Constitutional Victory

Coming on heels of the ridiculous decision yesterday in Kennedy vs. Louisiana (not to mention the disaster of Boumediene), today we got a Victory for the Constitution (as written) and individual American citizens.

In their ruling on DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER, the SCOTUS determined (finally) that the Framers of the Constitution did, indeed, intend that Americans have the right INDIVIDUALLY to keep and bear arms.

In his dissent, Justice Stevens wrote that:

the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”

He said such evidence “is nowhere to be found.” [H/T American Thinker]

However, a person of his intelligence should be able to READ.  The 2nd Amendment states “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”  Whenever the Constitution, and the Framers’ writings, refer to a “right of the people”, they invariably describe rights held individually.  Additionally, the last four words provide the evidence Justice Stevens says is lacking: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia wrote:

The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.

Our Constitution was devised by men too familiar with tyranny to allow the Federal government to usurp powers over the People and States which were not expressly granted.  That was the whole point.

For the record, here’s how the decision went:

• Dissenting:  Stevens, Souder, Bader Ginsburg, Breyer
• Majority: Chief Justice Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito

Note that Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito were the dissenters in Kennedy.

Also note that McCain has vowed to nominate (conservative, constructionist-leaning) Justices like Roberts and Alito - whom he helped confirm.

Obama, OTOH, would nominate someone with “the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. [1]“, and with the outlook that “it’s not just the particular issue and how they rule, but it’s their conception of the Court. And part of the role of the Court is that it is going to protect people who may be vulnerable in the political process, the outsider, the minority, those who are vulnerable, those who don’t have a lot of clout.   . . . [S]ometimes we’re only looking at academics or people who’ve been in the [lower] court…people who have life experience and they understand what it means to be on the outside, what it means to have the system not work for them…[2 , 3]“

Hey, Obaman - Harvard LAW grad, and former instructor on Constitutional (of all things) LAW - what about a strong grasp of LAW? Since when is Law about FEELINGS?  YES, JUDGE, I DID RAPE THAT CHILD, BUT I FEEL REALLY BAD ABOUT IT…WHERE’S YOUR EMPATHY FOR MY SITUATION?

Another Victim

A victim of the ligitation jihad, or whatever the appropriate term might be, and of the onslaught of the Politically Correct machine of EU-rabia.

PARIS - Brigitte Bardot was convicted Tuesday of provoking discrimination and racial hatred for writing that Muslims are destroying France.

Which is true, of course.  Witness the recent riots of “youths” outside of Paris, and the Muslim-dominated slums which the gendarme are afraid to enter, and where firefighters are often attacked.  Truth, however, is irrelevant in politics.

A Paris court also handed down a $23,325 fine against the former screen siren and animal rights campaigner. The court also ordered Bardot to pay $1,555 in damages to MRAP.

A leading French anti-racism [uh, what race are Muslims again?] group known as MRAP filed a lawsuit last year over a letter she sent to then-Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy. The remarks were published in her foundation’s quarterly journal.

In the December 2006 letter to Sarkozy, now the president, Bardot said France is “tired of being led by the nose by this population that is destroying us, destroying our country by imposing its acts.”

Bardot, 73, was referring to the Muslim feast of Aid el-Kebir, celebrated by slaughtering sheep.

French anti-racism laws prevent inciting hatred and discrimination on racial or religious or racial grounds. Bardot had been convicted four times previously for inciting racial hatred.

While the basis of Ms. Bardot’s complaint was ANIMAL rights (the slaughtered sheep), so she didn’t mention any of the things I noted above, her assessment - which direction she’s pointing the finger - is still accurate.

Freedom of speech loses more ground, and the band plays on.

Free Drugs for All

I had a discussion about the reasonableness of this subject a few nights ago with a good friend.  He and I are of differing opinions, I may add.

I pointed out the problem that England has seen with their system of socialized medicine (among the other handouts available), citing some of the work of the estimable Theodore Dalrymple.  He countered that he knew of no such ills, and said that I couldn’t base my information on a lone source.  So today, I find a post at Gates of Vienna discussing this same issue.  I don’t intend to continue the disagreement with my friend, but thought it worth posting about.  I should add that the conclusion posited by the cited article had not occurred to me, and at the moment I’m not sure how strongly I agree or disagree, but it IS a point to ponder…that is (for any obtuse who may find their ways to my ramblings), ridding the system of the burdens (elderly, permanently infirm, etc.) is a logical step in the path of progress for a system of healthcare that primarily benefits the aforementioned burdens solely at the expense of the workers who are becoming fewer and fewer - while the impetus for continuing to work (what a person’s EARNED money can actually do for them, as opposed to money or some service simply being GIVEN) also diminishes.

We ARE — and Shall Remain — UNDER GOD!

I regularly receive email messages from the American Center for Law and Justice.  Once again, they are being called on to protect the “under God” inclusion in our Pledge of Allegiance. 

Michael Newdow is once again challenging the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, including the words “one nation under God,” representing the Freedom From Religion Foundation in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Congress.  But more than that, the Freedom From Religion Foundation and other groups are striking at the very heart of America’s foundational beliefs and time-honored traditions.  They will not stop until every public mention of God is stripped from our country.

The Pledge of Allegiance is a core piece of America’s heritage.  It acknowledges that our freedoms as a nation come from God … and it must be preserved.  For the sake of our nation’s future, for the sake of our children and grandchildren, stand with the ACLJ in fighting to protect the Pledge of Allegiance from encroachment by those who would erase the name of God from the public sphere. 

In our brief, we argue that the Pledge and the phrase “one Nation, under God” do not violate the Constitution, saying that the words “simply echo the sentiments found in the Declaration of Independence and recognize the undeniable truth that our freedoms come from God.”  The brief contends:  “These words were placed in the Pledge of Allegiance for the express purpose of reaffirming America’s unique understanding of this truth. The United States is different from nations who recognize no higher authority than the State.” 

“While the First Amendment affords atheists complete freedom to disbelieve,” the brief argues, “it does not compel the federal judiciary to redact religious references in every area of public life in order to suit atheistic sensibilities.”

The brief also cites the fact that the Supreme Court has made numerous proclamations regarding the constitutionality of the Pledge; and in every instance in which the high court or individual Justices have addressed patriotic exercises with religious references – including the Pledge – they have concluded “unequivocally” that those references pose no constitutional problems. 

We contend that, if the lawsuit succeeds, a flood of new litigation will ensue.  The brief says if the Pledge is declared unconstitutional   “. . . it will undoubtedly embolden further challenges to other religious expressions in government venues, including the several religious works of art and various religious inscriptions in the Capitol Complex, as well as the prayer rooms in House and Senate Office buildings.”

I support them.  You should too.

“America needs God more than God needs America. If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a Nation gone under.” - Ronald Reagan

Words of Wisdom

“There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power. So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism—government. Lord Acton said power corrupts. Surely then, if this is true, the more power we give the government the more corrupt it will become. And if we give it the power to confiscate our arms we also give up the ultimate means to combat that corrupt power. In doing so we can only assure that we will eventually be totally subject to it.” —Ronald Reagan

From a comment at Hot Air.  Read more about how the government is trying to tie up YOUR rights here.