Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Unintended Consequences of the Heller 2nd amendment decision
Possible effects of the case on our political landscape I didn't even consider can be found at the Balkinsation Blog
James Madison, 1787
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
"Political Observations" (1795-04-20); also in Letters and Other Writings of James Madison (1865), Vol. IV, p. 491
Congress, trying to do something about it
A slightly more conservative take on the war: appreciated but not completely agreed with
"Political Observations" (1795-04-20); also in Letters and Other Writings of James Madison (1865), Vol. IV, p. 491
Congress, trying to do something about it
A slightly more conservative take on the war: appreciated but not completely agreed with
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Read and consider
The Ethical Blogger
Great questions and issues. The recent post on the use of Facebook by Syrians to create a new kind of citizenship gives me hope.
Great questions and issues. The recent post on the use of Facebook by Syrians to create a new kind of citizenship gives me hope.
Exercise your right to be dangerous
I should be packing, but I'd rather be writing. And I should be writing about Turner's frontier thesis, but I'd rather write about....
..the news that the Supreme Court will address the question of whether or not the 2nd amendment gives individuals the right to keep handguns at home for private use. Specifically, they will be making a decision on whether it is constitutional for the District of Columbia to outlaw the private ownership of guns.
This came up last month somewhere, but the 2nd Amendment reads:
"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 infringed.
It's clear that the federal government cannot constrain individual states from keeping militias, and hence guns. So the crux of the issue is whether or not individuals have a guaranteed right to own guns.
This case is specifically address the District of Columbia where it has been illegal to own guns since the 1970s. Now, DC is different--it's not a state. And presumably, the prohibition held for that reason.
But the court is willing now to consider it (and it's no coincidence that we have a much more conservative court now that we have in many many years...but that is not the topic I want to address).
Generally, courts have interpreted the 2nd amendment as a collective right rather than an individual one--the right to bear arms is qualified by the first clause in the sentence: "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state".
Does that clause modify the right to bear arms? That's the question. And it's a funny one, because even if it does, most of us can still go to the local sports store and buy a hunting rifle, if not a handgun.
[In fact, by some interpretations, the right is limited to those eligible to be in the militia, which until recently was all able-bodied men from 17 to 45 years of age. So by this odd argument, only men of a certain age and ability have the absolute right to own guns]
As we know, the individual ability to own a gun is controlled, rather than outlawed--types of guns, manners in which we can carry guns, who can own guns, are proscribed, but the ability to own one has not (except in DC) been available to us in some way. But the right of the state to control ownership implies its ability to constrain a right.
Other Constitutional rights are constrained in certain ways--the right to free speech is constrained to a certain extent by whether or not it will harm anyone--we do not, in the classic example, have the right to shout "Fire" in a movie theatre.
Nevertheless, the implications of this decision, which will not come till Spring of 2008, are not clear. Some level of regulation will probably remain. I do not think that background checks or making ownership of guns by convicted felons illegal will end.
Some of you might think that I'm all for banning handguns--they are dangerous, and yes, people with guns kill people. But you know, I'm a qualified textualist. I believe the writers of the Constitution, who were a lot smarter than many in our current administration, meant this as an individual right. In the context of the 1770s and 1780s, state militias were not organized the way they were today. They were made up of men who owned guns. And these men with guns were called upon to oust British imperial rule. Furthermore, by British common law, i.e., non-statutory, non written law, which continued to be followed in the new republic recognized the right of British subjects to possess arms.
The US Constitution grants us inherant rights. Only in a few places does it place limits on those rights. Does not seem to be any reason to limit this right in ways other than how our common sense that tells us that times have changed. And restriction of that right must survive very strict scrutiny.
Yes, private gun ownership is dangerous.
I would argue that my right to free speech, if only I exercise it, is more dangerous.
I want neither constrained.
..the news that the Supreme Court will address the question of whether or not the 2nd amendment gives individuals the right to keep handguns at home for private use. Specifically, they will be making a decision on whether it is constitutional for the District of Columbia to outlaw the private ownership of guns.
This came up last month somewhere, but the 2nd Amendment reads:
"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 infringed.
It's clear that the federal government cannot constrain individual states from keeping militias, and hence guns. So the crux of the issue is whether or not individuals have a guaranteed right to own guns.
This case is specifically address the District of Columbia where it has been illegal to own guns since the 1970s. Now, DC is different--it's not a state. And presumably, the prohibition held for that reason.
But the court is willing now to consider it (and it's no coincidence that we have a much more conservative court now that we have in many many years...but that is not the topic I want to address).
Generally, courts have interpreted the 2nd amendment as a collective right rather than an individual one--the right to bear arms is qualified by the first clause in the sentence: "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state".
Does that clause modify the right to bear arms? That's the question. And it's a funny one, because even if it does, most of us can still go to the local sports store and buy a hunting rifle, if not a handgun.
[In fact, by some interpretations, the right is limited to those eligible to be in the militia, which until recently was all able-bodied men from 17 to 45 years of age. So by this odd argument, only men of a certain age and ability have the absolute right to own guns]
As we know, the individual ability to own a gun is controlled, rather than outlawed--types of guns, manners in which we can carry guns, who can own guns, are proscribed, but the ability to own one has not (except in DC) been available to us in some way. But the right of the state to control ownership implies its ability to constrain a right.
Other Constitutional rights are constrained in certain ways--the right to free speech is constrained to a certain extent by whether or not it will harm anyone--we do not, in the classic example, have the right to shout "Fire" in a movie theatre.
Nevertheless, the implications of this decision, which will not come till Spring of 2008, are not clear. Some level of regulation will probably remain. I do not think that background checks or making ownership of guns by convicted felons illegal will end.
Some of you might think that I'm all for banning handguns--they are dangerous, and yes, people with guns kill people. But you know, I'm a qualified textualist. I believe the writers of the Constitution, who were a lot smarter than many in our current administration, meant this as an individual right. In the context of the 1770s and 1780s, state militias were not organized the way they were today. They were made up of men who owned guns. And these men with guns were called upon to oust British imperial rule. Furthermore, by British common law, i.e., non-statutory, non written law, which continued to be followed in the new republic recognized the right of British subjects to possess arms.
The US Constitution grants us inherant rights. Only in a few places does it place limits on those rights. Does not seem to be any reason to limit this right in ways other than how our common sense that tells us that times have changed. And restriction of that right must survive very strict scrutiny.
Yes, private gun ownership is dangerous.
I would argue that my right to free speech, if only I exercise it, is more dangerous.
I want neither constrained.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Bridging the Barricades
One woman has shocked the genteel bridge world by asserting her right to a political opinion.
I'm impressed by her actions. And I ask myself where and when do we assert our own views? Where do we keep silence? Why are we silent?
Many of us are taught not to disagree with one another - and the topics of religion and politics are made taboo. So, political discussions are often curtailed, particularly at work. But even among friends we can swallow our words in order not to appear uncouth or disagreeable.
So where is the right place to assert your opinion? Is it only in the voting booth? A secret, silent action that makes you one among many citizens?
I often hear that people are "offended" when they see or hear political or religious speech in public places? What is the nature of this offence? Do we feel attacked when someone holds a view that we disagree with? Or is it all in the context? Is religious speach only appropriate in a place of worship, or at home? Should political views only be expounded within spaces where we will not impinge on those who disagree?
Does this have anything to do with our uniquely idea of privacy?
More questions here than statements.
I'm impressed by her actions. And I ask myself where and when do we assert our own views? Where do we keep silence? Why are we silent?
Many of us are taught not to disagree with one another - and the topics of religion and politics are made taboo. So, political discussions are often curtailed, particularly at work. But even among friends we can swallow our words in order not to appear uncouth or disagreeable.
So where is the right place to assert your opinion? Is it only in the voting booth? A secret, silent action that makes you one among many citizens?
I often hear that people are "offended" when they see or hear political or religious speech in public places? What is the nature of this offence? Do we feel attacked when someone holds a view that we disagree with? Or is it all in the context? Is religious speach only appropriate in a place of worship, or at home? Should political views only be expounded within spaces where we will not impinge on those who disagree?
Does this have anything to do with our uniquely idea of privacy?
More questions here than statements.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)