Progressivism: A Vapid and Hollow Charade

GOP senators should filibuster the Kagan nomination.  I know, they’d lose.  But they would hopefully awaken somnolent American citizens to the loss of their natural rights.


In a rare blip of actual substance, Kagan revealed she would not move to overturn a law mandating every citizen eat a congressionally-prescribed amount of vegetable every day.  If Congress can tell us what to eat under threat of prosecution, what can they not do?  (See George Will’s questions for Elena Kagan here and here)


Prosecute Kagan for Lying to Congress
Kagan also professed ignorance of the term “Judicial Progressivism.”  This and her her studied agnosticism on natural rights (upon which our nation was founded), are enough to indict her for lying to Congress.

She was dean of Harvard Law School and she knows nothing of these issues?  Either Harvard got ripped off big time, or she’s a liar.


If a Man Can Grant it to You, A Man can Take it Away
Jacob Sullum, in his excellent Reason article explains the importance of natural rights:

Constitutional interpretation aside, Kagan's reluctance to endorse the concept of pre-existing rights was troubling because without it we cannot draw moral distinctions between legal regimes.

How can we condemn a dictator for legally authorized oppression, or say that our own Constitution is better now that it bans slavery than it was when it tacitly approved the practice?

The traditional American answer is that people have certain rights by virtue of being human, regardless of what the law says.

I include the two George Will articles because they are good thought pieces that help us ordinary folks think through constitutional concepts with concrete, real-world questions.

* - Kagan years ago called Supreme Court nomination hearings, "Vapid and hollow charades."

Gun Rights Don't Come From Government

Justices Signal They're Ready to Make Gun Ownership a National Right 

WRONG!

(It's an El Lay Times headline, so what do you expect?)

Government does not confer this right.  The Second Amendment recognizes gun ownership as a preexisting right granted by God (or natural law, if you prefer.)  The Constitution is a document drawn up by the several states charging the Federal Government to protect this right and not infringe upon it.  Pretty damn simple for this Colorado boy...

False Dichotomy

But do individual rights enumerated (and upheld) in the Constitution supersede a city’s duty to protect the health and welfare of its citizens? Because that’s how the City of Chicago is describing its position:

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley’s response is that the federal government is not responsible for the health and safety of the citizens of Chicago; the city is.

Daley slips us a false dichotomy:  Either ban all guns or we can't be safe. 

A writer at The Moderate Voice gets it right:

So on the one hand we have an individual right, enumerated in the Constitution and upheld by the Supreme Court — just like freedom of religion, or speech, or assembly — but thus far only applied to federal jurisdictions.

On the other hand we have a city’s (or other local entity’s) duty to protect its citizens. Which should take precedence? [...]
Cities and other governmental entities cannot simply ban a Constitutional right. I’m somewhat amazed, frankly, that it took this long to get this issue decided.

The bogus liberal argument of imperious rulers like Mayor Daley presupposes, generally, that God-given rights cannot be reconciled with public safety, to wit: Gun ownership is a threat to the health and safety of Chicago's citizens.

That is demonstrably false.  Anecdotal evidence to the contrary is everywhere.  Concealed carry laws do not cause more crime.  Anecdotal evidence suggests such laws bring the crime rate down.  Knowing his "victim" might have the capacity to drill a .357 slug between his eyes makes a criminal think twice.  A puny gun ban does not. 

King Daley and his liberal comrades are not so foolish that they believes their own BS about gun ownership.  Like so much of the progressive agenda, this is about power and control.

Gun Grabbers have their Day in Court

Are the 50 states required to obey the Second Amendment?

Or can they do whatever they want, with no obligation to respect our right to keep and bear arms?

That’s what’s at stake in the Chicago gun-ban case, McDonald v. City of Chicago (Alan Korwin)

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.
-- 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution

This will be a landmark decision

Last year, The Supreme Court upheld our right to bear arms in the Heller Decision, but since it was a DC case, it was silent on such bans imposed by states and cities.

The Chicago Case before the Supreme Court is complex and involves much more that just the right to bear arms.  Can the federal government compel states to respect The Bill of Rights?  If so, is this a violation of states rights?

A straight reading of the 2nd Amendment should settle it:  Chicago may not infringe upon a person's right to own a gun.  Unfortunately, progressive lawmakers have trampled and twisted our constitution, and deferential judges have too often let them get by with it.

Jason Adkins at Big Government explains:

But the practice of constitutional law has unfortunately long since been about more than the simple application of the plain text.  That’s because the Constitution—the point of which is to limit government power—is a rather inconvenient roadblock when government wants to do something without restraints.  

Courts, in many cases, have abandoned their responsibility to apply the clear commands of the Constitution and have become extremely deferential to legislatures, especially with regard to progressive policy goals the judges themselves often share.  

Some call this judicial “restraint,” but increasingly, a more accurate term would be judicial abdication.  

This case revolves around not just the 2nd Amendment, but also the 14th.  It's a very long amendment, passed to give teeth to the 13th, which abolished slavery.  Here is the relevant section:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 

Gun Rights champion Alan Korwin has written The Definitive Article on this case.  He breaks it down so us non-lawyers can understand it.  Here are some excerpts:

Our brief establishes this crucial point: the Second Amendment protects an American right that is long standing, deeply rooted and truly fundamental, and therefore meets the tests for incorporation under the 14th Amendment.

 The idea that the states should also be obligated to respect the fundamental rights in the national Bill of Rights didn’t arrive until 1868, with the 14th Amendment. And that was a result of the end of slavery — the former Confederate states did everything they could think of to deny virtually any rights to newly freed slaves — especially the right to keep and bear arms.

Is Chicago obligated, under the 14th Amendment, to honor and respect your rights? It says no, it can do as it pleases and screw your rights, just like other abhorrent petty tyrants currently running loose without nooses in the United States.

Gun Rights vs. States Rights? 

Here's a critical issue:  If the court overturns the ban, is it a blow to states' rights?  As important is a separate issue:  If the federal government can use the 14th Amendment to force states to respect a right mentioned in the 2nd, will liberals use this precedent to force states to recognize other "rights" that they invent?

Yes, we’re delighted that the states may be forced — by our friends the feds — to honor our right to keep arms and our right to bear arms. We can conveniently overlook and rationalize any concerns about federalism — the concept that states are sovereign and independent, and in many matters can decide on their own how their territories will be run.

Will gun rights activists end up providing cover fire for progressive schemers?

Force from federal mandates seems just fine to protect free speech or stop search-and-seizure abuse, or to protect RKBA. But how well that flies if it’s “newly discovered privileges and immunities” (polygamy? drugs? animal rights? affirmative action? debt? medicine? carbon neutrality? diversity? greenness? diet?) remains to be seen.

Those are far fetched and unlikely concerns, according to most people in the know.

Interesting stuff. I don't see this as a states rights issue because our God-given rights may not be infringed by anyone.  As for the progressive schemers, the tide seems to be turning against them.

The Chicago Gun Ban Case

Supreme Court Appears Ready To Overturn Chicago Gun Ban Ordinance

If the early reports coming out of Washington D.C. are correct, we will not have to listen to the nonsense Mayor Richard Daley has been spinning for years. Mayor Daley has defended the city's handgun ban as being necessary and reasonable. Reasonable? For Whom?

The New American - Partial Victory Could Have Other Implications

So while the anticipated Supreme Court decision may represent a partial victory to some, and an unconstitutional infringement on the powers of state governments to others, the future of gun rights in America generally looks brighter than it did just a few years ago. After all, more and more Americans are beginning to appreciate that the right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable gift from their Creator which “shall not be infringed” by government. And that is encouraging news. 

The Economist

Mr McDonald’s lawsuit against Chicago’s gun laws reached the Supreme Court this week. It was the moment gun-lovers had been waiting for since 2008, when the court struck down as unconstitutional a similar handgun ban in Washington, DC. By a 5-4 majority, the justices ruled then that the second amendment’s right “to keep and bear arms” applies to individuals, not just members of a militia. 

The question now is whether this right applies only in a federal enclave such as Washington, DC, or nationwide. Judging by the questions the justices threw at Chicago’s lawyer on March 2nd, the answer is “nationwide”.

The first ten amendments to the constitution (the Bill of Rights) originally bound only the federal government. But the rights contained in them, such as free speech, have mostly been applied to the states via the “due process” clause of the 14th amendment. (“Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law…”) This is the most likely way that the court’s slim majority will extend gun rights to the whole country. 

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.
-- 2nd Amendment to The US Constitution

Foreigner Fears and Liberal Loathings

Liberal anger reached a frothy, eye-bulging, screaming crescendo last week when the Supreme Court stood up for the First Amendment.  Remember when liberals used to at least give lip service to The Bill of Rights?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...

 The recent Supreme Court decision that unmuzzles political speech has spawned a plethora of deranged leftoid rants.  Brian Dickerson at Detroit Free Press, gets my vote for the golden nutball award. 

"a divided court authorized a global corporate auction for the services of elected officials."

He then becomes completely unhinged trying to explain why we need to be protected from big corporations who spend billions lying to us:

So instead of learning that the Amalgamated Food Adulteration Corp. is pleased with the job state Sen. X has been doing, we learn that a group known only as Americans for the Eradication of Child Pornography has been shocked to discover that a man whose name sounds awfully like that of state Sen. X's opponent was recently charged with soliciting a prostitute.

First off, we have defamation laws to handle libel and slander, so nobody can just lie and get away with it.

Secondly, we can't violate people's God-given rights just because someone thinks we're all too stupid to recognize Plouffian-style mind-control propaganda for what it is and resist it. 

Finally, if the fleck-spittle lefty ranters would actually move beyond the MSNBC propaganda, they'd find foreigners still may not contribute to US political campaigns. 

Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case.

Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication." (Bradley A. Smith, Professor of Law)

Not to worry, BBC and every other Euro Leftist rag can still continue to to endorse their fellow travelers in the Democratic party and their grab bag of nutty ideas.  

For a refreshing antidote to this madness, read Thomas Mitchell's A Few Reminders For The Constitutionally Challenged.