UPDATED: Scalia to City: Drop Dead
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
UPDATED: Scalia to City: Drop Dead
In dissent, Justice John Paul 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."
When did a silly thing like evidence ever matter?
UPDATE: From Slate's Dahlia Lithwick:
But I must first pass along this rather brilliant observation from professor Stephen Wermiel from American University, who wonders why none of the dissenters cautioned the majority that today's decision "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." (Boumediene, Scalia, J. dissenting.)
Comments (124)
Comment removed.
If I had choice, I'd pick Kennedy's good decision over this bad one -- sigh. We focus so much attention on the president but is anyone in this country more powerful right now than Anthony Kennedy?— will
Those who pretend to respect the Constitution are having fits right now, but it doesn't really matter what they think at this point. We are allowed to keep and bear arms as the 2nd Amendment says, and has always said. Now the left just needs to get off of everyone's back. It is also evident that Anthony Kennedy is the most powerful person in America at this point. Thank goodness Kennedy had a moment of clarity after flipping his lid on the terrorist and rapist decisions.— jmc- Most powerful person is clearly Shawn Chacon. At least for today.— shoeshineboy
- Stevens is engaging in hyperbole in that passage. The majority opinion allows for reasonable regulation of weapons. It just doesn't allow outright bans.— Politburo
- Liberals were wrapping themselves in the constitution only a few days ago. I guess that was just a fad? ---- Obama's reversal on this was hilarious, btw. Just today he reversed himself from a Chicago Tribune interview he gave a year ago saying the ban was constitutional. So FISA, public financing and the DC gun ban so far. What else will he do a 180 on?)— bon
- Comment removed.
- Good on the SCOTUS for finally confirming the obvious, and to Justice Kennedy for a rare lucid moment. The tragedy here is that we still have four justices who seem to make up the Constitution as they go along. Let the tears of the anti-gun extremists and their sock puppets in the media start flowing..— JC Denton
- Comment removed.
- LJL: Jefferson's revolutionary spirit helped the push for independence like almost no one else, but he often got a bit too overzealous for me. He saw the French Revolution as a glorious affirmation of the human spirit while I see it as a tragedy that brought out the worst in human nature. Still, I agree with you that it is pretty clear what the framers intended, especially given Jefferson's opinion of organized government. :)— bon
- I am for a certain level of restrictions on guns. I thing guns should be licensed, there should be a restriction on the types of guns people buy (machine guns), and gun owners should be required to notify the police when their guns are stolen. I used to a pretty big proponent of banning firearms outright, but I've done a 180 on that. I support gun ownership, but I think those clowns in the NRA go way too far.— Captain Awesome
- Comment removed.
- "Imagine..following the Constitution instead of making rules up." ---- Yes thank god for justices like Scalia.. he'd never make anything up, like a 1:1 limit on punitive damages. Oh.— Politburo
- Comment removed.
Hey, Will. Here's a quarter...go buy a spine. You fat weasel.- Comment removed.
- Why the "Scalia to city: drop dead" comment? Should Scalia only consider the problems of inner cities in his ruling? I realize this is difficult for leftists to accept but Philly will have to solve its own problems.— E Plebnista
- Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas." Spoken like a true liberal. And now, a question for the good justice: what are we supposed to do, call 911 and hope help arrives before the criminal completes his rape/robbery/assault? Like I said, spoken like a true liberal: the goal is to make things as easy as possible for the criminal. And now a question for the voters: do you really want to trust Barack Obama and his merry band of Bolsheviks with the Supreme Court? Think about it, hard, very hard!— George Tomezsko
- Comment removed.
- "what is the Constitution's position on punitive damages?" None, therefore it is controlled by the Legislature. The Congress had set no limit on damages. The 1:1 limit is a made-up rule.— Politburo
- This decision seems in line with the constitution- I guess we just let it get rather old, but hey the Magna Charta is still in museums. For as much as conservatives fear Obama choosing one or two new Justices, most liberals really fear McCain having the same power. McCain claimed last week's 5-4 decision to allow basic legal rights to detainees was "the worst decision ever by a court". Again the Second Amendment is hard to argue against, no matter how liberal you are, but wouldn't the four conservative Justices' opinion on the detainees be considered "activist jurisprudence"??? Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts want the right to detain people, indefinitely, without evidence and without charges. Jefferson would say- take your legal guns and overthrow this extraordinarily corrupt administration and their henchmen in the court! (That's why McCain scares me.)— pagoda
- "If I had choice, I'd pick Kennedy's good decision over this bad one -- sigh." Have you even bothered to read a summary of the decision, Will? Scalia did not strike down all gun laws, just those such as DCs that prevented lawful citizens from having a gun in their home available for self-defense. And Steven's claim that there is 'no evidence' is completely disingenious, as was his attempt in his dissent to turn the First Amendment into a collective right as a means to dismiss the 2nd as an individual right.— db_cooper
- "Again the Second Amendment is hard to argue against, no matter how liberal you are, but wouldn't the four conservative Justices' opinion on the detainees be considered "activist jurisprudence"??? " In this case, there actually was very little SCOTUS precedent regarding the 2nd Amendment - the last signficant 2nd A ruling was Miller, over 70 years ago, and that was a bizzare case regarding possession of a sawed-off shotgun. Scalia's decision did reference Miller regarding the government's power to regulate certain classes of weapons - and Scalia in no way struck down all gun control laws and regulations, so this was not a diversion from precedent. This ruling, from what I can tell, simply prevents a government such as DC from prohibiting law-abiding citizens from effectively exercising their basic 2nd Amendment rights in endeavors such as self-defense within their own homes.— db_cooper
- Comment removed.
- pagoda: That is an inaccurate quotation. It is not "the worst." McCain said it was "one of the worst." He is right. (Kyndra Rotunda wrote a great article on the ruling in the NY Post. I highly recommend it. It might put the ruling in clearer perspective.)— bon
- That quote from Lithwick is pretty silly. Would you have local government ban all knives except those plastic play-dough ones? How about a national speed limit of 15 miles and hour? How about we ban alcohol and smoking? No doubt all of those things would save lives. I am sure some liberals would like that. Thankfully, we still have a few sane people wielding some power in the country, so we still have some freedoms left.— bon
- But I must first pass along this rather brilliant observation from professor Stephen Wermiel from American University, who wonders why none of the dissenters cautioned the majority that today's decision "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." (Boumediene, Scalia, J. dissenting.) Brilliant? Wrong. Why didn't the dissenters mention this? Because it's not true. Check the extensive research by people like economist John Lott and journalist Richard Poe in books such as "More Guns, Less Crime" and "The Seven Myths of Gun Control." It's been shown over and over again that concealed carry laws decrease violent crime. Polic can only protect citizens once they arrive, which takes much too long in most cases to prevent tragedies. If people are allowed to defend themselves, they have a much better chance of survival - especially if criminals know their victims *may* be carrying a weapon. Plus, laws only apply to those who will abide by them. You want only the bad guys to have the guns?— rosmerta
My only concern is whether the Court went far enough to insure that weapons can't be taken from the people on any "national security" pretext. If that's still possible under this ruling, then the right to keep and bear arms is still illusory.- The dissenters did not point out that this decision would cause more Americans to be killed because there is no evidence that a gun ban lowers the murder rate. Actually it's the contrary. Does the good professor know that since the DC gun ban was enacted in 1976, the crime rate rose to a high of almost 500 homicides in 1991? The homicide rate has dropped since (which is good) but that is more attributed to gentrification than the gun ban.— jmc
- Bon- just read your article, and hey after reading it, it does seem rather persuasive, but considering his bias, I am not surprised by his opinion. There are plenty of examples of battlefield prisoners, but he neglects to mention the cab drivers in NY who were recently let go after six years- no evidence and no charges. Maybe if the current administration had admitted their numerous errors in many of the domestic sweeps, this case would never have been heard. I admit though, the article shared a very interesting and thought provoking perspective. Well done.— pagoda
- pagoda: I certainly agree that any efforts along these lines must be treated to serious and constant oversight to avoid entrapping the innocent or general abuses. I am glad you found the article interesting. She is more conservative than I am (she wants to keep the prison at gitmo open, I agree with McCain that it should be closed) but I have found her to be thought provoking whenever I have read her work.— bon
- Comment removed.
- I applaud the ruling and I know why the left is whining so much about it. It contained no penumbras, no auras, no emanations and no inherent rights, and no international laws were cited! There weren't even any penumbric emanations, unlike those found in another Court ruling liberals consider sacred. Instead, in the case at hand the clear and plain English of the Constitution was upheld. A great day for us conservatives!— George Tomezsko
- "We focus so much attention on the president but is anyone in this country more powerful right now than Anthony Kennedy?" . . . . . . . A great observation, Will. More than any other justice on the court (at least since O'Connor left), Kennedy shows an ability and willingness to interpet the law without bending it to suit an ideological agenda. If he's the most powerful person in America, it's because he may be the only constitutional official doing the job he was appointed to do.
- Comment removed.
- To bon, and b.atk, the quote in Will's post references Scalia's dissenting opinion on the recent habeus corpus case. He actually said that the court's majority decision would lead to more American deaths. Regardless of your stance on both issues, its an interesting opinion in light of his vote yesterday.— RG
- Comment removed.
- The quote you seem to love to use "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is used completely out of context. While you can certainly debate how far this protection should be applied, there is no doubt when you read the entire amendment and the debate that occured between federalists and anti-federalists that led to its inclusion, the framers intended that the states should be able to keep an armed militia at the ready to prevent oppression by the standing army controlled by the federal government. The amendment in full 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." I fail to see how allowing individual citizens to keep private handguns in their vehicles, on their persons, or in their homes is contributing to the security of a free state.— srmzeus11
- "......Actually it's the contrary. Does the good professor know that since the DC gun ban was enacted in 1976, the crime rate rose to a high of almost 500 homicides in 1991?..."-----) Another jmc classic - reflecting that his concept that "proof" equates to anything that confirms his opinions. Chew on this, jmc. What would the murder rate in DC have been had there been no ban? You don't know, do you? Would it have been higher than it was with a ban? You don't know, do you? In other words, you have no way of actually assessing the affect of the ban. What is clear, however, is that the SC has taken away the right of the citizens in DC to legislate gun regulations in their own community as they see fit. It is endlessly fascinating how some folks talk over and over about "judicial activism," yet amazingly manage to dismiss it when the SC takes away the right of citizens to create laws in their own communities when their desire doesn't match specific political agendas.— Talking point sleuth
- RG: I do not think the two ruling are at all related, though. Habeus rights have, on a few occasions, in a time of war, been set aside to protect American lives. The right to bear arms, so far as I know, never has.— bon
- Habeaus rights were set aside during the civil war (rebellion) and during WWII (which, although was was not rebellion or invasion or uprising) - the second time we admitted it was a huge mistake and made reparations accordingly. This situation has none of the characteristics of either of those, especially the "justified" suspension during the civil war.— srmzeus11
- "......Should Scalia only consider the problems of inner cities in his ruling? I realize this is difficult for leftists to accept but Philly will have to solve its own problems......"----) Another beautiful comment. Apparently, you don't realize, fake Plebby, that the SC has, in fact, just significantly limited the ability of the citizens in Philly to solve their own problems. The SC has told Philly that if the even if the majority of Philadelphians agree that handguns should be banned, they can go suck an egg. Why? Because members of other communities might be upset if Philly wants to have stricter limits on guns then they do in their own communities. Why? The people of DC didn't want to dictate to members of other communities how they should regulate guns. But the SC has just determined that it's fine for members of other communities to dictate to the citizens of Philly how they can regulate guns.— Talking point sleuth
- Posted by tommy john 01:57 PM, 06/26/2008 God help us,for this moment of temporary (in)sanity. There, fixed it for you.— srmzeus11
- "....This will mean many more black faces behind bars and six feet under. That's the price of freedom, and many would gladly pay it......" ----) And here we have the most interesting comment of the thread. Makes one wonder just how many folks proclaiming concern about the constitution are really just using the constitution as a cover for racist attitudes, doesn't it? I'm sure that legatus will chime in momentarily to take this "conservative" to task for the blatant racism in his comment. Momentarily.— Talking point sleuth
- "The right to bear arms, so far as I know, never has." . . . . . . . Bon, the last armed insurrection by American citizens occurred in the 20s in southern West Virginia. Coolidge mobilized the Army to disarm the coal miners.
- "...Hey, Will. Here's a quarter...go buy a spine. You fat weasel....." ----) Nice. I'm sure the momentarily, Georgie will post one of his regular comments characterizing 1/2 the American public, the half that don't vote Republican, as being "as dumb as dirt."— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- MSL: Everyone agrees that the government has the right to stop an armed insurrection. That is not a suspension of the second amendment to save lives, it is a police action taken against law breakers.— bon
- Comment removed.
- Xi Jah, I can't help but notice you are all hyped on the constitution today (or at least, your interpretation of it) - I guess that's because it's a point of view you agree with? I seem to remember you being not quite so concerned with the constitutionality of an action like Habeaus Corpus when it didn't fit nicely with your agenda...any response to that? I mean, you either think the constitution applies or it doesn't - I don't think you get to pick and choose when to follow it....— srmzeus11
- srmzeus11 "I fail to see how allowing individual citizens to keep private handguns in their vehicles, on their persons, or in their homes is contributing to the security of a free state." You obviously missed the part in history class concerning the revolutionary war. Those folks were private citzens who took up arms to free themselves from government oppression.— chuckman23
- Bon, I'm not disputing what it was. I'm merely pointing out that the federal government has in fact taken arms away from citizens in a "crisis" situation, effectively suspending their right to keep and bear arms. These were striking coal miners who were simply fighting back against violence and terrorism from coal companies and state officials who had been bought off by them. I thought that "self-defense" was one of the purposes of the 2nd Amendment.
- Chuckman, they were also organized into a militia and were answerable to authority for their actions....I don't see the parallel to the modern situation. In fact, I was saying exactly the same thing - that our founders intended our citizens to be able to organize into armed units that could repel oppression or invasion at the state or local level in case the federal standing army was incapable or was the oppressor. So, thank you.— srmzeus11
- Comment removed.
- Here's the difference, Xi Jah. First, you assume a particular interpretation of "constitutionality." In my opinion, the phrase, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, " makes that interpretation debatable. Secondly, you seem rather confused: On the one hand, you seem to say that the interpretation should be absolute, and on the other hand you seem to believe that the interpretation should be made based on context. I'm consistent. I believe that context is not necessarily paramount, but should always be given due consideration. For example, for the majority of this country's history, discriminatory laws were considered "constitutional," until there was general agreement that such laws were unjust. In this case, I see no significant harm in people of a community agreeing on how guns should be regulated in their own community. And I don't see what is just in members of one community dictating to members of another community how they should or should not be able to regulate guns. In the case of the hypothetical law you proposed, the lack of justice would be clear and acknowledged by the vast members of all communities in our country. Of course, our "conservative" contributor below would apparently be among those who felt such a law would be just.— Talking point sleuth
- tommy, thank you, but I have no idea what that is or what it means...maybe you enlighten me on your witty retort??— srmzeus11
- ".....D.C.'s gun law which has produced an increase in gun violence.." --) And so now we see that Xi Jah subscribes to the jmc concept of "proof." Would you mind explaining how the DC gun laws "have produced an increase in gun violence," Xi Jah. This should be interesting. But I'll suggest that before you attempt, you might read up on the difference between correlation and causation.— Talking point sleuth
- MSL: By your working definition, gang warfare could also be described as "self defense." The government has the right to stop guerilla warfare within its boarders. That does not mean they can go into law abiding citizens homes and take their guns because the country is at war.— bon
- "Does the good professor know that since the DC gun ban was enacted in 1976, the crime rate rose to a high of almost 500 homicides in 1991?..." . . . . . Does the good Xi Jah know whether the rate of murders by handgun went up or down?
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- methinks at this very moment, with dictionary in hand, Xi Jah is furiously searching Newsmax for some lame article affirming his misconception that the DC gun laws "produced an increase in gun violence." BTW, Xi Jah, did you ever find proof that history judge FDR "kindly" for interning innocent Japanese?— Talking point sleuth
- Go ahead, Xi Jah. Explain how the DC gun laws have "produced an increase in gun violence." Or at least explain how saying I'm either stupid or deliberately obtuse suffices for your explanation about the gun law?— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- MSL: I am not sure that is a valid counterpoint. A ban on handguns may lower handgun violence while still having a net effect of raising violence as a whole. For instance violent home invaders may increase their activities if there is no risk of the homeowner having a gun. (I do not know the answer to your question, I just don't think the question reveals any flaws in the professor's logic.)— bon
- "That does not mean they can go into law abiding citizens homes and take their guns because the country is at war." . . . . . . Bon, are you saying that the right to keep and bear arms is restricted to the citizen's home, and then only to those citizens who are "law-abiding" (what's that mean anyway, and who decides)? What about the defense of the community against an oppressive state government that has outlawed the peaceful right to assemble (e.g., conduct a labor strike)? If the Army can intervene and disarm the striking workers, isn't the 2nd Amendment defeated?
- Comment removed.
- Xi Jah, that passage you quoted ignored too many variables to be valid - population size, population composition and population density, economic indicators, size and efficiency of law enforcement agencies, etc. I mean if you want to look at numbers, why not look at the UK? Last time I checked no one wsa allowed guns, even the police, and there were an absurdly small number of gun deaths each year. Take a look at this: Gun Deaths - International Comparisons Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated): Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident) USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36 Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07 Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10 Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04 Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10 Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10 France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49 England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03 Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02 Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0 Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International. Westport. In case the formatting is bad, its here: http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm They also have a couple interesting quotes: Thomas Gabor, Professor of Criminology at Ottawa University "Homicide rates tend to be related to firearm ownership levels. Everything else being equal, a reduction in the percentage of households owning firearms should occasion a drop in the homicide rate" and Professor Martin Killias - "The level of gun ownership world-wide is directly related to murder and suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire."— srmzeus11
- I didn't use quotes, Xi Jah. What you said was that FDR suspended Habeas, and was judged kindly by history. Why don't you explain how what I said is a mischaracterization of your comment? As for your excerpt about the DC gun ban, it isn't proof that the ban "produced an increase in gun violence." After it was first initiated, the gun violence rate went down. It then rose again during the crack epidemic, and remained high sometimes consistently with national trends and sometimes inconsistently with national trends. The point is that you haven't accounted for significantly relevant variables - national trends and factors such as the increase of drug use. You might have an argument if you said that the ban didn't bring about the intended results, as the gun violence rates remained high - but even that statement leaves out the fact that you haven't proven one way or the other whether gun violence rates might have been higher absent the ban. Because there is no way to prove that. The bottom line is that it is very difficult to assess the impact of the gun laws, making an evaluation of the context for the laws at least as arguable as the interpretation of the phrases in the constitution. I have no problems with anyone saying that these are complex issues. What I have a problem with is arguments which fail to account for the complexity of the issues. So, a question for you: do you think that insulting me somehow rectifies your failure to argue the issues on their own merits?— Talking point sleuth
- "...."The level of gun ownership world-wide is directly related to murder and suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire."..." ---) In all fairness, srmzeus11, that argument doesn't really suffice either - because it is difficult to prove that gun laws decrease (illegal) gun ownership.— Talking point sleuth
- well, I only used quote around "kindly," anyway.— Talking point sleuth
- "'....This will mean many more black faces behind bars and six feet under. That's the price of freedom, and many would gladly pay it......' ----) And here we have the most interesting comment of the thread. Makes one wonder just how many folks proclaiming concern about the constitution are really just using the constitution as a cover for racist attitudes, doesn't it? I'm sure that legatus will chime in momentarily to take this "conservative" to task for the blatant racism in his comment. Momentarily."
Actually Tps, I was travelling most of the day, so I haven't had a chance to chime in. I knew that there would be a lot of discussion here about the SC decision today, and was interested to see what everyone's thoughts were. When I came across the comment that you reference, I didn't find it "interesting", I found it appalling and disgusting....whether he is conservative, liberal or somewhere in between. What I DO find interesting is that you immediately branded this disgraceful person a conservative. I wonder how you determined that. His comments are unlike any conservative that I know. Is it becasue he said "arm the citizens", which might display the idea that he agreed with the SC and he ~must~ therefore be conservative? Nah, that can't be it...there are comments from liberals here who also seem to agree with today's decision. Interesting comment Tps.
— legatus - TPS, one other point that is overlooked about the DC ban's correlation to murder rates is that DC is wide open to the bordering states of Virginia and Maryland, and it can't seal its borders and check each person coming into the city for possession of the banned weapons. For that reason, any attempt to ban a certain weapon in one state or territory is useless unless it's uniform among the 50 states.
- TPS, correct. I wasn't making a statement as to the effectivenss of gun control laws, just pointing out that in the contries with fewer guns, the gun violence rate per population unit (in the examples cited, 100000) is significantly lower. We don't know if that's due to the legislation controlling the number of guns, or the overal cultural attitudes, education and economics, etc. It just seems to follow (in a case of causation, not correlation ;-) ) that the less guns we have available, the less gun violence there will be. That point seems to refute Xi Jah's claim that the increase in gun violence was due to the ban, unless the ban engendered an INCREASE in the number of guns, illegal or otherwise.— srmzeus11
- "Apparently, you don't realize, fake Plebby, that the SC has, in fact, just significantly limited the ability of the citizens in Philly to solve their own problems." Actually, you don't realize that it wasn't the SC that limited the power of the government, it is the Bill of Rights itself that does this...that is the entire point of the BoR, to limit the government.— legatus
- "For that reason, any attempt to ban a certain weapon in one state or territory is useless unless it's uniform among the 50 states." B-I-N-G-O. Exaclty, if Philly were to ban guns, there'd be minimal results. They'd have no problems flooding in from the local counties as well as from Camden, NY, etc.— RG
- "TPS, one other point that is overlooked about the DC ban's correlation to murder rates is that DC is wide open to the bordering states of Virginia and Maryland, and it can't seal its borders and check each person coming into the city for possession of the banned weapons." I'm not sure about Md, but in Va you must be a resident to purchase a handgun.— legatus
- "...Exaclty, if Philly were to ban guns, there'd be minimal results...." There's an argument to be made that even minimal results might equate to fewer dead people. However, no one really knows how minimal the results might be, given the open question of how well and in what manner such laws might be enforced. But there are issues that remain regardless. The residents of Philly have overwhelmingly approved a resolution to strictly limit handgun purchases. Shouldn't they be allowed to do so? How is having stricter gun laws in Philly going to harm anyone? Some might argue that it would make legal gun owners less safe, but that is extremely questionable, and folks who feel that way are free to move to another community that feels differently (the point being that people who might feel that way are in a distinct minority). And please, cry me a river about those poor "gun collectors" who wouldn't be allowed to carry their collections around on their person as they roam the streets. The point is that this whole issues is being driven by those who live in one community who want to dictate laws to people who live in another community, at the behest of and with the financial support of gun manufacturers.— Talking point sleuth
- "I'm not sure about Md, but in Va you must be a resident to purchase a handgun." . . . . . But you can still carry one, regardless of where you bought it.
- "...Actually, you don't realize that it wasn't the SC that limited the power of the government, it is the Bill of Rights itself that does this...that is the entire point of the BoR, to limit the government....." I didn't say that the SC limited the power of government, legatus. I said that it was the SC which limited the power of members of a given community to enact gun restrictions within their own community. The SC did so on the basis of their interpretation of the words of the constitution. How those words should be interpreted can legitimately be argued. But I think it's absurd on its face to state that one interpretation is less subjective than another.— Talking point sleuth
- "...His comments are unlike any conservative that I know...." --) Fair enough, legatus. But his comments are very similar to any number of comments that have been made at Attytood by "lib" bashers on a regular basis. Do you seriously think that it's equally likely that the said commenter identifies as a "lib?" Please, legatus, you can't be serious. In no way to I assume that all conservatives are racists. Notice that I put the word conservative in quotation marks: because, in fact, I wouldn't consider anything he said to be reflective of a traditionally conservative ideology. However, I have little doubt that when s/he goes into a voting booth, assuming that s/he ever does, s/he's voting for a Republican.— Talking point sleuth
- "I didn't say that the SC limited the power of government, legatus. I said that it was the SC which limited the power of members of a given community to enact gun restrictions within their own community." Are you saying that this would be accomplished through means other than through governmental legislation, regulation, etc.? (Actually, certain (most?) gun restrictions are unaffected. The type that were enacted in DC, which restricted individual rights, were of course declared unconstitutional.— legatus
- I would go one step further and say that the Bill of Rights doesn't limit the power of the government, but rather creates empowerment of the people. The two are not mutually exclusive, particularly when the interests of the people and the interests of the government align. The Bill of Rights does however proclaim that when those interest diverge, the government must defer to the people on certain "inalienable rights" which are agreed upon. Subtle difference, I know, but limited the power of government is not the same as protecting the sovereignty of individual rights and freedoms.— srmzeus11
- " It is endlessly fascinating how some folks talk over and over about "judicial activism," yet amazingly manage to dismiss it when the SC takes away the right of citizens to create laws in their own communities when their desire doesn't match specific political agendas." Typical TPS twisted logic. The right to bear arms is enshrined in both the US and PA Constitutions. Shall not be infringed is as clear as it gets (at least to those not seeking to twist clear language). Or maybe we should cherry-pick the other amendments. Stevens, after all, tried to make the 2nd a collective right by saying parts of the First were a collective right also. Using his 'logic', Philadelphia could pass a law that free speech by the Inky was protected, because it is collective, but individual bloggers don't have protections. Is that where you really want to go?— db_cooper
- from dahlia "Anybody who believes the current Supreme Court looks like America needs to take a few more trips on a Greyhound bus. All the judges are white and/or old; most are both." Ever heard of Clarence Thomas???? Or since he is a conservative black, he might as well be white? What an absolutely racist and insulting comment by your author. What about a proof reader or fact checker Wow, simply stunning— TR
- "Do you seriously think that it's equally likely that the said commenter identifies as a 'lib?' Please, legatus, you can't be serious. In no way to I assume that all conservatives are racists. Notice that I put the word conservative in quotation marks: because, in fact, I wouldn't consider anything he said to be reflective of a traditionally conservative ideology." Ok then...if conservativ thought does not embrace racism, and if his comments are not reflective of conservative ideology, then HE IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE regardless of how he self-identifies. If I self-identified as a liberal, butcontinued ot speak in ways antithetical to liberalism, you'd be correct in assuming that I am not in fact a liberal. If I identidied myself as a woman, it doesn't make it so, for I am a man. "However, I have little doubt that when s/he goes into a voting booth, assuming that s/he ever does, s/he's voting for a Republican." That is your bias speaking. I have no way of knowing what party he favors based on this statement. Realistically, this guy appears to be a troll who was trying to get a reaction from someone like yourself.— legatus
- "I would go one step further and say that the Bill of Rights doesn't limit the power of the government," I disagree. Jefferson saw the combination of the 9th and 10th as a cast-iron fence around the federal government. But the steers of federal usurpation knocked that fence down long ago..— db_cooper
- TR. Look up "and/or" and get back to us. K?— Talking point sleuth
- "I would go one step further and say that the Bill of Rights doesn't limit the power of the government, but rather creates empowerment of the people." . . . . . . . I'd rephrase that by saying that it "preserves empowerment of the people". The people have inherent power by virtue of their being the sovereign (source of the government's power and legitimacy). The people, through the constitution, have delegated certain powers to the government, but they still retain any that have not been expressly mentioned.
- Regarding my troll comment Tps...I wasn't trying to indicate that you were "wrong" for reacting to him. I simply mean that this troll could just as easily be a liberal troll trying to mimic what he perceives conservative thought to be. It is clear that his comments are not conservative though.— legatus
- db, perhaps you can explain for me then the meaning of the words you and Xi Jah etc keep leaving off "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" - you know, the actual first part of the 2nd amendment. How does our current system of private citizens keeping personal arms fit in with a "well regulated militia?" Are they organized into units? Answer to a chain of command? Regularly trained on safety and procedures? The issue of the wording of the constitution is certainly far from black and white as you make it out to be, particularly when you consider the radical differences in society and government between now and when the constitution was written.— srmzeus11
- "....Shall not be infringed is as clear as it gets ...." Let's try this again (the last one didn't get through). Yup, db, that's pretty damn clear. But somehow you neglected to mention the: (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State) part. Gee, I wonder how that happened? How'd you manage to overlook that minor detail? Funny, that part doesn't see all that clear to me. I guess that's because, unlike you, db, my interpretation of language is subjective. Yours, on the other hand, is objective and absolute rendering of truth. Did I get that right?— Talking point sleuth
- Boy this filter is really a pain. I'll try again (sorry for the potential of multiple posts. "....Shall not be infringed is as clear as it gets ...." Let's try this again (the last one didn't get through). Yup, db, that's pretty clear. But somehow you neglected to mention the: (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State) part. Gee, I wonder how that happened? How'd you manage to overlook that minor detail? Funny, that part doesn't see all that clear to me. I guess that's because, unlike you, db, my interpretation of language is subjective. Yours, on the other hand, is objective and absolute rendering of truth. Did I get that right?— Talking point sleuth
- TPS, stop stealing my talking points, you sleuth! :-)— srmzeus11
- Comment removed.
- Sorry, next time I'll check with you before I post a comment. It won't matter, though. Db and I have been down this road before. It always ends with a curious situation where the SC court is always objectively interpreting the constitution whenever its findings are in line with is political ideology, and, amazingly, always subjectively interpreting the constitution when it's findings are in disagreement with his political ideology. Truly, an amazing coincidence.— Talking point sleuth
- Good point, Xi Jah....now, if Rosie Odonnell had no access to spoons anywhere (ie couldn't eat), would she still be fat??? That's really the analogy here, as born out by the statistics I posted earlier. Countries that don't have guns, don't have gun violence. It's that simple - you can argue whether thats because of laws, or education, or culture, or enforcement, etc, but facts are facts....— srmzeus11
- TPS, I hope you realize my comment was tongue in cheek - I thought I interesting that we came up with the same thought independently and basically the same verbiage as well. Kudos to you....— srmzeus11
- I got that, srmzeus11. I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to get another dig in at db. BTW, you should get a screenname that's easier to type.— Talking point sleuth
Ok this decision does not bother me. All the SC decided was that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms. The DC law PROHIBITED ownership! Even a right wing hack like Scalia stated in dictum that that the state seemed to have a right to regulate guns and ownership of guns. The 2nd amendment contains the words, "a well REGULATED militia". You can regulate but not ban. But we'll see if Scalia and his band are intellectually dishonest when the next gun case comes around. They may ignore the word regulated then being that they are activist judges.- I think srm would work...haven't seen anyone else with that commenting...— srmzeus11
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- "Posted by b.atkinson 05:00 PM, 06/26/2008 Lots of soiled left wing diapers today. It's fun to watch them whine." Seriously, does this add anything to this discussion? I don't mind a debate with people not of like mind, but there needs to be at least an attempt at some kind of intellectual discourse. If I want random name calling and petty vindictive rhetoric, I'll go hang out at my 4 year old's preschool...maybe I'll see b.at there, hmmm?— srmzeus11
- This decision only applies to the federal government. Scalia confirmed that the Second Amendment is not the source of the right to keep and bear arms; it just prohibits the Federal Government (including D.C., which is not a state) from totally disarming citizens. As Scalia himself noted, including at footnote 23 of the opinion, the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government. Thus, states are still free to enact restrictions, at least until the Supreme Court announces whether it is going to overturn precedent (Presser, Miller) and make the Second Amendment apply to the states.— Mutt
- Let's all be more consistent and principled. If you're going to argue for an "expansive" or "modern" reading of the Bill of Rights (which liberals love to do), then apply that logic across the board. Don't single out the 2nd amendment just because you don't like its substance. It's a shame that 4 justices today wanted to read the 2nd amendment out of practical significance. Scary stuff.— chrissmith
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Hey Will, What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do you and other anti-2nd Amendment folks not understand? Thank you 5 Supreme Court judges for upholding the Constitution and not reinterpreting it.— flyer-joe
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- How come when you righties like a SC decision, it is following the Constitution? Yet, when the decision is against your thought, it's making things up? Good ol' scalia, last week he was angry that a ruling would lead to more American deaths. Today, he's happy that a ruling will bring more American deaths. Who's he imitating, John McCain?— mike l
- Comment removed.
- well hell, let's give them all the tools they need to make it as efficient as possible and make a profit while doing it. Ridicule all you want, not one of you on the riught has the guts to stand there and say "I just like to shoot s**t and the constitution protects it" Instead I have to sit here and listen to every other ridiculous argument that right can come up with each and every one of them is nonsense. The bottom line is you are no safer with a gun in your home than I am in mine with just ,my dog. A handgun, shot gun, machine is not going to save you. King George is not coming back to reclaim the colonies and if we ever need protection from the US military, they aren;t lining up and fightint musket vs musket these days. As for safety from criminals, The death penalty and prison don;t seem to be much of a deterent, huh? And evey drug dealer in this city knows the other guy is packing as well, doesn't seem to deter them from pulling out their gun. I mean the murder rate is climbing in case you haven't noticed. So just admit there is no legitimite need in this society with the most powerful mititary in the world, a police force in every town to protect the citizens, for it's people to all be walking armed.— gee1971
I just want to note that db seems to be the only one who actually understands this ruling. Go back and re-read his first two comments.- "Posted by flyer-joe 06:13 PM, 06/26/2008 Hey Will, What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do you and other anti-2nd Amendment folks not understand? Thank you 5 Supreme Court judges for upholding the Constitution and not reinterpreting it." Well, flyer-joe, try re-reading it with the entire statement intact - "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." - Now, there is no mention anywhere in this statement of private citizens - the general public is no longer organized into militia units and regulated by a chain of command. Factor in the debate discourse between the federalists and anti-federalists who were drafting the constitution and it's pretty clear what the intent of that amendment was - to allow the public domain to arm itself for defense against oppression by the federal standing army, which otherwise would have been omnipotent and created the potential for misuse. I fail to see, especially in today's society, how private citizens with handguns in their homes, cars, etc has anything to do with a well regulated militia and/or being prepared to fend off an oppression by the Army.— srmzeus11
- "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" - you know, the actual first part of the 2nd amendment. How does our current system of private citizens keeping personal arms fit in with a "well regulated militia?" Read up on the process of drafting the Bill of Rights and the historic notions of the militia. The militia at the time of the Founders was meant to be all able-bodied military-age men. Arms were meant to be military-level personal arms (rifles, muskets, pistols). And the leading clause in initial drafts of the 2nd was meant to be completely independent of the main sentence, but the punctuation was altered to the current structure. But the intent of the Founders was quite clear if you read their writings. And no other right in the Bill of Rights was meant as a collective right, so why would the 2nd be a collective and not an individual right?— db_cooper
- "The bottom line is you are no safer with a gun in your home than I am in mine with just ,my dog. A handgun, shot gun, machine is not going to save you." Not correct. It has been estimated that there are two million defensive uses of guns each year, and the vast, vast majority do not involve firing the weapon at someone - just showing a perp that you are armed is usually sufficent to change their mind about what they were planning to do." So just admit there is no legitimite need in this society with the most powerful mititary in the world, a police force in every town to protect the citizens, for it's people to all be walking armed." It's your choice to decide to be unarmed. It is not your choice to seek to take my enumerated right to be armed away from me. Virginia Tech would have been much less of a massacre if students or professors would have been allowed CCW on campus. The church shooting in Colorado was promptly stopped by an armed volunteer. Dozens could have died if, as you want, the congregation would have waited for the cops to show up.— db_cooper
- Where we'll really see whether or not Scalia is intellectually honest is when the other cases that will establish the boundaries of the 2nd reach the Court (since Scalia's opinion conveniently omitted any discussion of this). Will Scalia support incorporation of the 2nd, something he has previously objected to for other amendments?— Politburo
- The guns used in murders in the city are illegal. They were not purchased by gun owners who sought protection. They were bought off the street much in the same way drugs like cocaine, heroin and meth are bought and sold. Banning legal gun purchases would do absolutely nothing to the people shooting each other up on the streets. There should be laws limiting how many guns can be purchased and accountability for those guns should be enforced. If found that a handgund I bought legally, then sold illegally, was used in a murder, then I should be held accountable as an accessory to murder.— t1000
- Thank you, db, for proving my point. I have read extensively on the process that lead to the drafting of that amendment, and you are exactly right as to the context of "militia" at that time. In fact, this idea grew out of english common law which required able body men to serve in the military and to provide their own weapons and armor. So, since you agree with all that, please explain how it applied to todays private citizens, who are not part of any militia, not regulated by a chain of command, and will not be called upon by local or state authorities to throw of the mantle of tyranna from an oppressive standing army controlled by the federal government????— srmzeus11
- t1000, that accountability you want is already in place, but serial numbers can be filed off, aliases can be used, etc. Why not just get rid of all of them? Don't make a distinction between legal and illegal - if no one has them (as is the case in many other countries) then they become a non-issue. Look at the deaths per 100,000 for countries in Europe and around the world - the US is nearly 10 times as many as the next closest country. So, to say it doesn't work is just flat out wrong - the black and white statistics show otherwise— srmzeus11
- db, are you serious? I just reread your post - you actually advocate students carrying guns on college campuses? And you think that would have reduced the loss of life for that incident? Sort of playing fast and loose with a lot of unknown factors there aren't you? would someone armed have gotten to him before he finished his spree? Would they have taken him down? Would they have hit any innocent bystanders? Would more have died because in instead of fleeing, some macho types decided to "blow him away" but got shot instead? Who knows how it would have played out......How about this instead - what if the shooter couldn't get a gun? Had no access to get one, legally or otherwise. Wouldn't that have saved everybody?— srmzeus11
1
Popular Posts
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: