Showing posts with label U.S. Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.S. Constitution. Show all posts
Sunday, May 24, 2015
Ireland Does What U.S. Can't Seem to Do
Ireland has voted "resoundingly" to allow gay marriage, the first national vote on this issue in the world. They amended their Constitution to permit marriage equality and they did it with a popular mandate, stated Leo Varadkar, a gay Cabinet minister. In the county of Dublin the Irish capital looks to have voted around 70 percent in favor of gay marriage with no districts outside the capital reporting a no majority. The vote nationally was 62.1% in favor. Ireland is certainly as religious a country as is America so how do we equate that with the fact that it is religious conservatives in this country that are holding back gay marriage equality here? Constitutional scholars debate whether or not the U.S. Constitution should reflect the legal values of foreign nations. The Supreme Court looked abroad in "deciding who – such as juveniles — should be exempt from the death penalty." The big question now is whether SCOTUS will let Ireland's landmark decision affect its verdict on gay marriage in the U.S. coming soon.
Friday, February 15, 2013
The 2nd Amendment is ripe for new interpretation…again
Alan Singer is a social studies educator at Hofstra
University in Long Island, New York and the editor of Social Science Docket (a
joint publication of the New York and New Jersey Councils for Social Studies). Apparently he has done his homework on the 2nd
Amendment in research for an article in the Huff Post titled, “Does the U.S. Constitution Prevent Gun Control?” The answer to this question is a
resounding “Yes” if asked of the gun nuts and their head fanatic Wayne
LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Assn. (NRA).
Wacky Wayne says the 2nd
Amendment is sacred and an absolutist part of the Constitution that cannot be
touched by gun control advocates. Having
been proven wrong on this several times already, this lunatic continues to rant
and rave about gun owner rights in spite of the killings by firearms happening
on a daily basis. This sick ideology of
rights over life itself is beginning to turn off a newly savvy American
public. LaPierre has used fear to make
his point for years in the American Congress, NRA membership and the general
population.
In a conservative majority on the
U.S. Supreme Court, they ruled that in the 2008 decision on District of
Columbia v. Heller that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's
right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as
self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves. The key here is “in the home” which doesn’t
rule out but definitely leaves the door open to curbing the carrying of
concealed weapons. Yes, this is a
separate issue but it does illustrate a potential crack in the 2nd
Amendment that proves non-absolutism.
Wayne LaPierre has accused the
President of “undermining 2nd Amendment constitutional
principles.” Alan Singer counters with
just how the apparently divine Amendment—at least to the gun nuts—could be in
trouble. He cites the conservative
majority on the U.S. Supreme Court which leans to a “textualist” interpretation
of the Constitution. Textualism is
defined by Wikipedia as follows:
A formalist
theory of statutory interpretation, holding that a statute's ordinary meaning
should govern its interpretation, as opposed to inquiries into non-textual
sources such as the intention of the legislature {or forefathers/my words} in
passing the law, the problem it was intended to remedy, or substantive
questions of the justice and rectitude of the law.
Singer says, “In general I find
most ‘textualist’ arguments forwarded by the Supreme Court's right-wing
activists to be self-justifying contorted attempts to discover constitutional
support for positions they already hold.”
An interesting observation when you consider Supreme Court Justice
Antonin Scalia, one of the most conservative, has said that stricter gun laws
could be possible under the 2nd Amendment. This probably sent head NRA gun nut, Wayne
LaPierre, gyrating into outer space but aroused the passions of all gun control
advocates.
And it is here where Singer
analyzes the Constitution in relation to the right of the people in connection
with individual rights. He says, “An
examination of the Constitution shows a very clear and precise distinction
between the term ‘people’ and ‘person’ or "persons.’" Further, that America functions as a whole,
not individually by states nor individual persons. True, individuals do elect our lawmakers both
local, statewide and nationally, but these same individuals acting separately
can legally be limited.
In the view of a textualist, “the
right of the ‘people’ is a general statement of principle not a specific or
individual right.” Singer draws support
from the Fourth amendment in its collective right of the people to be secure in
their homes, papers, effects, etc., the right to be secure against unreasonable
searches and seizures. However, with
probable cause, identifying the place to be searched, the persons (individual),
things can be searched and seized with the proper warrant. It just proves that there is no absolutist
finality in this or the 2nd Amendment.
In conclusion, singer quotes the
2nd: "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 is clearly referring to the
collective “people,” in other words the country has a right to defend itself,
he claims. He does add, “there is no
specific prohibition on limiting the access of individual ‘persons’ to
dangerous weapons.” Even so, this
interpretation of the 2nd Amendment “provides an opportunity for
even the most conservative Supreme Court Justices to support significant new
gun restrictions approved by elected officials in local, state, and federal
governments. We can only hope for the
best.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Arizona Republican Senate candidate Jeff Flake: The Constitution isn’t sacred
It sounds like blasphemy coming from a Republican, especially one who is solidly entrenched in the Tea Party. All we have heard from these far-right fruitcakes in the last couple of years is just how enshrined this document was and is meant to be. Especially when it comes to gun rights and the 2nd amendment. Although he hasn’t even won his primary yet, and it’s doubtful he could beat his Democratic opponent if he does, Jeff Flake is already attempting to manage his reelection.
Senate candidate Flake says he favors ending the direct election of U.S. Senators, and wants to repeal the Constitution’s 17th Amendment.
Jeff Flake...precisely |
Flake now represents Arizona in the U.S. House of Representatives from the 6th Congressional District and is running for the Senate seat being vacated by Jon Kyl, another “flake.” There is talk of his opponent in the primary, businessman Wil Cardon, giving up his primary fight; at the end of July Flake led Cardon by 22 points in the polls. Assuming Flake wins the primary, he appears to be looking ahead to solidify a second term with the Arizona legislature behind him.
As a resident of the great state of Arizona , I cannot imagine putting a decision like naming a U.S. Senator in the hands of these legislative kooks. I wish I could take credit for coining the term but Laurie Roberts, columnist for the Arizona Republic, gets the kudos for her series started recently called “DeKook the Capitol,” of course, referring to the Arizona Legislature, especially Republicans. Over the last 3 years, this bunch, along with a completely incompetent Gov. Jan Brewer, has made the state a complete laughingstock.
Agreed, the 17th Amendment was not given to us by the Founding Fathers like the 2nd Amendment was; but it was passed by the Congress and on May 13, 1912 was submitted to the states for ratification and was adopted on May 31, 1913. Tell me. Is there a difference in the sacred value of a document created in 1787 with one conceived in 1912? I think not. Now if you are talking a U.S. Congress of the last few years, then, I would strongly question its ability to devise anything sensible and worthwhile.
Here’s what Jeff Flake is all about, according to the Payson, Arizona Roundup:
Flake advocated additional deep cuts in taxes and spending and the wholesale repeal of federal regulations. He said he opposed any restrictions on guns, ammunition or magazines, despite a string of recent shootings. He also said he favored eliminating both the federal Department of Energy and the Department of Education.
As is Mitt Romney, Flake is solidly behind GOP V.P. contender, Paul Ryan’s radical budget plan, covered in my Monday, August 13, post. Democratic strategist, Donna Brazile, says that by selecting Ryan as his running mate, Romney has thrown, “…seniors under the bus and undermined their health security by ending Medicare as we know it. It would increase health care cost for seniors, including those on fixed income, by thousands of dollars a year.”
Now I don’t want to turn this into a referendum for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, but if the 17th Amendment is fair game, then so is the 2nd Amendment. Therefore, when an ultra-conservative like Jeff Flake, a solid Tea Party patriot, comes right out and says we should repeal part of the U.S. Constitution, it gives us gun control advocates the right to stand up and say, by the way we have something else to propose that needs the public’s attention.
Like the number of deaths per year due to firearm homicides according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC): 11,493. That’s 3.7 per 100,000 population. Like the fact that since I have been publishing a Monthly Shooting Report starting this past March, 432 have died from firearm homicides in 1,077 shootings. And this only represents what is reported by the media which is very conservative.
There can be no argument today against the fact that something has to be done about this and now. And the 2nd Amendment may or may not be the answer. But the Tucson , Aurora and Wisconsin massacres do rigidly point toward stronger firearms regulation. Jeff Flake has opened a can of worms in the sanctity of a Constitution that many have claimed cannot and must not be tampered with. The question is whether this is more important than American lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Donald Trump Says He Will Be Indicted On Tuesday
THAT'S TODAY... Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has brought the case to this point, now looking at a possible indictment. Trum...
-
This week marks a change of format in Nasty Jack posts featuring parody to illustrate just how hilarious and absurd the political scene ca...
-
Two cities, Des Moines and Iowa City defy Iowa's idiot Gov. Kim Reynolds and keep their COVID-10 precautionary measures in place. Idio...
-
The Biden administration gave Mississippi $18.4 million in mid-2021 to hire public health workers after the state legslature had made huge...