In 1777, after the Revolutionary War with Great Britain, The Articles of Confederation was written. They were dubbed a "loose confederation" or a "firm league of friendship," there was to be no executive branch. It sounds like it was more a League of Nations or the EU then a country. And there were obviously many problems with it, so the best and the brightest, the most trusted men of their time set out to fix it and instead made a new constitution. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton are a few of them. They had many different opinions, but they found common ground for the welfare of the entire country. The United States ratified the Constitution and instituted it as the supreme law of the land in 1789. Today, the United States Constitution is the oldest, written constitution that has continuously remained in effect in the world. It established the first federal form of government, the first system of checks and balances. The Constitution formed the three branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial.
The whole thing was in jeopardy of being thrown out due to the lack of a bill of rights and the difference in ideology between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists once again men were able to put the country above all else and the first 10 amendments were ratified in 1791 AKA The Bill of Rights. It continues to play a central role in law and government, and remains a fundamental symbol of the freedom for this great country.
Recently there have been two big rulings by the Supreme Court one on the second amendment and one a ruling on the writ of habeas corpus that I will tackle at a later time.
The second amendment provides: “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.
Ok, I know we are post Clinton era where we like to debate what the definition of is, is. But to me it’s obvious what this is saying. Because the revolutionary war was won by regular people taking there guns from over the fire place and grouping together to protect their state, their home, and their family; they made the right to keep and bear arms the second amendment not the eighth or the sixth. It’s second only to the freedom of speech, the press, and right to petition, and assemble. They deliberately made sure anyone was going to have a hell of a time taking the guns out of the homes of ordinary people, because this was our most powerful weapon to protect against invasion. Yes, times have changed and the most powerful weapon is now nuclear, the sediment is still the same. Individuals fighting for their country are still very powerful; if this was not true the war with Iraq would be a cake walk. The founding fathers were very smart and knew that a person will defend his home to his last breath.
But for you word splitters out there, here is what the Supreme Court ruling says: “the second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. Other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose.”
So in other words first it’s a statement justifying the importance of the law, then the law itself.
It is not the supreme courts job to determine whether a law is still relevant in today’s society but to interpret the laws meaning and they did a very intelligent job. In the seventeen hundreds no one imagined the weapons we would have dreamed up by the year 2008. Taking that into account, the Supreme Court left it open to put restrictions on those weapons. So this is not a pass to own a missile but it should mean the right to own an M16 or M14.
Just as a side note: The poor republican has never owned a gun and does not hunt. But like many things in this world I support this ruling on principle. I love this country and share the ideals it was founded on. Without the Constitution it’s just a bunch of preoccupied people in the majority voting on things they half understand.
The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered... deeply, ...finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people. George Washington
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Friday, June 6, 2008
Bill of Rights vs. Public School
Three seniors at Bloomington's Kennedy High School have been suspended for waving Confederate flags in the school parking lot Tuesday morning. The prank, as the students called it, kept them from participating in their graduation ceremony Wednesday night.
http://www.twincities.com/crime/ci_9482777
In my understanding the civil war was wholly about slavery. For the north it was fueled by Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the Dred Scott Case, John Brown’s Raid, and the passage of the fugitive slave act. For the south it was fueled by money, power, and a history of wanting more state rights and less government control dating back to the creation of the constitution. But the modern confederate flag was never used in that war. So what does the Confederate flag symbolize? To many different people it symbolizes many different things like solidarity, belonging to the south, and rebellion against the federal government, but to others it represents racism, slavery, and was seen as a symbol of hate during the adoption of the Jim Crow laws and the civil rights movement.
It is protected by the first amendment, everything else aside these kids are dumb asses. They don’t even live in the south. The question is… What power does a public school have to censor the first amendment? Here is the answer; please read this, it is extremely interesting!
http://www.princeton.edu/~lawjourn/Fall97/II1weissman.html
For people who don’t have the time right now to read it. The summary is this; yes kids have first amendment rights and when push comes to shove they will be up held as long as the act in question is not preventing the other kids from daily routine and learning. It’s very important to understand it’s a two way street, it’s in everyone’s interest to up hold students first amendment rights. If you read the civil rights cases in the Princeton link I provided you will understand what I mean.
Republicans opposed the expansion of slavery into territories owned by the United States, and their victory in the presidential election of 1860 resulted in seven Southern states declaring their secession from the Union even before Lincoln took office.[1] The Union rejected secession, regarding it as rebellion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
http://www.twincities.com/crime/ci_9482777
In my understanding the civil war was wholly about slavery. For the north it was fueled by Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the Dred Scott Case, John Brown’s Raid, and the passage of the fugitive slave act. For the south it was fueled by money, power, and a history of wanting more state rights and less government control dating back to the creation of the constitution. But the modern confederate flag was never used in that war. So what does the Confederate flag symbolize? To many different people it symbolizes many different things like solidarity, belonging to the south, and rebellion against the federal government, but to others it represents racism, slavery, and was seen as a symbol of hate during the adoption of the Jim Crow laws and the civil rights movement.
It is protected by the first amendment, everything else aside these kids are dumb asses. They don’t even live in the south. The question is… What power does a public school have to censor the first amendment? Here is the answer; please read this, it is extremely interesting!
http://www.princeton.edu/~lawjourn/Fall97/II1weissman.html
For people who don’t have the time right now to read it. The summary is this; yes kids have first amendment rights and when push comes to shove they will be up held as long as the act in question is not preventing the other kids from daily routine and learning. It’s very important to understand it’s a two way street, it’s in everyone’s interest to up hold students first amendment rights. If you read the civil rights cases in the Princeton link I provided you will understand what I mean.
Republicans opposed the expansion of slavery into territories owned by the United States, and their victory in the presidential election of 1860 resulted in seven Southern states declaring their secession from the Union even before Lincoln took office.[1] The Union rejected secession, regarding it as rebellion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Who has more morals... democrats or republicans?
Is it OK to cheat on your taxes? A total of 57 percent of those who described themselves as “very liberal” said yes in response to the World Values Survey, compared with only 20 percent of those who are “very conservative.” When Pew Research asked whether it was “morally wrong” to cheat Uncle Sam, 86 percent of conservatives agreed, compared with only 68 percent of liberals.
Ponder this scenario, offered by the National Cultural Values Survey: “You lose your job. Your friend’s company is looking for someone to do temporary work. They are willing to pay the person in cash to avoid taxes and allow the person to still collect unemployment. What would you do?”
Almost half, or 49 percent, of self-described progressives would go along with the scheme, but only 21 percent of conservatives said they would.
This is from http://www.examiner.com/a-1419425~Peter_Schweizer__Conservatives_more_honest_than_liberals_.html
I encourage you to read the whole story. Yes some of this has to do with the strong presence of religious people who are conservatives due to social issues, but that aside, these questions have to do with not just moral issues but the fundamental difference in views about the national purse and our own responsibility to keep taxes down. The people who cheat welfare and don’t need it, but take it because it’s there and they qualified for it are raising the taxes. The thought among some is… it’s there and you’re stupid for not taking it. Hell, I got a TV that needs one of those boxes for the HD signal and I can’t bring myself to get the little $40 dollar check from the Gov. because I know that I can find $ 40 dollars somewhere. It’s not because I'm more moral then anyone, it’s only because I think of the money the government has differently. It’s not their money, it’s ours and it needs to be spent wisely, especially at the federal level. If we didn’t have programs like this in the first place I would have that $40. Not only would I have it, I could decide what to do with it. Maybe I want to put it towards a new TV instead of a box to make my old one work or maybe I’d decide I don’t need two TV’s in my house and I put it in my gas tank. They take money from us and then give it back with conditions on how it’s used.
There are people in this world who really do need help. The democrats think it’s the responsibility of the government to help these people where as the republicans think it is ours. We should be able to chose who we help if we’re going to give to charity, where the biggest portion is going to the actual people who need it. I think we can all agree the government is not it.
washingtonpost.com — Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227)
It’s not that republicans are categorically more moral then democrats and it’s not that democrats want all these programs to help people because they care more. It’s a fundamental difference in how we view the money the government is spending and a difference in opinion on who should have control over how the money Americans make is spent. Do we pool it together (cough, cough socialism) or do we spend it individually?
Ponder this scenario, offered by the National Cultural Values Survey: “You lose your job. Your friend’s company is looking for someone to do temporary work. They are willing to pay the person in cash to avoid taxes and allow the person to still collect unemployment. What would you do?”
Almost half, or 49 percent, of self-described progressives would go along with the scheme, but only 21 percent of conservatives said they would.
This is from http://www.examiner.com/a-1419425~Peter_Schweizer__Conservatives_more_honest_than_liberals_.html
I encourage you to read the whole story. Yes some of this has to do with the strong presence of religious people who are conservatives due to social issues, but that aside, these questions have to do with not just moral issues but the fundamental difference in views about the national purse and our own responsibility to keep taxes down. The people who cheat welfare and don’t need it, but take it because it’s there and they qualified for it are raising the taxes. The thought among some is… it’s there and you’re stupid for not taking it. Hell, I got a TV that needs one of those boxes for the HD signal and I can’t bring myself to get the little $40 dollar check from the Gov. because I know that I can find $ 40 dollars somewhere. It’s not because I'm more moral then anyone, it’s only because I think of the money the government has differently. It’s not their money, it’s ours and it needs to be spent wisely, especially at the federal level. If we didn’t have programs like this in the first place I would have that $40. Not only would I have it, I could decide what to do with it. Maybe I want to put it towards a new TV instead of a box to make my old one work or maybe I’d decide I don’t need two TV’s in my house and I put it in my gas tank. They take money from us and then give it back with conditions on how it’s used.
There are people in this world who really do need help. The democrats think it’s the responsibility of the government to help these people where as the republicans think it is ours. We should be able to chose who we help if we’re going to give to charity, where the biggest portion is going to the actual people who need it. I think we can all agree the government is not it.
washingtonpost.com — Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227)
It’s not that republicans are categorically more moral then democrats and it’s not that democrats want all these programs to help people because they care more. It’s a fundamental difference in how we view the money the government is spending and a difference in opinion on who should have control over how the money Americans make is spent. Do we pool it together (cough, cough socialism) or do we spend it individually?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)