Monday, October 12, 2015
I don't understand why there's so much talk about gun control at a federal level. That's absolutely unconstitutional, but not for the reasons people think.
When the second amendment was written, the states very much considered themselves individual entities. You know, that "states' rights" thing? They each had their own government. They were jealous of any power another state might have, and that's why the District of Columbia was created. They didn't want to be completely subservient to a federal government, and that's why many of them insisted on the first ten amendments before they would ratify the new constitution. It was to be a union of states for purposes of defense, trade, major projects and the like, not a homogeneous country with counties or departments, like England or France or whatever. That's why the name is The United States, not just Columbia or something.
The individual states figured they had a right to self-defense, defense from any internal or external threat, whether it be natives, another land-grabbing state, another country, or even the federal government, so they had a right to maintain their own defenders. States had their own militias. Look at the military companies fighting in the Civil War. They fought under the union or confederate banner, but each company carried the name of their state. They were members of their state militias.
So a state is constitutionally allowed to have and maintain their own "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". That's what it says. It's plain English and doesn't even need interpretation. It refers to a state (not referring to the federal "state", but to a state as understood then) and its need for defense. A state can define a militia in any way they want. I don't understand why so many people are confused by the "well regulated militia" words in the amendment. It simply means that states are allowed to arm themselves, the federal government can't mess with that, and the states are allowed to define who makes up that militia and how it's regulated. The militia can even consist of every person in the state capable of wielding a club, and at one time, in many states, it was. And the state can regulate that militia any way its people decide.
That means if a state decides everyone in the state with a gun is a member of the militia, they can regulate it any way the people of that state decide.
So gun control is a states' issue, not a federal issue. And the states have every right to regulate guns.
Now that's all well and good and pretty clear. But after the Civil War, in a series of confusing and contradictory decisions, the SCOTUS redefined it as an individual right that even the states can't infringe upon, and that's when it got all messed up.
The Feds were pretty bummed by the whole Civil War thing. The general consensus was that this "states' rights" stuff was a load of crap and had to be stomped a bit. Maybe the states needed to be reminded who's boss.
Sigh.
I also hold an unpopular opinion on the Civil War.
My opinion is that the southern states had every right to secede from the union. The federal government was dead wrong to use force to stop them. That doesn't mean I in any way agree with their reasons for secession, just that I believe they had every right to leave the club if they wanted to. I don't believe the original intent of forming a union was to create a national homeowners' association where the only way to get out is to emigrate or die. Do you suppose that if the northeastern states knew that once they joined the union, they could never ever get out, that they would have joined? Nah. We'd have a country called New England up there in that corner. Those folks were fiercely independent. They'd want the right to take their ball and go home if they had to, to maintain that independence.
The states need some way to control the arrogance of the federal government. Threat of secession is the most drastic option, but other means are built in. Note that it's not the people who elect federal officials, it's the states. The state legislatures actually control who gets elected to federal offices, and it was designed that way. The Electoral College, for example, is very unpopular, but getting rid of it will weaken states' rights and give more power to the Federal government. States are (or perhaps were) not even required to hold general elections for federal offices. They just do it to gauge the preferences of their populace so they don't have a mob burning down the state capitol buildings.
You can take this all as blather, but I hope maybe someone will think about it.
.
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Monday, October 12, 2015
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
3799 Blowing my nose
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Heard on BBC radio, in reference to attacks on women in India: "Each attack is more brutal than the next." Um, doesn't that mean the attacks are decreasing in brutality?
------------------------------
"The government didn't violate a convicted terrorist's constitutional right to a speedy trial when it detained him for five years at Guantanamo Bay before trying him in court, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday" [not this past Thursday]. Details here. Basically, a federal court ruled that his right to a speedy trial was not abridged by his having been held at Guantanamo for more than five years without charges, during which time he was subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques". From the WSJ Law Blog, "The circuit court agreed with a lower-court judge that the government’s decision to delay prosecution so it could extract valuable intelligence on al Qaeda was reasonable."
Let me get this straight. The court said that a speedy trial does not trump national security, so it's ok to keep this guy for five years of intense interrogation because he's a terrorist, BEFORE a trial to determine if he's a terrorist. In other words, if the authorities think you're guilty then you're guilty. He was convicted right off the bat, with no hearing and no lawyer, without a trial, by his captors. And this is ok?
I don't know about you, but that's scary, and even scarier that a federal court said it was ok. What if that kind of thinking spreads to other federal or state agencies?
Actually, it has been going on for a long time. If you are arrested on on drug dealing charges, or even if you are only suspected of illegality, the state/feds can confiscate practically everything you own and sell it, and keep the money, BEFORE your criminal trial. If it turns out you are not guilty, you don't just get your stuff back. It's a long expensive legal battle you can't afford and are unlikely to win. Too bad, so sad. Your property is long gone, you had been "convicted" and fined on mere suspicion. Look up "asset forfeiture" on Wikipedia.
--------------------------------------------
Ever wonder whence the expression "short shrift", meaning you were shrugged off quickly and not taken seriously? Not being Catholic, I didn't know that shrift is confession to a priest and the penance and absolution that follow. So if you were given short shrift, either your sins were minor, or you got a brushoff. Simple. Wow.
--------------------------------------------
Google wants to scan and digitize millions of books, the entire book, from research libraries as grist for their search mill. They'd already processed gazillions of books when publishers and authors' guild(s) protested that it was copyright infringement. It's significant that research libraries buy the books, and don't make money on them. Google has not purchased the books, and will make money on them through advertising on search results pages. Fair use? Not? I say no, get permission, but I'm not the judge.
If you're interested, the story's at http://mashable.com/2013/09/24/google-books-lawsuit/.
---------------------------------------------
I'm thinking Google is getting too big. They provide an lot of very expensive services for free (think of Google maps - how much must THAT cost?) and supposedly they get income from advertising, but, uh, when's the last time you were very aware of Google advertising? They are gradually taking over the internet, and then tying it all together (Blogger, Gmail, Chrome, you can't have a YouTube account anymore unless you also have a Google+ account, etc.) and they are asking for a LOT of information through those accounts and gathering more information from your activities on those accounts.
Advertising isn't paying for everything Google is doing, I guarantee that. Not even selling top ranking in search results. I am very suspicious.
Pretty soon for every house on those Google maps, they will have the names, ages, details, photos, interests, purchasing habits and preferences of all the occupants.
Who is funding all this, and what is the ultimate purpose?
.
Heard on BBC radio, in reference to attacks on women in India: "Each attack is more brutal than the next." Um, doesn't that mean the attacks are decreasing in brutality?
------------------------------
"The government didn't violate a convicted terrorist's constitutional right to a speedy trial when it detained him for five years at Guantanamo Bay before trying him in court, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday" [not this past Thursday]. Details here. Basically, a federal court ruled that his right to a speedy trial was not abridged by his having been held at Guantanamo for more than five years without charges, during which time he was subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques". From the WSJ Law Blog, "The circuit court agreed with a lower-court judge that the government’s decision to delay prosecution so it could extract valuable intelligence on al Qaeda was reasonable."
Let me get this straight. The court said that a speedy trial does not trump national security, so it's ok to keep this guy for five years of intense interrogation because he's a terrorist, BEFORE a trial to determine if he's a terrorist. In other words, if the authorities think you're guilty then you're guilty. He was convicted right off the bat, with no hearing and no lawyer, without a trial, by his captors. And this is ok?
I don't know about you, but that's scary, and even scarier that a federal court said it was ok. What if that kind of thinking spreads to other federal or state agencies?
Actually, it has been going on for a long time. If you are arrested on on drug dealing charges, or even if you are only suspected of illegality, the state/feds can confiscate practically everything you own and sell it, and keep the money, BEFORE your criminal trial. If it turns out you are not guilty, you don't just get your stuff back. It's a long expensive legal battle you can't afford and are unlikely to win. Too bad, so sad. Your property is long gone, you had been "convicted" and fined on mere suspicion. Look up "asset forfeiture" on Wikipedia.
--------------------------------------------
Ever wonder whence the expression "short shrift", meaning you were shrugged off quickly and not taken seriously? Not being Catholic, I didn't know that shrift is confession to a priest and the penance and absolution that follow. So if you were given short shrift, either your sins were minor, or you got a brushoff. Simple. Wow.
--------------------------------------------
Google wants to scan and digitize millions of books, the entire book, from research libraries as grist for their search mill. They'd already processed gazillions of books when publishers and authors' guild(s) protested that it was copyright infringement. It's significant that research libraries buy the books, and don't make money on them. Google has not purchased the books, and will make money on them through advertising on search results pages. Fair use? Not? I say no, get permission, but I'm not the judge.
If you're interested, the story's at http://mashable.com/2013/09/24/google-books-lawsuit/.
---------------------------------------------
I'm thinking Google is getting too big. They provide an lot of very expensive services for free (think of Google maps - how much must THAT cost?) and supposedly they get income from advertising, but, uh, when's the last time you were very aware of Google advertising? They are gradually taking over the internet, and then tying it all together (Blogger, Gmail, Chrome, you can't have a YouTube account anymore unless you also have a Google+ account, etc.) and they are asking for a LOT of information through those accounts and gathering more information from your activities on those accounts.
Advertising isn't paying for everything Google is doing, I guarantee that. Not even selling top ranking in search results. I am very suspicious.
Pretty soon for every house on those Google maps, they will have the names, ages, details, photos, interests, purchasing habits and preferences of all the occupants.
Who is funding all this, and what is the ultimate purpose?
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)