Monday, July 28, 2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
"ALL men" — not just "citizens," which didn't exist when that was written — are endowed with "certain unalienable rights." Says so right there. "That to secure these rights, Governments [plural and generic, and again, written prior to the creation -- or really any realistic hope thereof -- of ours] are instituted among Men [not just residents of the Colonies], deriving their just powers from the consent of the [respective] governed," with the explicit purpose of protecting those pre-existing rights.
Whether these consenting "Men's" respective governments recognize them or not (or whether our government has the authority to impose them by force on other jurisdictions through the fascistic military-industrial complex with forcibly stolen and inflated taxpayer dollars) is an entirely different matter, but ours is required to recognize them within its jurisdiction as an expressed condition of its creation: "That whenever any [not just ours] Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it." "Ends" being securing these rights for all consensually governed men. To repeat, when within the jurisdiction of our government — which was established with the clear understanding that it would HONOR those rights — "all men" RETAIN those rights.
When the Founders meant "citizen," they said "citizen." They believed -- rightly, I trust we agree -- that rights exist whether the revolution succeeded and their preferred government was formed – whether they were “citizens” -- or not. Rights pre-exist, and are independent of any government. "All men are created equal," endowed with rights, and therefore "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted." The word “citizen” occurs only once in the Declaration (and notably, referring to a different government), with the very first mention in the Constitution (which created our current government) being right up top in Article 1, Section 2, where it stipulates that one simply may not participate in the government (not merely enjoy the people’s inherent liberty – not to be confused with "entitlements," of course – that it's intended to protect) unless one is a citizen. They were perfectly aware of the word, and used it where they meant to. They didn't use "citizen" in, say, the 4th Amendment. If you want it to say "citizen," you must amend the Constitution.
If our government does not declare war (and Dr. Paul gave them a clear opportunity, which they notably declined to take), then there can be no (endless) PRISONERS of (an endless) war. Can't have it both ways. That rules out military processes for dealing with these detainees, leaving us with civil, and habeas corpus must apply, just as it must to the subset of "all men" known as "citizens." To "all men" within our government's jurisdiction. What's so threatening about them having their day in court, anyway? What is it we don’t want to hear? Or perhaps more concerning, what is it our GOVERNMENT doesn't want us to hear?
If one prefers the military process, there is a solution, but it's not to pretend that the "ALL men" precondition to the creation of our government doesn't exist. Because there's always a persecuted whimsical subset of "all men," even of "all citizens" — perhaps even intentionally artificially created — to which any one of us can belong, and that 5 in robes can rule. Or just one in a Texas jester cap, for that matter. If King George unilaterally decides to declare you an "enemy combatant" in a perpetual war, with no access to courts or counsel -- ever -- how will you prove otherwise (as if the burden of proof should actually be on you)? Buh-bye, now...
Personally, I'd prefer not having to cope with figuring out what all those subsets could be at any given time. Best just to adhere to the rule of law. "All men." Either we abide by the Constitution -- and the "mission statement" that underlies it -- or we don't. But then, "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends..."
Anyway, I see and hear admonitions increasing (again) that voting for one or the other major-party candidate (somehow there's never any other "valid" option) is the only way to save this or that right through their anticipated Supreme Court appointments. This is missing the forest for (equivalently important) selective trees.
The sad truth is that the very same justices who got habeas corpus right, got Heller wrong. And the exact same 4 who got Heller right, got habeas wrong. Only Justice Kennedy managed to apply first principles consistently on the two landmark decisions, both of which thus barely upheld clear Constitutional principles by the absolute slimmest of margins. (My thoughts on Heller are here.)
Habeas Corpus Decision
John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, Anthony Kennedy
Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito
Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy
John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter
Until our "leaders" stop learning their reading comprehension skills in government schools -- or until we take George Washington's advice, and eschew political parties and vote only for principle, in which case the "Demoblicans" (I do like that one: it's got "mob" right in it) would be gone right quick -- "We the People" are screwed either way.
The upshot, ironically enough, is that ya might as well vote for principle. And if everyone would...
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Monday, July 7, 2008
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment
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.
The ill-considered, Constitutionally inconsistent, downright nonsensical rantings of the lunatic statists, particularly in the wake of the Supreme Court's Heller decision on the D.C. gun ban, prompted me to collect some of my thoughts on their various hysteri-- er... historical arguments:
** There was no such contemporary thing as firearm registration or licensure at the time of the Revolution. Such infringements on inherent rights would have been considered "unreasonable" restrictions had they even occured to the Founders. Indeed, they would likely have precipitated a revolution.
** The Bill of Rights' exclusive intent was to protect individual rights (considered to be necessary because the States expected the concepts addressed in the 9th and 10th [arguably the one expanded exception, but we'll get to that in a moment] Amendments to be ignored even then), by enumerating merely a few unalienable examples.
** Everywhere else it's used in the BoR (1st, 4th, 9th, 10th), "the people" refers to individuals, not to "the collective." Indeed, the 10th Amendment draws a very clear distinction between government (explicitly broken down even further into federal and state) and "the people." "The people" is most decidedly not "the state."
** "The militia" referred to all able-bodied men & boys, not to government military, the reiteration of whose authority was not the subject of the BoR, anyway (being instead the province of the Constitution proper).
** The subordinate clause concedes that since a free society needs occasional defending to remain so -- perhaps even against its own government, the government now claimed to somehow have a "right" to superior arms -- it's indeed in that society's best interest of securing said freedom that its citizens are not forcibly disarmed for the eventuality that their participation is needed. It's offered, yet unnecessary justification for the expressed right, even for the nominal statist.
** What part of the declarative "shall not be infringed" is unclear to even the public school-trained rational mind?
** A total ban has not improved, e.g., D.C.'s violent crime rate. To attempt to argue that to revert to relatively Constitutional pre-prohibition access would somehow result in worse statistics than ever -- without evidence, no less -- is, to be kind, ineffective.
** Perhaps most significantly, the notion that the 2nd Amendment intends that government's right to arms "shall not be infringed" is simply beyond ludicrous. The BoR addresses limitations on government, not authorizations. Additionally, government is expressly granted only "authority" (again, in the Constitution proper, not the BoR). It does not enjoy "rights," let alone of a "protected" variety. Specific, enumerated (oh, if only...) powers are granted to government by "the people," and any of them may be rescinded through the conveniently provided Amendment process (assuming they are, in fact, legitimately granted in the first place, of course, and not simply commandeered, in which case...). So "shall not be infringed" does not -- CANNOT -- refer to government. Any strained alternate interpretation of the 2nd Amendment turns this intended concept on its head, and leaves its advocate wide open to charges of inconsistent reading comprehension. Or a profound preference for unlimited, unopposable government. Just be honest. That's all I'm asking. Well, it's all I can hope for...
** The 2nd Amendment limits the "allowed" relevant tools to those available contemporary with the Constitution as much as does the 1st Amendment. I.e., no cable news free speech, no internet free speech, no religious freedom for Jehovah's Witness, no on-line assembly, no electronic or on-demand publishing. In fact, no electricity.
Better get your Gutenberg press revved up if you wanna keep pontificatin' there, Keith. And somehow I bet you'd be singing a different tune were King George to declare martial law. I can hope, anyway... (btw, between his Heller tirade and his flip-flop on FISA just because Obama did, late June, 2008 is when Olbermann officially jumped the shark as a self-proclaimed defender of the Constitution)
NH State Constitution: Part First, Article 2-a
All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.
Really. How much clearer can it get?