2nd Amendment

I'm not so concerned about whether or not the Right or the Left win on their issues; I'm concerned about proper Constitutional interpretation, judicial activism and the "presumption of liberty" vs. the "presumption of Constitutionality" when it comes to judicial review. So, from a liberty-minded perspective, here are some serious questions that should be asked of the SCOTUS nominee that replaces David Souter. (Thanks to my co-worker, Joe Henchman, for help on these.)

ONE: Currently, the Supreme Court takes less than 100 cases per year, leaving many important legal questions undecided. Would you be in favor of increasing your caseload so that many Constitutional disputes can be resolved?

TWO: In the University of Michigan affirmative action cases, Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger, it was ruled that while racial quotas could not be set, race could still be used as a factor in admissions. Then-Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said that affirmative action may not be needed in the near future. Do you think it is appropriate for the Court to determine when a policy is no longer necessary?

THREE: The issues of property rights and eminent domain have been somewhat resolved in recent times. Do you believe that Kelo v. New London was decided correctly?

FOUR: The Second Amendment has also been a topic that the Court has recently taken up. Do you believe that District of Columbia v. Heller was decided correctly?

FIVE: There is always debate over the balance between government power and individual rights. When it comes to state laws that allegedly violate individual rights, to what extent should the Court give deference to that state law?

SIX: Since the 1938 decision in United States v. Caroline Products Co., the Court has only enforced equal protection in three specific categories: enumerated rights, protection for minorities and protections in the political process. Is it proper for equal protection to be limited to these categories, and if so, are these categories permanent?

SEVEN: When it comes to Constitutional interpretation, the Court has seemed to adopt “tiers of scrutiny” in various First Amendment, equal protection and other contexts: strict scrutiny, rational scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, etc. Is it proper for the Court to have different levels of scrutiny for different cases? If so, why?

EIGHT: The federal government influences state policy in many ways by attaching conditions to federal funding. Is there a point at which a condition would be unconstitutional, even though acceptance of funding is at the state's discretion?

We've written about Tea Party protesters needing to focus on local activism.   So here's a useful project for the Milwaukee Tea Party protesters.   Get Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn fired.  After the Wisconsin Attorney General affirmed the 2nd Amendment, pointing out that it is "legal to openly carry a gun", Ed Flynn said I am above the law...

"My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we’ll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it,” Flynn said.

Tea Party protesters - and many others besides - ought to insist upon a number of things immediately.

• Milwaukee citizens should demand that Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen uphold the law, immediately having Ed Flynn arrested and charged with intentional violation of the law.  Citizens should also insist that charges be filed against any police officer, chief or politician who violates the open carry rights that Van Hollen has recognized (and "following orders" is no excuse).  If Van Hollen will not do that, citizens should file a suit against him and/or Wisconsin.
• Milwaukee citizens should file a civil suit against Police Chief Ed Flynn (and perhaps the city, as well) for depriving them of a basic civil liberty (protected under both the Constitution and Wisconsin law.)
• Milwaukee police should openly and vocally refuse Police Chief Ed Flynn's orders - and perhaps file charges against him for ordering them to commit a crime.  They might also include Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett in that lawsuit, since he supports Flynn's decision to ignore State and Federal law.
• Protesters should find and rally behind a strong candidate to replace Democratic Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett.

Government would be better if politicians and beauracrats were a lot more worried that they might be prosecuted or sued.  Milwaukee protesters can accomplish that.

Podcast Show Notes

Obama's speech had more negative attacks than Palin's. (Hat Tip: Instapundit.)

As Palin becomes one of America's most popular political leaders, Oprah refuses to have Sarah Palin on her show and one liberal bloggers suggests the media should claim revenge by ignoring Palin.

Us Magazine loses thousands of subscribers over unfair attacks on Governor Palin while Sally Quinn backs off earlier criticism of the VP Pick.  (Hat Tip: Red State.)

McCain's acceptance speech outdraws Obama.

Obama's attempt to pick up moderate evangelicals failing. (Hat Tip: Jill Stanek.)

Obama's plan to radicalize American youth. (Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin.)

Unemployment has gone up to 6.1% after the last economic stimulus package didn't work. Obama's solution? Another stimulus package. Change, anyone?

Democratic Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY), who is in charge of writing America's tax laws doesn't seem to understand them and is also blissfully aware of how much income he's getting. Where are those people who are upset about McCain not knowing the number of houses he has when you need them? (Hat Tip: Wizbang Blog.)

Plus one man takes on the attempts of states to copyright their laws and forbid people from distributing them. (Hat Tip: Club for Growth.)

Plus a consequence of gay marriage: dealing with homosexual weddings in prison.

Plus our 2nd Amendment update.

The growth of Public Virtual Schools.  

A victory for freedom of religion in Anaheim.

Music from Torley on the Piano via the Podsafe Music Network.

Click here to listen.

It will be interesting to watch so many people play musical chairs over the next few years, reversing positions and principles to match their new preferences.  For instance, today's NYTimes Editorial on the Supreme Court decision on guns is quite difficult to align with their position on the detention issue

Even if there were a constitutional right to possess guns for nonmilitary uses, constitutional rights are not absolute. The First Amendment guarantees free speech, but that does not mean that laws cannot prohibit some spoken words, like threats to commit imminent violent acts. 

The New York Times Editorial Board will be pleased to learn that the Second Amendment also guarantees the individual right to keep and bear guns, but that does not mean that laws cannot prohibit some uses of guns, like threats to commit imminent violent acts. 

But it gets worse.  In their criticism of the Supreme Court decision on gun rights, the New York Times cites Justice Scalia's recent opinion that public safety interests outweigh rights of habeus corpus...

In his dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer argued soundly that whatever right gun owners have to unimpeded gun use is outweighed by the District of Columbia’s “compelling” public-safety interests.  In this month’s case recognizing the habeas corpus rights of the detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Justice Scalia wrote in dissent that the decision “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.” Those words apply with far more force to his opinion in this District of Columbia case.

...but just two weeks ago, the New York Times disagreed with Justice Scalia. 

Some lefties keep using that word, radical...

The Court's radical deconstructionists interpreted the [2nd Amendment] to mean that individuals must be allowed to own guns to shoot those they think might threaten their lives.

I do not think it means what they think it means.

The Supreme Court's ruling on Thursday that a District of Columbia ban on handgun ownership is unconstitutional appears to be solidly in step with public opinion. A clear majority of the U.S. public -- 73% -- believes the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the rights of Americans to own guns. And almost 7 out of 10 Americans are opposed to a law that would make the possession of a handgun illegal, except by the police.

Fortunately, as Bill Beutler has pointed out in two excellents posts, just as the Left is gradually coming around on domestic drilling, they also appear to be accepting the individual right language of the 2nd amendment.

Those are victories.  Radical victories.

[Promoted - Gov. Huckabee speaks for a great many of us today. - Jon Henke]

Gun owners and conservatives everywhere should stand up and applaud the Supreme Court's ruling today in favor of striking down the unlawful Washington, DC handgun ban.

Today’s decision affirming the 2nd Amendment right to an individual owning firearms is a refreshing decision from the court, and reminds us how important the election of the next President can be. The Washington, D. C. ban on handguns was clearly unconstitutional and the court ruling today reminds us that our Constitutional rights are not geographical---one locale cannot decide a different right than other locales—they are Constitutional rights—not community rights

Judge Antonin Scalia wrote the Majority Opinion. Joining Justice Scalia were Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Thomas and Kennedy.

Many of you know I proudly own a variety of firearms and enjoy hunting as well as sports shooting with targets and clays. But even if I were not a hunter I would still be a firm believer in the Second Amendment right of Americans to own firearms for self-protection and as a matter of principle.

In 1998, after the tragic killing of a teacher and four students at the Westside Middle School near Jonesboro, Arkansas, I was being interviewed by Katie Couric on NBC’s Today show. She intimated that mass murder on school campuses seemed to be confined to schools in the Deep South, where there existed a “culture of guns.”

I assured her that yes hunting and ownership of firearms were Southern traditions. At the same time murder of innocent schoolchildren was most certainly not and such violence was inexplicable regardless of one’s geography. When she continued to press, looking for some validation of her view that these shootings were in some way connected to the South, I firmly reminded her that Colin Ferguson boarded a train in New York and coldly killed 27 people before finally being subdued. That event occurred in New York where the gun laws are among the toughest in the country and where gun ownership is much lower than in the South.

We certainly should be tough on those who abuse firearms by employing them in a crime. But abolishing firearms because there are reckless abusers makes as much sense as abolishing cars because some people drive while drunk.

Most firearms owners are responsible and exceptionally careful and safety conscious. My own membership in the NRA is something I cherish and value. This is not so much because I love guns but because I love freedom, and I believe to trample on one part of the Bill of Rights is to trample on all of it.
 

A version of this blog is cross posted at www.huckpac.com.