An Ominous Specter (Specter and Bork--a new Specter low)

TownHall ^ | November 9, 2004 | Thomas Sowell

[Tamzee]

I would have liked Bork approved myself, but many are of the opinion that he's not constructionist with regard to 2cnd Amendment and wasn't endorsed by the NRA.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38cecf213bb9.htm

[Weirdad]

Wow. Amazingly thoughtful answer. Nothing is as simple as it appears, although sometimes is all reduces back to simplicity after analysis. Thanks.

It is amazing to me, though, that in the name of privacy (an unalienable right that I agree with) SCOTUS found that it is impermissible for government to prohibit women from killing their unborn babies, and yet they may have the audacity to try to prevent people from privately preparing to defend themselves. Inconsistent.

I also think the implements of self-defense have an inherent deterrence function such that the actual or implied possession of those implements amounts to actual active self-defense of the best kind, often preventing violence: possession and use are not separate, and if use is permitted, possession constitutes use so it is also permitted. Or should be.

Thanks again for the insights.

[jackbill]

But watch the pubbies stick us with this jackal.

They won't if we keep after them in sufficient numbers.

I've FAX'd the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee and Frist. I will be following up with e-mails and more FAX's. If we back off, they will. If we keep up the pressure, they will not let Specter have the chairmanship.

It's a new day. We have the power.

[ArmyBratproud]

Sowell is a good man. And he is right to expose a bad man...Specter.

Specter is a low life.

I will do my best to e-mail Sowell piece to every person I can reach.

[airborne]

Senator Specter is also one of those people who is often wrong but never in doubt. He has mangled the meaning of such basic concepts as "judicial activism" and "original intent." It would be a tragedy for him to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he could mangle nominees and in the process mangle the Constitution of the United States.

"It would be a tragedy for him to become chairman..."

"It would be a tragedy for him to become chairman..."

Worth repeating.

[Catholic and Conservative]

No doubt you are correct about how judges have ruled, but by what logic could the first amendment be "incorporated", but not the second? The second amendment is stated in much more absolute terms than the first: the second amendment says the right of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed [there is no suggestion that some levels of government can still infringe that right]; the first amendment restricts the types of laws that *congress* can pass [there is no suggestion that this applies to the states]. If just one of these two amendments protected the rights of the people against state and local governments, it would have to be the second.

[xm177e2]

No doubt you are correct about how judges have ruled, but by what logic could the first amendment be "incorporated", but not the second?

Doctrines of "incorporation" are ways to interpret the 14th Amendment's due process clause. The 14th Amendment never explicitly says the Bill of Rights is partly or fully incorporated for the states. Some justices (but never a majority on SCOTUS) have held that belief (most notably Black and Douglas). Even today, we don't have "total incorporation"--for instance, it's not necessary for state prosecutors to convene a grand jury before they indict someone for murder (see the 5th Amendment).

There is no reason to think that the 2nd Amendment would be incorporated; in fact, it's illogical. How would you incorporate an amendment that says the federal government can't interfere with state militias? Would you claim that state governments can't interfere with state militias? Or would you claim that state governments can't interfere with any militias? That sounds like anarchy.

The 14th Amendment was passed as part of the Republican effort at Reconstruction. It's whole point is to tell states "behave yourselves." It's due process clause was deliberately left vague so Southern states couldn't weasel out if it (like they had the 13th). It is a check on state injustice, not a blank check for individual rights unrelated to that which are "principle[s] of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked fundamental" (as Justice Cardozo put it in his opinion for Palko v. Connecticut (1937)).

[nickcarraway]

"If you have a race that is won by a percent or two, you have a narrowly divided country, and that's not a traditional mandate," he said. "President Bush will have that very much in mind."

[Cboldt]

My understanding is that Bork is dead-on right about that. The 2nd Amendment was a guarantee that the federal government wouldn't tell the states how to organize their militias (it couldn't dictate who could keep what weapons where)--but that the states COULD. The 2nd Amendment is not an individual right to keep and bear arms.

You are certainly not alone in making that argument. And the scary thing is that people who make that argument can find intelluctually vapid or politically active judges to agree.

The position you hold does not comport with reality in a legal or a moral sense.

I don't ask the favor of a reply or argument, and intend to not return to this thread.

[Founding Father]

This is a sad day for conservatives, who are given the same respect from the pubbies as blacks receive from the dems.

This is a typical day for the Stupid Party.

Pubbies and dems are the same at heart--they want to stay in power at all costs.

Bush will get what he deserves from Spincter, too bad conservatives will get an undeserved slap in the face.

I emailed Frist tonight and told him that I would not be supporting him for pres in '08.