The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. - Ayn Rand
And 'conservatives' wonder why I talk about gun control and the War on Drugs in combination. They both spring from the same illegitimate view of federal power. There is no federal police power, and warping the meaning of the Commerce clause to achieve it in one domain lays the foundation for the abusive application in others.
One day yet the NRA will rue Project Exile.
Not soon enough.
And how many words is this one? ;)
/me goes back to reading
13,430. Twenty-seven printed pages and a bit.
an earlier 13000 word wall o' sound; and now a couple thousand more words, all boiling down to the same notion, which, BTW, **is nowhere in the constitution**: we the people consent to be ruled over by our 9 bewigged lawyerly masters ensconsced in the supreme judicial chambers. THEIR word is the ultimate law. THEIR will trumps legislative will; duly-voted referendums; and the right of a landowner to A) be secure in his property and B) do what he pleases with said property.
and when they, our learned rulers-for-life philosopher kings get around to permitting it, and they will, gold & guns & free enterprise and all the rest will be outlawed. while we the people shrug and say, "they're the boss. whattaya gonna do?"
in the end, that frickin' idiot plato wins. shows you what a good P.R. man can do for you.
There you have, starkly and ingenuously confessed, the judicial philosophy -- if it can be dignified as such -- of Reid and like-minded Democrats: Regardless of constitutional reasoning that can be annoyingly hard to refute, we care only about results. How many thoughtful Democrats will wish to take their stand where Reid has planted that flag?
While I realize calling him "thoughtful" is an awful stratch, Marky has taken his stand precisely there. This is the opening two sentences from his latest post on his blog:
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled today that the Chicago hand gun ban is unconstitutional. I agree that it is as I know many people who live there who have been assaulted way too many times.
And yes, he's already been bitch-slapped in the comments (although not by me) for "agreeing that it is" solely because of people he knows having been assaulted. It doesn't make a rat's ass whether or not it's good law, or whether it agrees with the core document of US law. He likes it, therefore it's good, and that's the only standard.
That explains much about his positions on a lot of issues.
Aaaaand the blather continues. From Marxy's comments in reply:
"Does the 2nd amendment protect the right to own an automatic weapon? Yes. Does owning a machine gun have a practical application in reality? No."
…and later on…
"Of course, none of this addresses the issue of state's rights which have been usurped in this case. While I do agree that the ban is unconstitutional, the same people who argue for state's rights really don't give a shit about them when it comes to guns."
What more really needs to be said…?
I take it that this is not the Ültimate Überpost you're working on for Mr. Kelly?
No. No, it's not.
Tour de Force! Simply beautiful. Now I need to go back and re-read it a few times to make sure I can actually retain some of it. Thanks for continuing to put out such heavy-weight material!
1. Thank you for your work on this post.
2. I'll have to print this and read it later. My lunch 1/2 hr is gone.
If you'll pardon the language: fuck 'em all. I don't need a judge to tell me what the Constitution means.
And I'm a little skeptical about the "full faith and credit" aspect of the judgement. Does this mean that as the holder of a Texas CHL, I can walk through the City of Chicago with a concealed handgun, and NOT be arrested and prosecuted if I'm discovered to be doing so by the Chicago PD?
Forgive me if I'm not willing to put THAT little exercise to the test.
This was a victory, of sorts, to be sure. But it wasn't as big a victory as everyone seems to be trumpeting. Let's see how many ordinary Chicagoans are given "permission" to own handguns in the next two years, with all the roadblocks and obstructions that Hizzoner Daley is going to erect in their path.
My guess: fewer than a dozen. And I wouldn't bet against "none" either.
Not quite a victory...
One step at a time, Kim. It's how we got to where we were in 1998, it's how we've gotten to where we are today.
Kevin, my dear friend: I'm really sick and tired of having to take baby steps to remedy a clear injustice, when the Left continues to enact their foul agenda (e.g. ObamaCare and NFA) in leaps and bounds.
I understand, but you've got two choices: baby steps (the way the opposition has been doing it) or bloody rebellion.
Ambrose Bierce observed once that "Revolution is an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment."
I fear that the Endarkenment really is coming, but I have no wish to hasten it.
"I fear that the Endarkenment really is coming, but I have no wish to hasten it."
That makes no difference, sir, as the Left does want it, whether they know it or not, and they are taking, as Kim rightly states, "leaps and bounds," at this point, attacking at other fronts.
Gee, sounds like things would be a whole lot better if we didn't have lawyers and judges telling the hoi polloi what the Constitution really says. A pox on both their houses.
Please remember that "Law Enforcement" is the great enabler of the sewage, and would have been glad to enable a Court that went the other direction. Thank them if you wish.
Well done, Kevin.
This is a remarkable expose of why I despise the legal profession in general. I spent about one-fourth of my engineering career in legal clusterfucks with lawyers who will cheerfully (and expensively) spend years splitting hairs over the meaning of a single word.
Now comes the era of one of my favorite questions: "Just what part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?"
I haven't read through the whole 13,000 word wall of text, but I appreciate your efforts, and I've got it bookmarked for future reference.
The thing that jumped out at me was one of the quotes from Joseph Story in 1833:
it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations.
This is a bit of a digression, but it reminded me of something I read a couple of years ago in a book entitled Sam Patch, The Famous Jumper by Paul E. Johnson.
The book is about an early American daredevil who specialized in jumping over waterfalls, and was the first to perform any kind of stunt at Niagara Falls, a generation before the more well-known tightrope walkers and barrel riders. But since not a whole lot is known about his life, the author fleshes it out with descriptions of American culture in the 1820s. It's a fascinating book, actually.
Anyway, on p. 139-141, the author says that the men of that time were chafing at the requirements for militia practice and drills, and came to regard them as occasions for drinking and tomfoolery. They created "Fantastical Militias" where they paraded around in silly costumes and staged mock battles instead of actually training. Those exhibitions became popular spectator attractions in some places.
I wish I could quote the whole thing, but the text isn't available online and I'm not going to type it in by hand. Check out the book. It's cheap and a damned interesting read.
Wrong, there IS a Federal police power. The Constitution gives the Federal government certain specific powers, and in exercise of those powers, it has the authority to ENFORCE them. In other words, in cases involving enumerated Federal powers, they DO, in fact, have a police power.
The problem is that they have not limited themsleves to those areas where they actually have enumerated powers.
Madison was quite clear about it, but then he's a dead white guy who never understood how the Constitution was alive and evolving.
Gripe about courts and judges all you want, but SOMEONE has to rule on the application of the words.
Otherwise, the words are meaningless and depend only upon each individual's interpretatation. That's chaos and the rule of the strong.
There is a wide gulf of difference between hewing to the Rule of Law and letting any black robed fool change plain meaning over some random stare decisis that the court decided to use that day.
"The meaning of the Second Amendment of the Constitution was altered without the use of the Amendment process - merely by the repeated death-by-a-thousand-cuts judicial re-interpretation, and the power of stare decisis."
That's what I am griping about.
That was the point of my "The Courts Will Not Save Us" trilogy (see left sidebar), but as noted in "Hudson Was Wrong" I don't see that we really have much other choice.
Save us? No.
Keeping us afloat for a little longer, maybe. I hope so, at least.
An Endarkenment seems inevitable at some point, we have plenty of examples of civilizations crumbling to nothing almost over night, but I for one don't plan on going gently in that good night.
This decision doesn't win the war, but it is one less battle we need to fight: the Supreme Court has marginally agreed with the Constitution about the 2nd Amendment.
Note that your fine friends in "Law Enforcement" are the great enablers for all this. Be sure to thank them appropriately for the outstanding job they have done! Note also that they would have had no problem enabling a decision that went the OTHER way. Bow and scrape before their Masters. Constitution be damned!