Say what you mean, and mean what you say
who is chatting on SOLO ChatThe Free RadicalPopular contentWho's onlineThere are currently 6 users and 18 guests online.
PollWhat should the government do about ailing financial institutions? Nothing, except to back off and get out—as any Objectivist knows, intervention is treating the disease with the disease 85% Intervene judiciously—enough to avert a catastrophe that is otherwise imminent 3% Intervene massively—as it's doing 2% Nationalize the whole economy and be done with it. Bring on the USSA! 2% Something else (specify) 8% Total votes: 59
 Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell
 Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt
|
Second Amendment Ruling No Cause For Cheering Submitted by wngreen on Wed, 2008-07-09 01:51.
While I will be the first in line to purchase my legal handgun in Baltimore, the Heller case is no cause for cheering. Scalia's decision is not a defense of the second amendment or our right to self-defense. Examining the history of the second amendment and the philosophies of judicial interpretation has led me to the conclusion that all rights, not just the second amendment, can not be constantly and objectively protected by this court. It starts with Tara Smith's paper WHY ORIGINALISM WON'T DIE -- COMMON MISTAKES IN COMPETING THEORIES OF JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION (pdf version available). Don't be intimidated by its length or the fact that it is in an academic journal -- the prose is very accessible and you will turn the last page with a clear understanding of the various philosophical approaches used by members of the Supreme Court. The court's decision in Heller protects our right to self-defense using handguns in the so-called objective philosophy of Originalism. "Originalism is the view, embraced by Antonin Scalia, Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and many academic legal theorists, that the meaning of the Constitution should be settled by reference to the original understanding of those who enacted its provisions." (Smith) She argues that despite valid and unanswerable criticisms of this philosophy the proponents of Originalism have managed to retain the popularity by cloaking it in the moral high ground of objectivity. The paper then outlines Originalism in depth, discusses criticisms and alternative theories. She then discusses how the defenders of originalism misuse the term 'objective', and how this same error prevents any of the competing theories from being correct or persuasive. She concludes: The appeal of Originalism rests primarily in its presenting itself as the champion of objectivity. It retains this appeal, despite incisive criticisms, because the alternatives seem wobbly in comparison, distinctly lacking in objectivity. And here, appearances are not deceiving: Each of them offers merely a different form of subjectivism. Originalism seems to provide the only refuge. Its professed objectivity is illusory, however. For Originalism mistakes the intrinsic for the objective. And because objective meaning does not, in fact, simply inhere within words, Originalism collapses into subjectivism, the very thing it means to overcome. Smith's argument is amply demonstrated (or threatened may be the better word) by the hypothetical posed by Eric Posner over at Slate's Convictions blog. He imagines a future court, with a so called originalist / moderate jurist 'X' elected by future President Obama. X reads the majority and dissenting opinions of Heller and decides that Justice Stevens' dissent makes the better originalist case. He writes a new majority opinion that adopts Stevens' dissent and overturns Heller. A jurist do so using the originalist's own philosophy. After all, writes Posner: What is the Heller-supporting originalist to say about this behavior? He can argue until blue in his face that Scalia was right and Stevens was wrong, but Stevens' account was plausible enough to obtain the support of three other justices and various knowledgeable commentators. What he can't plausibly argue is that X should have respected the Heller precedent. After all, if originalism means anything, it must be that precedents should be given no, or little, weight. This idea is the source of originalism's power and radical nature, but it also ensures that originalist opinions will, as precedents themselves, be short-lived. And because the constitutional text is ambiguous and the contemporary setting is remote from our understanding, it will always be as easy for liberals as for conservatives to generate whatever results they want in the originalist idiom, which guarantees that the triumph of originalism, if that is what Heller represents, will have no particular political implications for American government that cannot be traced to the ideological leanings of whoever happens to sit on the Supreme Court. Policy and political judgments will continue as before muffled underneath a new blanket of rhetoric. Without a philosophical objective view of rights we are totally at the mercy of nine men in black robes. Originalism is worse then no defense precisely because it tries to shield itself in a moral appeal to objectivity.
( categories: )
|
User loginFeatured BookNavigationSyndicate  The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
 Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
|
Thanks for clearing that up
Thanks for clearing that up wngreen (that's William, so I've heard?).
"Socialism may be dead, but its corpse is still rotting up the place." -Ayn Rand
Scott
Isn't that the same legal manuver that was used to place the first effective ban on Marijuana. I think I remember hearing something about a process like that on a documentary once.
---Landon
Never mistake contempt for compassion, or power lust for ambition.
http://www.myspace.com/wickedlakes
Bans in other cities
Bans in other cities are still legal as of today. The reason is that this was a federal area (DC isn't a state) and a federal ban that was in violation of the second amendment. There is precedent that the 14th amendment does not apply to the 2nd amendment.
Wm
Gosh...I am as surprised as
Gosh...I am as surprised as Matty.
I was under the impression that although the US Supreme Court has no ...ummmm...'power' to enforce its rulings, it is customary to accept whatever those chaps say.
In other words the Heller case applies everywhere [from now on] and a specific jurisdiction holding out is in contempt of court.
Could James or some legal chap clarify this?
http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/
Or...
I could carry a loaded weapon without a ccw permit and have it found on me by the police, thus commiting the same stupid kind of crime as you did, Billy. Go be hardcore somewhere else. I'm not the one.
Doubtless
"...one of the easiest 'official' things I've done."
"May your chains rest lightly upon you."
About five years ago
About five years ago I bought a brand-spankin-new 9mm p229 at a local gunshow. It took about two minutes to sign the papers. I haven't spoken to an official or signed a single paper since, except for getting my concealed carry permit. Which is also one of the easiest 'official' things I've done. Easier than getting a driver's license. In fact, I've been trying to adopt a dog from the local shelters and the process is much more exhausting and time-consuming. Go Florida!
as an aside, today I went to the local animal control to attempt to adopt another dog. while my girlfriend and I sat in the front office waiting for an escort into the kennels--ain't that a bit of terrific?--a man came in with 3 stray kittens he'd been trying to give away for a few weeks. He made it clear to everyone in the waiting room that he'd be willing to pay for the first vet visit-$75-if they'd take one of the kittens. It was a kill shelter, and the man was unbelievably kind. I told him I'd take one, and right there in front of the little animal control officials with their little pens and paperwork, I got the $75 and a free kitten. No muss, no government fuss. GO FREE MARKET! (as another aside, my big fat cat Battlecat is quite nonplussed at the new arrival)
Delusions of Authority
How many divisions does the Supreme Court have?
Or...
"Why d'ya think they call 'em 'opinions', dummy?"
Just thinking out loud.
How do they define handgun? If they split legal hairs, why can't the public?
Might be a business opportunity there producing cheap, but effective protectile weapons that bypass their bypass to the ruling...
Where does the handgun need to be registered? Can you have a handgun registered in another state? Kansas for instance - where a concealed carry law was recently passed?
One way to upset Mayor Daley's plan is to tie the bastard up by finding new and inventive ways to break his idiotic laws and get away with it. And if you can turn a profit on it, so much the better IMHO.
Mayor Daley has vowed to fight the decision
Chicago does not have a ban on handguns. In a move calculated to frustrate 2nd Amendment challenges, Chicago passed an ordinance requiring all hanguns to be registered. Then, it permanently closed registration. So people charged with a handgun violation are not being charged with HAVING a handgun, but just possessing an unregistered handgun.
Horsehit distinction, but then these are politicians we are dealing with here.
Scott DeSalvo
www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!
By the way...
Obama said he also supports the 2nd amendment ruling.
He has a new campaign slogan, don't you know?
Obama for President 09
God and Guns
eh?
But its now federal law isn't it? Surely all restrictions up to that point are made void? Fuck the US legal system, it's confusing the shit out of me.
No!
So does this mean that the bans on handguns within the city limits of Chicago and San Francisco are lifted as well?
No! It just means there's now a strong legal basis on which to challenge them, which the anti-gun folk are in a panic about.
yah
It's THE supreme court, it isn't like the gay marriage decision by the California state supreme court which only effected the state of California. The supreme court is supreme. It overrides all.
Chicago, SF, etc
So does this mean that the bans on handguns within the city limits of Chicago and San Francisco are lifted as well?
I know this ruling overturned DC's gun ban, but what else gets changed?
"Socialism may be dead, but its corpse is still rotting up the place." -Ayn Rand
It does
I'm almost 100 percent sure that any decision the Supreme Court makes applies to all of the US
It does. And while William is right in an over-arching way, the decision is cause to cheer because it says the Second Amendment bespeaks a personal right to bear arms in spite of its poor, ambiguous wording and punctuation.
Callum
I'm almost 100 percent sure that any decision the Supreme Court makes applies to all of the US
Does the second amendment
Does the second amendment ruling apply to Baltimore as well as DC?
"Socialism may be dead, but its corpse is still rotting up the place." -Ayn Rand