Many of my more progressive friends told me that the health care bill would never reach the point of passage and don't complain so much -- that was about 6 months ago. At that time, I stated that we had to prepare and fight or the American prople would lose. Now we are at the stage where the fight has become one of we don't give a damn about rules or parliamentary procedure, we don't care about the process, we only care about getting a "health Care bill" passed. It doesn't matter that the bill is extremely bad policy which will cause much more harm than good. It doesn't matter to the likes of Obama/Pelosi/Reid what the process or rules are as long as they are able to "Break through the doors" by whatever means possible and pass "historic Legislation". Legislation which has been attempted since FDR without success -- for good reason!
Consider Madam Pelosi's own words from Monday of this week:
March 18, 2010
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said “once we kick through this door, there’ll be more legislation to follow” on Obamacare during a Monday blogger conference call. (Ben Margot/AP)
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi used an unexpected analogy Monday during a conference call with liberal bloggers to discuss Obamacare, saying "once we kick through this door, there'll be more legislation to follow." At least four things need to be said about Pelosi's braggadocio.
First, just whose doors are being kicked in? Since virtually every survey taken in recent months has shown majority opposition to Obamacare, it's the door to public approval that's being kicked in by Pelosi and her comrades. Their attitude is that when rational argument fails to persuade a majority of Americans to support Obamacare, then it should be jammed down their throats. Pelosi evidently has decided to refine American democracy using the Hugo Chavez manual on public persuasion.
Second, just how hard are Pelosi and other Democratic leaders willing to kick? One thing in the debate has been clear for months: As the public learns more about Obamacare, the opposition grows. Pollster Scott Rasmussen's latest survey finds 53 percent opposed to Obamacare. "The numbers are virtually unchanged from last week and are consistent with findings in regularly tracking going back to just after Thanksgiving," Rasmussen said. It appears that Pelosi and company will keep kicking, no matter how great the public opposition.
Third, Pelosi's candor among friendly bloggers demonstrates that Obamacare is only the beginning, not the end of the liberal campaign to put bureaucrats between doctors and patients. What will Pelosi seek next in health care reform? An obvious candidate would be the public option not contained in the Senate version that has become the primary legislative vehicle for passing Obamacare. Then, as government health care costs skyrocket, a price control system won't be far behind. And, since price controls always cause shortages, the inevitable next step will be rationed health care services. At which point, the Left will have finally achieved the dream of making America and European health care equally socialized.
Finally, there is the unprecedented "Slaughter Solution" that Pelosi has endorsed in her door-kicking campaign. This legislative monster -- named after House Rules Committee Chairman Louise Slaughter of New York -- would mean that, by passing a health care reconciliation bill, the House would "deem" itself to have also passed the Senate version of Obamacare. Pelosi likes this approach because then "people don't have to vote on the Senate bill" and theoretically avoid the negative fallout back home
Huh? No wonder respected nonpartisan political analyst Stuart Rothernberg told The Washington Post that "we've leapt to a totally different planet with this deeming. I feel like I've fallen through the rabbit hole:
'Oh, they are going to not pass the bill and just pretend they passed the bill.'
Actually, Stuart, we're all being kicked down Pelosi's rabbit hole.
So, now I ask again -- are you mad yet? Are you willing to take action yet? Or are you willing to let the doors be kicked in and the constitution be trampled on by the same people you elected to protect it?
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
McDonald vs. Chicago
This case is based upon the 1982 law in which Chicago enacted a handgun ban, along with other firearms regulations, because “the convenient availability of firearms and ammunition has increased firearm related deaths and injuries” and handguns “play a major role in the commission of homicide, aggravated assaults and armed robbery.” Chicago City Council, Journal of Proceedings, Mar. 19, 1982, at 10049. Under Chicago’s ordinance, “[n]o person shall . . . possess . . . any firearm unless such person is the holder of a valid registration certificate for such firearm,” and no person may possess “any firearm which is unregisterable.” Unregisterable firearms include most handguns, but rifles and shotguns that are not sawed-off, short-barreled, or assault weapons are registerable. Registerable firearms must be registered before being possessed in Chicago and registration must be renewed annually. Failure to renew “shall cause the firearm to become unregisterable.”
The case has been narrowed to a question of whether the 14th amendment “privileges and immunities” and “due process” clauses incorporate the 2nd amendment. At it’s core, the issue is whether the states rights overrule the Federal regulations. The Slaughter-house decision of 1873 is very prominent. The point in the Slaughter-house decision is: “the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state is clearly recognized and established” The Petitioners counsel argues “SlaughterHouse’s illegitimacy has long been all-but-universally understood. It deserves to be acknowledged by this Court. Because SlaughterHouse rests on language not actually in the Constitution, contradicts the Fourteenth Amendment’s original textual meaning, defies the Framers’ intent, and supplies a nonsensical definition for Section One’s key protection of civil rights, overruling this error and its progeny remains imperative. No valid reliance interests flow from the wrongful deprivation of constitutional liberties. The reliance interest to be fulfilled remains Americans’ expectation that the constitutional amendment their ancestors ratified to protect their rights from state infringement be given its full effect.”
The Petitioners case is based upon the incorporation of the 2nd amendment into the 14th amendment. They claim that “the right should be deemed a privilege or immunity of national citizenship even under the test set forth in The Slaughter-House Cases. Thus, even if the Court declines to incorporate the Second Amendment through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, it should still incorporate it through the Privileges or Immunities Clause. Their argument is centered upon the rights of the individual as seemingly incorporated across the history of the United States.
Many, myself included, are opposed to giving the Federal government the power to impose regulatory oversight on the States, for the same reasons that I would oppose giving the United Nations the power to impose regulatory standards on the U.S. I believe that states should be able to determine what is best for the individuals living within the state regardless of the desire of the Federal Government. This presents opposition to Gura’s argument based upon the 14th amendment and I would rather see the argument made based upon the merits of the 2nd amendment alone.
The respondents case is focused on the first sentence of the 14th amendment. "All persons born and naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State where they reside" The question is whether the right "to keep and bear arms" is a "privilege" of citizenship or is part of the "liberty" protected by the 14th Amendment. The Respondents claim that “neither the Court’s selective incorporation doctrine under the Due Process Clause nor the Privileges or Immunities Clause provides a basis for imposing the Second Amendment on the States and establishing a national rule limiting arms regulation.” Respondents claim “local differences are to be cherished as elements of liberty rather than extirpated in order to produce a single, nationally applicable rule,” and “[f]ederalism is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is a right to carry any particular kind of weapon.”
They infer that the terms incorporate severance rather than inclusivity. In other words, the states have the right to infer regulations which are more or less restrictive than Federal regulations. Neither argument, in my opinion, considers the rights of the individual wqhich is the basis for the decision o in DC vs. Heller.
In DC vs. Heller, which only 2 years ago ruled in favor of the 2nd amendment, the question of whether the states have the right to restrict gun ownership was left unanswered. This is the question which McDonald is seeking to answer. Perhaps it will require the incorporation of the 14th amendment to make the case. If so, I hope that the ruling is limited to the priviledges and immunity clause rather than including the due process clause as well. This will identify the right to “keep and bear arms” as a right of the individual and not a right bestowed by the Federal or State government to the people. I worry that expanding the decision to include the “Due Process” clause will open the door to Federal expansion and limit both the rights of the state and of the individual.
The case has been narrowed to a question of whether the 14th amendment “privileges and immunities” and “due process” clauses incorporate the 2nd amendment. At it’s core, the issue is whether the states rights overrule the Federal regulations. The Slaughter-house decision of 1873 is very prominent. The point in the Slaughter-house decision is: “the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state is clearly recognized and established” The Petitioners counsel argues “SlaughterHouse’s illegitimacy has long been all-but-universally understood. It deserves to be acknowledged by this Court. Because SlaughterHouse rests on language not actually in the Constitution, contradicts the Fourteenth Amendment’s original textual meaning, defies the Framers’ intent, and supplies a nonsensical definition for Section One’s key protection of civil rights, overruling this error and its progeny remains imperative. No valid reliance interests flow from the wrongful deprivation of constitutional liberties. The reliance interest to be fulfilled remains Americans’ expectation that the constitutional amendment their ancestors ratified to protect their rights from state infringement be given its full effect.”
The Petitioners case is based upon the incorporation of the 2nd amendment into the 14th amendment. They claim that “the right should be deemed a privilege or immunity of national citizenship even under the test set forth in The Slaughter-House Cases. Thus, even if the Court declines to incorporate the Second Amendment through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, it should still incorporate it through the Privileges or Immunities Clause. Their argument is centered upon the rights of the individual as seemingly incorporated across the history of the United States.
Many, myself included, are opposed to giving the Federal government the power to impose regulatory oversight on the States, for the same reasons that I would oppose giving the United Nations the power to impose regulatory standards on the U.S. I believe that states should be able to determine what is best for the individuals living within the state regardless of the desire of the Federal Government. This presents opposition to Gura’s argument based upon the 14th amendment and I would rather see the argument made based upon the merits of the 2nd amendment alone.
The respondents case is focused on the first sentence of the 14th amendment. "All persons born and naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State where they reside" The question is whether the right "to keep and bear arms" is a "privilege" of citizenship or is part of the "liberty" protected by the 14th Amendment. The Respondents claim that “neither the Court’s selective incorporation doctrine under the Due Process Clause nor the Privileges or Immunities Clause provides a basis for imposing the Second Amendment on the States and establishing a national rule limiting arms regulation.” Respondents claim “local differences are to be cherished as elements of liberty rather than extirpated in order to produce a single, nationally applicable rule,” and “[f]ederalism is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is a right to carry any particular kind of weapon.”
They infer that the terms incorporate severance rather than inclusivity. In other words, the states have the right to infer regulations which are more or less restrictive than Federal regulations. Neither argument, in my opinion, considers the rights of the individual wqhich is the basis for the decision o in DC vs. Heller.
In DC vs. Heller, which only 2 years ago ruled in favor of the 2nd amendment, the question of whether the states have the right to restrict gun ownership was left unanswered. This is the question which McDonald is seeking to answer. Perhaps it will require the incorporation of the 14th amendment to make the case. If so, I hope that the ruling is limited to the priviledges and immunity clause rather than including the due process clause as well. This will identify the right to “keep and bear arms” as a right of the individual and not a right bestowed by the Federal or State government to the people. I worry that expanding the decision to include the “Due Process” clause will open the door to Federal expansion and limit both the rights of the state and of the individual.
The justices were surprisingly animated and seemed skeptical of any attempt to restrict the rights of the individual. They seemed to wonder, based upon their questions, why they should reconsider their finding in DC vs. Heller, that the rights granted in the 2nd amendment flowed to the individual. It will be interesting to see how the opinion comes down, but my guess is that there will probably be another five/four vote to reverse the decision of the Chicago court and affirm the individual right to own firearms without addressing the question of the 14th amendment Due Process and priviledges clauses
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
