Gun Control

I wonder what the writers of the Constitution and the Bill or Rights would think of the Second Amendment being interpreted as:

The people have no right to regulate a militia of one person.

If you read through the Constitution you will find that the writers knew quite well the difference between “the people” and “a person”.

Posted to Nicholas Kristof's 2018-03-08 column on the Florida school shooting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/07/opinion/parkland-florida-gun-control.html?comments#permid=26247237

Freedom to do what?

Many people and corporations complain that their freedoms are being taken away by this law or that law which restricts certain behavior.  Are these smoke screens or do they have a point? Let’s look at a few cases.

Vermont has passed a law that GMO foods should be labelled as such.  Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association filed suit that this was a violation of their right of free speech.  Is their right of free speech being taken away by requiring a list of ingredients?  If you were on a limited salt diet, wouldn’t you want to compare products for their salt content?  If you had had cancer and should avoid soy lecithin, wouldn’t you want to seek products without soy lecithin?

Admittedly, the First Amendment contains “Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the freedom of speech…”; that phrase has no qualifier like “persons” or “people”.  But the Constitution also includes Congress has the power “to regulate Commerce…among the several States…”

I wouldn’t be surprised if these companies also used the “free market” argument.  But “free market” doesn’t mean sellers get to do what they please; it also means that the buyers have all the information they need to make an informed decision.  Jews and Muslims want to know if products contain pork; shouldn’t those who have an aversion to other ingredients also know if products contain those ingredients?

In other words, if food manufacturers are free to deceive us then don’t they take away our freedom to know what we eat?

The First Amendment also contains “people have the right to peaceably assemble”.  Does that give them the right block other people’s right to move about?  I’m sure that meant that people could meet in some hall and discuss whatever was on their minds.  Maybe it also meant that people could assemble at the entrance of a government building, but only if they left room for others to go in and out of the building.  I doubt that the writers of the Bill of Rights considered peaceably assembling as filling the streets for whatever cause.

The gun manufacturers have been working for decades to erode the Second Amendment from the “right of the people to bear arms” (meaning in militias) to the “right of persons to bear arms”.  As late as 1939, a conservative Supreme Court Justice wrote the majority opinion that an individual did not have the right to carry a rifle in a parade, only those in a state-sanctioned militia.

But what is lost in many of the arguments for the individual right to bear arms is where is the argument for the right to not be shot?

Concerning “freedom of religion”, one has to be careful reading some of the stories concerning people’s or corporation’s “freedom of religion”.  Some of these stories have been blown out of proportion; others show that one person’s “freedom of religion” is impinging on another person’s freedom of religion.

If a Christian-owned company required that female Muslim employees not wear head scarves, then does a Muslim-owned company have a right to have all female employees wear head scarves?

In the context of the times of the writing of the Constitution, I think the “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion was more meant if you want to go to a Baptist Church fine, if you want to go to a Methodist Church fine.  I doubt that they would countenance those who believed in virgin sacrifice having free exercise.

If for security reasons banks ask that customers not wear hoods or sunglasses, then should not they ask that women not have their faces covered?  Many a man has escaped from other men by wearing a burqa.  Are the banks violating some customers “freedom of religion” or are they protecting their right not to be robbed?

The Congress that has been so adamant about Second Amendment rights seems equally adamant about walking all over Fourth Amendment rights.  “The right of be people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects…”  What is the “probable cause” of gathering information on who calls whom?  Isn’t a phone call by extension a “paper”?  Thanks, Ron Paul, for your efforts.

Many individuals claim a right to do what pleases them without any consideration on how those actions impinge on other people’s rights.

If there is a right to smoke, isn’t there also a right to breathe clean air?  Although smoking has declined dramatically, there are still too many people that smoke very close to signs “No smoking within 15 feet”.  If someone were to ask them to move away, it is more likely they will get angry rather than apologize and move away.

If there is a right to listen to music, isn’t there also a right to have quiet?  Many people have their car radios turned up so loud that other drivers can barely hear the music on their own radios.  Many people have their earphones turned up so loud that others can’t hear the music on their own earphones.  If you have the right to blast hip-hop up to twenty feet away, do I also have a right to blast Beethoven’s Ninth up to twenty feet away?

I think the thought attributed to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. that “Your right to move your fist ends where my nose begins” is apt for almost all of the above cases.  A manufacturer’s “right” to withhold information ends where people’s health begins.  A person’s right to bear arms ends where other people’s safety begins.  A person’s right to freedom of religion ends where it restricts other people’s freedom of religion.  A person’s freedom of assembly ends where it impedes other people’s freedom of movement.

What is lost in all the talk about freedoms is that the basic freedom is the freedom to govern ourselves and not be governed by some foreign power.  And to govern ourselves we elect people to make rules to make society work.  You do vote in every election, don’t you?

The United States is NOT a Christian Nation

...and it was not founded as such.

The United States may have many people who call themselves Christians, but evidence abounds that very few practice Christianity.  I’ll get back to this.

Many who proclaim that the United States is a Christian Nation cite the Declaration of Independence.  But “Christian” or “Christianity” do not appear in it or the Constitution.  The closest to a religious statement in either is “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

But Thomas Jefferson, the drafter of the Declaration, was a hypocrite.  He held slaves and did not pass on their Creator-given inalienable rights of liberty.  Furthermore, what did “men” mean at that time?  People of male gender as in the Adam and Eve story.  Or people as in on the sixth day “God created man in his own image…male and female created he them.” - Genesis 1:27, King James Version.

The only “religious” word that appears in the original Constitution is “religious”, as in “but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”  Given all the religious tests that have been required, “ever” was not a very long time.

It took over 170 years for a Catholic to be elected President.  And he felt compelled to be vetted by a group of Protestant ministers.  It took a bit less for a Jew to be appointed to the Supreme Court.  John McCain and Barack Obama had to be vetted by an Evangelical minister to prove their “Christianity”.  Shame on Obama, the Constitutional professor, for submitting to this religious test.

And this same Constitutional professor is sponsoring his own “Prayer Breakfasts”.  And shame on all the other politicians who do not have the political will to object to this religious test.

These prayer breakfasts also prove that these politicians are hypocrites.  “And when thou prayest, thou shall not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men.”  Matthew 6:5.

What does a Christian practice?

For starters the greatest commandment is to “Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and soul.”
The second is “Like unto it, to love thy neighbor as thyself.”  And who was “thy neighbor”?  The hated Samaritan who helped a Jew beaten and robbed by the side of the road.

A variation of the second commandment is “Do unto other as you would have them do unto you.”  Would we like foreign troops stationed in our country?  One of the reasons of the American Revolution was the stationing of British Troops in many of the Colonial cities.  But we have bases in dozens of countries, sometimes welcomed by the populace, sometime hated by the populace.

Many congregations recite the “Lord’s Prayer”: “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.”  The United States and many other countries have forgiven Germany and Japan for World War II, but has the U.S. gotten around to forgiving others that they have trespassed against?

U.S. mobsters practically ran Cuba and the U.S. supported the dictator Batista.  Is it any wonder that a Cuban leader arose to oust Batista?  And is it any wonder that leader wanted to reclaim the ill-gotten gains.  But there are many “Christians” in the U.S. that still don’t want to forgive the Cuban government.  Very strange that the U.S. had “good” relations with other Communist governments, including China.

The U.S. was implicit in the overthrow of Mohammad Mossaddegh of Iran and the support of the Shah with his brutal Savak.  Is it any wonder the Ayatollahs have little love for the U.S?  Who should be the first to “forgive those who trespass against us”?

“Blessed are the peacemakers” is part of the Beatitudes, but is U.S. peacekeeping around the world only making matters worse?  See above about the British troops keeping peace in the Colonies.  Are nuclear weapons peacemakers?  Oh, yes!  The Colt Peacemaker has the blessing of the Bible!

We definitely don’t have any “Christian” banks.  How many of them are going to forgive loans every seven years, even for loans to Christians?  Are “Christian” farmers not going to till the land every seven years?  Unless they are farming only for themselves and have saved a lot of food, they would go bust.

Now we have many people asserting that their “freedom of religion” allows them to refuse to associate with certain people or to not have to abide by certain laws.  There is a certain logic in this because “conscientious objectors” are allowed to avoid military service, but they have to do other public service instead.  So if the “Christians” at the top of a corporation object to paying health insurance for abortions, should they then be required to contribute to a fund for child care?

My take of the “freedom of religion” clause in the First Amendment is that we are free to believe what we want, whether it’s the Big Guy in the Sky, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or a Golden Calf.  It isn’t anybody else’s business.  The writers of the Bill of Rights were only too aware of all the persecutions that had happened because somebody believed the “wrong” thing.  The “freedom of religion” clause guarantees that we are free to believe what we want.  In return we should let others believe what they want.

Also published in the Reader Weekly of Duluth, 2015-05-14 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/05/13/5275_the_united_states_is_not_a_christian_nation

Constitution á la carte

“Á la carte” is French for “from the menu”.  It means that one chooses various items from the menu rather than being offered a complete meal chosen by the chef.  It seems to me that the writers of the U.S. Constitution provided us a complete meal for governance, but we all seem to pick and choose what we want from the Constitution and ignore much of the rest, even going so far as to go against the intent of the writers.

Let’s start at the beginning: “We the people…”  Just who are “the people”?  The word “people” is used just twice in the original constitution: in the opening and in Article I, Section 2.  In the latter “the People of the several States” choose the Representatives.  The “electors”, presumably of the people, are defined by state law.  Interesting, the Constitution doesn’t prohibit women from voting.  But considering that states had laws allowing only men to vote, then the Constitution indirectly prohibits women from voting.

Another prominent noun is “person”, again without gender stipulation.  All of the uses assume a single human individual, free or otherwise.  For census purposes the qualification “free” is added.  So, although the States didn’t allow women the vote, did they allow free Blacks and Indians taxed to vote?  The Constitution is mute on this.

The sticking point nowadays is the use of “people” and “persons” in the Bill of Rights.  The “people” can peaceably assemble, bear arms, “be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects”, retain rights not enumerated, and have powers not in the Constitution or “prohibited by the States.”

We seem to have a real “á la carte” on these amendments.

Some think peaceably assemble means they can have marches or demonstrations that block entire streets.  Others think that a small group of people, especially Blacks, is not a peaceable assembly.  The Twin Cities has a case that assumes one person sitting on a publicly-accessible chair is not peaceable assembly.

Bearing arms has been a contentious issue for ages, but most Supreme Court cases until at least 1939 interpreted it as militia-related and not personal.  After all, it is a right of the people, not of persons.  Now there are persons who insist that they have a right to have a gun wherever they feel like.  Interesting, that there were lots of sheriffs and marshals who made gun toters check in their guns while in town.

Many Southern States conveniently overlooked and resisted the Federal authority to override state laws regarding “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Election for … Representatives.”  See Article I, Section 4.

Many complain about federal regulation, but Article I, Section 8, leaves two questions wide open.  “The Congress have have the power to lay and collect Taxes…and provide for the … general Welfare of the United States.”  Are a highway system, an air traffic control system, and clean air and water “general Welfare”?  There seem to be many who think clean air and water are over-regulation.  Some of these same people want to have an extensive highway network to move themselves or goods, but they don’t want Congress to “lay and collect Taxes” for them.

One of the current ironies is that the Postmaster General is trying to overturn Congress’ responsibility “to Establish Post Offices”.  Is getting a Netflix DVD the next day a Constitutional right?  It is ironic that the Postmaster General’s actions are an attempt to promote corporate interests over public interest but that one large competitor to the Postal Service depends on USPS for the “last mile”.  UPS sends many small packages for the “last mile” via USPS.  Can you imagine UPS stopping every two blocks or so to distribute a package that fits in the mail box?

Some corporate interests are working overtime to redefine “limited time” for “exclusive Right to “Writings and Discoveries”  They hope to retain film and book rights forever long, long after the creators have died.  I can see a family retaining the rights but not for generation after generation.  I remember that some decades ago the Verdi family lost the rights to royalties for Verdi’s operas and other works.

Has Congress abandoned the spirit of no appropriation for Armies should be for longer than two years?  This was written because the writers of the Constitution disliked standing armies.  Not only do we have a standing army but a globe-straddling army.  I am glad that all the signers of the Constitution are not buried in the same place; the spinning in graves would be deafening.

Their backup plan was the state Militias which “may be employed in the Service of the United States.”  Many may complain about the multiple deployments of the National Guards, but they are Constitutional.

On the other hand, Congress was “To provide and maintain a Navy”.  It apparently doesn’t have the appropriation limitations that the Armies have.  After all, the Navy has to support Congress’ power to “punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas”.  Does this also apply above the high seas?

All of the above is mostly my opinion and interpretation of the Constitution.  I tried to frame most of it as questions rather than fixed-in-stone assertions.  Unfortunately, there are those who believe they can deduce the Founder’s intent by reading the Constitution.  Sorry, but consider all the words written in the Federalist Papers to “sell” the Constitution.  Also consider how few Supreme Court cases are decided by unanimous opinions.  These are judges who have spent life-times studying the Constitution.

Mel has long been fascinated by rules and regulations, and like many others, tries to interpret them to his advantage.

Also posted to the Reader Weekly, 2014-10-02.

See also
"Foreign policy foreign to founders"
"Constitution, Rights, and secretive Congress"
"Quote of the day: Stealing the Constitution"
"The right to bear Canons"

Back to the original Constitution? Be careful what you ask for!

In April, I submitted a letter to the Duluth News Tribune in response to a letter suggesting we should return to the original Constitution.  I think the complaint was all the various Supreme Court decisions.

My letter hadn’t been published and I assumed it was not going to be.  But then the Chuck Frederick, the opinion page editor, found some space, cleaned his desk, and published more than the usual number of letters on May 13.

Mine was:

A letter writer recently stated, “Maybe we should go back to the original Constitution and what it stood for.”  Be careful what you ask for.  There is plenty that was added that many would not like to see removed: Bill of Rights, abolition of slavery, and the vote for women.

Even those who were in politics at the time of the writing of the Constitution could not agree on its meaning.  Thomas Jefferson (in France during the Convention) and John Adams had a long falling out over its meaning.  Adams wanted a strong central government; Jefferson feared a strong central government.

I had thought of submitting a short additional paragraph, but never found a round tuit.  That paragraph is:

Could these views on the central government be influenced by the facts that Adam abhorred slavery and Jefferson was a slave “owner”?

Do these attitudes still persist?  In the South there is still lingering resentment against desegregation.  In  West there is resentment against restrictions on using public resources.

A couple of reads for the Independence Day (Fourth of July)

OK, I know it's a bit late in the day to recommend some reading for the Fourth of July, but any day is really a good day to pass these along.

"Bill of Wrongs: The Executive Branch's Assault on America's Fundamental Rights", Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose, 2007

This is mostly about cases that have been brought to court against the Federal or other governments and generally prevailed in one way or another.  These are all from the George W. Bush Presidency's "War on Terrorism".

The other is "Whose Freedom? The Battle over America's Most Important Idea" by George Lakoff.  I haven't started it yet, but all the hype about our "freedoms" has often struck me as insincere.  There are the definite illegal intrusions by government into the private lives of individuals.  The "freedom" meant in too much of the hype is the freedom for corporations to do what they damn well please without regard to the effects on people.  I shall see over the next week or so.

Constitution, Rights, and secretive Congress

I left the following comment on OccupyVotingBooths Facebook community to an item on the arrest of Josh Fox taking pictures of a Congressional hearing. The article is "The Arrest of Josh Fox: What Are They Trying to Hide When They Deny Our Right to Take Pictures?"

This all is a slippery slope of intent. If cameras were unknown at the writing of the Constitution, then how can we positively say that use of a camera is a First Amendment right? Since multiple-shot, concealable weapons were unknown at the writing of the Constitution, then there is no Constitutional right to conceal and carry. Either we have to interpret the Constitution to cover modern technology or we have to interpret it to not give rights of use of modern technology. As it is, we are interpreting it to suit our own interests. Nothing new there.

What we can assume about the arrest of Josh Fox is that some members of Congress have something to hide.