Congress who have the benefit of briefings unavailable to the rest of us. But given that demur, I still can't find ANY statement from any of those right wing tin-foil hat wearing extremists currently in Congress that was critical of the Bush administration in ANY way for the MANY MANY far worse attacks on diplomatic missions and other targets between 2001 and 2008.
Which makes this bunch of opportunists the most hypocritical and dishonest bastards wasting tax payer $$$$ on crocodile crock-o'-shit tears and fake outrage in a long, long, long time. Anyone who gave a damn about the security of our diplomatic missions wouldn't drastically cut the funding for that security, the way the tea party thugs and the far right wing crooks did, PERIOD. They don't care, and they have no qualms about trying to exploit the dead bodies of Americans who made the supreme sacrifice.
They should be embarrassed; they should be called out by everyone across the political spectrum. Show me ONE Republican or Tea Partier who has done so - answer, NONE. I'm waiting to see how many more ttimes this crap will be dredged up by these insincere ghouls trying to exploit American deaths - and looking with delight at ridiculing them for further cutting spending on security. I hope the lie sticks in their throats, choking them metaphorically on their words, in a way that no rhetorical Heimlich maneuver can correct. Every Sunday morning current event talk show is a new opportunity for right wing liars to run their mouth without substance or legitimate content. We could wait until the sun turns cold for them tto have the character sufficient to be ashamed.
Loopy Lindsay, and the sadly deteriorating John McCain and their fact-deficient colleagues made claims of non-existent live-feed video and other nonsense to try to obstruct action in the senate on a variety of confirmations, yet they failed to show up to briefings where they could have had answers to any questions. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz disgraced themselves with their ill-founded accusations, and were handed their collective asses by Hillary Clinton.
I have to give a pass to those who were not serving during the Bush administration, to a degree; they were not in the position of those in Congress who have the benefit of briefings unavailable to the rest of us. But given that demur, I still can't find ANY statement from any of those right wing tin-foil hat wearing extremists currently in Congress that was critical of the Bush administration in ANY way for the MANY MANY far worse attacks on diplomatic missions and other targets between 2001 and 2008.
Which makes this bunch of opportunists the most hypocritical and dishonest bastards wasting tax payer $$$$ on crocodile crock-o'-shit tears and fake outrage in a long, long, long time. Anyone who gave a damn about the security of our diplomatic missions wouldn't drastically cut the funding for that security, the way the tea party thugs and the far right wing crooks did, PERIOD. They don't care, and they have no qualms about trying to exploit the dead bodies of Americans who made the supreme sacrifice.
They should be embarrassed; they should be called out by everyone across the political spectrum. Show me ONE Republican or Tea Partier who has done so - answer, NONE. I'm waiting to see how many more ttimes this crap will be dredged up by these insincere ghouls trying to exploit American deaths - and looking with delight at ridiculing them for further cutting spending on security. I hope the lie sticks in their throats, choking them metaphorically on their words, in a way that no rhetorical Heimlich maneuver can correct. Every Sunday morning current event talk show is a new opportunity for right wing liars to run their mouth without substance or legitimate content. We could wait until the sun turns cold for them tto have the character sufficient to be ashamed.
What the Civic right Does and Doesn't do.
The problem with politicising the Second Amendment is that it blinds people to the exact ramifications of this legal principle:
In other words, since the Second Amendment is silent on the topic of personal arms, yet it does specifically mention the militia--one cannot infer that personal uses are covered.
I was discussing this with a "pro-gun" friend when he said "So, this means that Kennesaw, Georgia's requirement that everyone own a gun is constitutional" as the light when on in his head.
Which is correct--the Second Amendment is silent on the topic of personal guns, which means that neither a gun ban, nor a requirement that everyone own a gun would not violate the Constitution. Although, one could argue that the requirement that everyone owned a gun could violate the First Amendment.
Just not the Second.
But, the real significance of the Second Amendment not applying to personal weapons is that any attempt to justify NOT regulating the firearms based on a personal "right to keep and bear arms" is thwarted. Unless, one is using a State Constitution which does mention personal purposes.
Also, as the Heller-McDonald decisions have pointed out, the politicisation of the Second Amendment has made the make-up of the Judiciary an important consideration for elections.
To answer a commonly asked question, if the Miller Decision is still good law, how have the Heller-McDonald decisions affected its status as precedent.
Quite easily answered, despite what you think, the civic right interpretation is not dead, it's just dormant.
All you need is a judge who agrees with me and points out the overwhelming evidence for that interpretation as well as understands Miller and can show why it contradicts the Heller-McDonald decisions. That judge points out the reason that the five justices found that decision "not helpful" is that it completely contradicts what they were doing.
That includes glossing the Cryptic Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. (2 Hump.) 154 (1840) reference at the end of this paragraph from Miller:
"If a topic is not specifically mentioned in a law, one cannot assume that topic is covered by the law."
In other words, since the Second Amendment is silent on the topic of personal arms, yet it does specifically mention the militia--one cannot infer that personal uses are covered.
I was discussing this with a "pro-gun" friend when he said "So, this means that Kennesaw, Georgia's requirement that everyone own a gun is constitutional" as the light when on in his head.
Which is correct--the Second Amendment is silent on the topic of personal guns, which means that neither a gun ban, nor a requirement that everyone own a gun would not violate the Constitution. Although, one could argue that the requirement that everyone owned a gun could violate the First Amendment.
Just not the Second.
But, the real significance of the Second Amendment not applying to personal weapons is that any attempt to justify NOT regulating the firearms based on a personal "right to keep and bear arms" is thwarted. Unless, one is using a State Constitution which does mention personal purposes.
Also, as the Heller-McDonald decisions have pointed out, the politicisation of the Second Amendment has made the make-up of the Judiciary an important consideration for elections.
To answer a commonly asked question, if the Miller Decision is still good law, how have the Heller-McDonald decisions affected its status as precedent.
Quite easily answered, despite what you think, the civic right interpretation is not dead, it's just dormant.
All you need is a judge who agrees with me and points out the overwhelming evidence for that interpretation as well as understands Miller and can show why it contradicts the Heller-McDonald decisions. That judge points out the reason that the five justices found that decision "not helpful" is that it completely contradicts what they were doing.
That includes glossing the Cryptic Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. (2 Hump.) 154 (1840) reference at the end of this paragraph from Miller:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.Aymette says:
To make this view of the case still more clear, we may remark, that the phrase, "bear arms," is used in the Kentucky constitution as well as in our own, and implies, as has already been suggested, their military use. The 28th section of our bill of rights provides, "that no citizen of this State shall be compelled to bear arms, provided he will pay in equivalent, to be ascertained by law." Here we know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th section, which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A man in the pursuit of deer, elk and buffaloes, might carry his rifle every day, for forty years, and, yet, it would never be said of him, that he had borne arms, much less could it be said, that a private citizen bears arms, because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane. So that, with deference, we think the argument of the court in the case referred to, even upon the question it has debated, is defective and inconclusive.Justice McReynolds taught law at Tennesse's Vanderbilt University, I am sure he was quite aware of this reference which has gotten lost in the mix. And what he is saying is that the Second Amendment's use of the phrase to keep and bear arms has a military sense, and no other.
GOP = Epic Fail
Elections have consequences; the consequence of this last election was that Ryan was rejected and the GOP failed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)