"A Whiter Shade of Pale": Sense and Nonsense — The Pursuit of Perfection in Law and Politics

www.constitution.org ^ | April 20, 2000 | Janice Rogers Brown

[Huck]

If this is a good example of a Bush nominee, I'm gonna stop worrying about it and sit back and watch. This is a good speech that demonstrates just the right tempermant towards government needed on the bench, and throughout the nation, for that matter.

[Wonder Warthog]

Prior to this article, I knew "zip" about Janice Rogers Brown. Now I say, GET THIS WOMAN ON THE SUPREME COURT !!!NOW!!!

Wonderful article, wonderful Supreme Court nominee.

I can see why the socialists are scared to death of the potential of her on the Court.

[janis]

Actually, this is a great speech. WOW. Janice R. Brown is not only brilliant and witty but must be scaring the left into "a whiter shade of pale."

bookmarked.

[Defiant]

Wow. She articulates so well the vision that could save this country from descent into increasing collectivism and authoritarianism--a return to the Constitution. She is one of the few people talking about what happened to the Constitution in the 1930s, which is where the major damage occurred, in my opinion.

[sauropod]

read later

[230FMJ]

read later

[retyered]

Brown Sides with Calif. SC to Uphold Assault Weapons Ban

2002/4/22
Justices Uphold State's Assault Weapons Ban

By MAURA DOLAN, Times Legal Affairs Writer

SAN FRANCISCO--The California Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the state's 1989 assault weapons ban, the first such prohibition of semiautomatic assault weapons in the nation.

The strongest weapons ban in the nation, the law bars about 75 models of firearms and allows judges to add new ones to the list as makers design modifications. A Court of Appeal in Sacramento decided two years ago that the add-on provision violated separation of powers between the Legislature and the judiciary.

But none of the state's seven high court justices agreed. "For good or ill," wrote Justice Janice Rogers Brown for the court, "the Legislature stood up and was counted on this issue, one of the most contentious in modern society."

In her opinion for the court majority, Brown strongly rejected any suggestion that the state Constitution protects the rights of Californians to own weapons.

"No mention is made [in the state Constitution] of a right to bear arms," Brown wrote.

The court majority also rejected the challenge that the law was invalid because it failed to ban all similar weapons.
"Doubtless, 10 years after Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act became law in California, many semiautomatic weapons potentially classifiable as assault weapons remain on the market here," Brown wrote.

"That may or may not be regrettable, depending upon one's view of this highly charged public policy question," Brown added, "but it does not amount to a constitutionally fatal flaw."

[Huck]

Well, does the Cali constitution include a right to bear arms or not? If not, didn't she correctly interpret California law? If the law violates a federally protected right, then isn't that up to a federal court to decide? Where did she err?

[Huck]

She definitely demonstrates a healthy mistrust of government, a quality sorely lacking in our country.

[Nick Danger]

it now appears that human nature is so constituted that, as in the days of empire all roads led to Rome; in the heyday of liberal democracy, all roads lead to slavery. And we no longer find slavery abhorrent. We embrace it. We demand more.

I've been noodling on this same thing recently. It almost seems that human beings are hard-wired to want and expect strongarm leadership.

We see this most evidently in the way that Islamofascists tell their countrymen to resist democracy as a Western corruption. Tribal leaders, shieks, and some strongarm thug at the top are the natural ways to live, according to these types. And in fact millions do live that way. If they oppose it, it's not by enough to overthrow it.

But I see the same thing on FR. The extreme cases are the conspiracy kooks who, in the absence of a strongarm thug running everything, make one up. It's the Bilderbergers, or the bankers, or the CFR, or The Jooz.

But set them aside for a moment, because they aren't that numerous. What bothers me more on FR is the sheer number of people who don't seem to get the idea that the world basically runs by itself.

The best examples of this going on right now are in the numerous threads discussing the falling dollar. That the dollar is falling is a result of totally automatic market forces that in the end can't be resisted. Americans have been buying imports faster than foreigners have been buying our exports, and this has been going on for a long time. The system — not any tribal leader, not Alan Greenspan, not George W. Bush — adjusts to this by revaluing the dollar against foreign currencies. It is an example of the world working by itself.

When these adjustments are complete, the millions of individuals throughout the world will have a new set of prices signalling them to change their behavior. For Americans, the prices of imported goods will be higher; for foreigners, the prices of American exports will be lower. Presto, everybody does what they are supposed to do to correct the previous trade imbalance. No tribal leaders were needed, and no strongarm dictator has to order people to behave differently. It just "happens."

And yet, there is no end on FR to the people insisting that tribal leadership — usually in the form of George W. Bush, but also Alan Greenspan or Treasury Secretary Snow — pull their secret levers or turn their secret knobs to make the world change.

A world that runs itself makes some people profoundly uneasy. Without a tribal leader to point to and crab at, they just aren't happy. So they invest their tribal leaders with all sorts of powers that in fact tribal leaders don't have. Bill Clinton no more "presided over" an economic boom than Willard Scott presided over thunderstorms. Bill Clinton just happpened to be the weatherman when the Sun was out. But people will insist — apparently based on some deep-seated need for tribal leadership — that Bill Clinton made the boom happen. Or that George Bush and Alan Greenspan could prevent a revaluation of the dollar if they only wanted to.

Part of this is a lack of even basic teaching of how a market economy works in our elementary and high schools, but even with that, there is something almost genetic in the way some people embrace this idea that somewhere, there is a strongman figure in charge, and whoever that is knows stuff the rest of us don't, and they ought to be smart enough and powerful enough to fix anything.

There was a time when people invested that sort of authority in God. No one expected earthly leadership to make the hurricanes go away. But we actually saw billboards this year suggesting that the Florida hurricanes were Bush's responsibility, as if the climate system of the Earth were his to control.

That's primitive. It's nuts. It's almost a kind of savagery. And it amazes me to see it so prevalent here on FR.

[nothingnew]

In her opinion for the court majority, Brown strongly rejected any suggestion that the state Constitution protects the rights of Californians to own weapons.

"No mention is made [in the state Constitution] of a right to bear arms," Brown wrote.

Damn. Just damn.

FMCDH(BITS)

[the invisib1e hand]

I had a friend who said that one of her professors "explained" the lyrics to that song...I should have asked...

[nothingnew]

Excellent post ND...now I refer to my screen-name...nothingnew.

FMCDH(BITS)

[retyered]

Well, does the Cali constitution include a right to bear arms or not? If not, didn't she correctly interpret California law? If the law violates a federally protected right, then isn't that up to a federal court to decide? Where did she err?

---

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; -- "

[retyered]

--- there is something almost genetic in the way some people embrace this idea that somewhere, there is a strongman figure in charge, and whoever that is knows stuff the rest of us don't, and they ought to be smart enough and powerful enough to fix anything.

There was a time when people invested that sort of authority in God. No one expected earthly leadership to make the hurricanes go away. But we actually saw billboards this year suggesting that the Florida hurricanes were Bush's responsibility, as if the climate system of the Earth were his to control.

That's primitive. It's nuts. It's almost a kind of savagery. And it amazes me to see it so prevalent here on FR.
10 posted by Nick Danger

---

Damn. Just damn.
11 posted by nothingnew

---

Bump. Just bump.

[Huck]

I don't think that answers the question. It seems to me, the Cali supreme court must judge Cali law based on Cali laws. If it is in fact in violation of a federal law, that is for a federal court to decide, is it not? Where is Cali in violation of federal law?

[retyered]

I don't think that answers the question.

Art VI certainly answers the question of whether a CA judge can ignore the 2nd Amendment in ruling on a State law that infringes upon it.
The answer is no.

It seems to me, the Cali supreme court must judge Cali law based on Cali laws.

Read Art VI again. It clearly says that: "Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding."

If it is in fact in violation of a federal law, that is for a federal court to decide, is it not?

ALL officials are bound by oath to support the Constitution. To date, the USSC has refused to hear the issue.

Where is Cali in violation of federal law?

CA has banned many so called "assault weapons", in direct violation of the 2nd Amendment.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Well, does the Cali constitution include a right to bear arms or not?"

No, it does not. As I recall, only two states do NOT have RKBA clauses in their Constitutions--those being California and New Jersey.

"If not, didn't she correctly interpret California law? If the law violates a federally protected right, then isn't that up to a federal court to decide? Where did she err?"

Nowhere, unfortunately. She is EXACTLY following precedent at all levels. Remember, the Ninth Circuit (which covers California) has ruled on the federal level that the Second Amendment is NOT an "individual right", but a "right of the state to form militias". The Fifth Circuit, OTOH, has ruled that the Second Amendment "is" an individual right. At some point in the not too distant future, the Supreme Court is going to have to rule on the issue, but until they do, she is following the law correctly.

"Reading between the lines", I suspect she (if appointed to the Supreme Court) would fall into an "individual right" point of view, since she is a "strict constructionist".

[retyered]

"Where did she err?" Nowhere, unfortunately. She is EXACTLY following precedent at all levels.

Such 'legal precedents' are not law. She is directly violating her Art VI oath to support the Constitution & its Amendments. [which oath takes precedent to all other oaths by virtue of the supremacy clause]

Remember, the Ninth Circuit (which covers California) has ruled on the federal level that the Second Amendment is NOT an "individual right", but a "right of the state to form militias". The Fifth Circuit, OTOH, has ruled that the Second Amendment "is" an individual right. At some point in the not too distant future, the Supreme Court is going to have to rule on the issue, but until they do, she is following the law correctly.

"Correctly", only if you regard the 2nd Amendment as an arguable proposition. It is not arguable, it is a clearly worded right of the people of the US, not to be infringed.

"Reading between the lines", I suspect she (if appointed to the Supreme Court) would fall into an "individual right" point of view, since she is a "strict constructionist".

Guess all you want, but from her own words, quoted above, it is quite clear that she thinks the 2nd can be infringed upon by our States.

[Revolting cat!]

Well, Mr Danger, with the governments of several US states bigger in terms of economic influence than most countries on the planet and with the US federal government bigger than probably any one country on the same planet, it's kinda hard to accept your premise that "the world basically runs by itself", unaffected by the strongmen, as you call them, that many here worship or curse. Williard Scott might have been a humble millionaire idiot box weatherman, but somebody, somewhere, occasionally, had been seeding the clouds.

Otherwise, excellent points as usual.