Guiliani vs The United States

deeply-hurt.jpgApparently stung by Fred Thompson’s blog commentary, Tuesday, the Giuliani Presidential Campaign reacted quickly and decisively – with all the satirical fury of a transvestite scorned.  When you realize how serious the problem is, you’ll know why they got their back up. Here is Thompson’s comment:

New York is trying, again, to force its ways on the rest of us, this time through the courts. First, they went after U.S. gun manufacturers, seeking through a lawsuit not only money but injunctive control over the entire industry. An act of congress in 2005 blocked, but did not end, that effort.Now, the same activist federal judge from Brooklyn who provided Mayor Giuliani’s administration with the legal ruling it sought to sue gun makers, has done it again.”

The Giuliani campaign’s clever and catty response to that was through spokespeople. First, Katie Levinson, Giuliani’s communications aide, released the following statement:

Those who live in New York in the real world – not on TV – know that Rudy Giuliani’s record of making the city safe for families speaks for itself. No amount of political theater will change that.”

(Katie’s points: 1. Thompson, because he is a successful actor, must not live in the real world. {Meeow!} (I guess, by that logic, we have to conclude that when Giuliani puts on his bra, dress and pantihose, he’s not acting.) 2. But Rudi, by contrast, actually made New York safer by attacking gun manufacturers.)

Next another (unnamed) aide unleashed this scathing snipe:

The news here is the first 527 attack is from Fred Thompson and not George Soros.”

(The point? “Since Fred is criticizing someone, he is like George Soros!”) Ooooo! Talk about your back arched, hair standing on end, hissy fit! I’m sure Thompson will think twice about tangling with those girls again.

I read up this morning on feline behavior and learned that such reactions are actually more from fear than aggression. The advice from experts was near unanimous – just reassure your pussy that everything is okay and she will usually calm down and return to normal.

But I suspect things aren’t actually going to be “okay” or “normal” for the Rudi campaign for some time. Their fear is justified. Because, next to John McCain, Giuliani has the least chance of any Republican to get elected if people find out who he really is… and Fred Thompson is beginning the ugly process of removing Rudi’s makeup.  (Mitt Romney is in no danger of being exposed for who he really is because he really isn’t anything.)

The Facts:

On June 20, 2000, as Mayor of New York City, Rudi Giuliani, joined by key New York allies, announced the filing of a lawsuit against, in their own words, “most major gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers currently operating in the United States

Today, as a contestant for the GOP Presidential Nomination, Rudi doesn’t want to talk about it. At the time, though, surrounded by like-minded liberals for whom private gun ownership is the enemy and restriction or confiscation the goal, Rudi made no attempt to hide the suit’s objective:

“This lawsuit is meant to end the free pass that the gun industry has so long enjoyed”

That “free pass” Rudi was attacking is also called the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Rudi Giuliani’s all-out attack on the Constitution

The suit sought to make gun manufacturers financially liable for the acts of criminals who use guns: in a nutshell, the whole argument of the opponents of the Second Amendment’s guarantee of our right to keep and bear arms: “the hardware is morally responsible.”

The suit asserted that the “gun industry” sold too many guns; that they should have stopped manufacturing after there were enough for “legitimate purposes,” and hunting was the only legitimate purpose listed for private use. In Rudi’s world, protecting yourself is a no-no. He might want to re-read the Constitution and count how many times “hunting” is mentioned.

The suit even fought the availability of firearms in places outside New York (that still honor the Second Amendment) and attempted to penalize the manufacturers for exercizing their freedom there.

In short, Rudi’s lawsuit was an all-out frontal assault on the Second Amendment and its whole success rested on being able to use an activist Judiciary. It answers, in a way that cannot be covered up by clever campaign rhetoric, exactly how Giuliani defines “Constitutionalist” and exactly how much we can trust him to choose Supreme Court Justices.

Voters must (and will) decide if those are the kinds of Judges we want the next President appointing and if attacking the Constitution is something we want the next President doing.

The reason the Giuliani Campaign response to Thompson’s blog commentary was long on scorn and short on substance was because they have no substance to offer on this. Rudi’s vulnerability is huge.

In the end the Giuliani Campaign only factually demonstrated one thing:

Rudi Giuliani has aides.

Advertisements

21 thoughts on “Guiliani vs The United States

  1. Just a note here, if someone is going to do an all out attack on the constitution, it would be by trying for an amendment (an example would be our desire of an anti-flag burning amendment where courts have ruled those type of laws unconstitutional at this point in time). When a lawmaker passes a law or a president signs a law that is later found to be unconstitutional – that is very much an attack on the constitution. When people, whether they are private citizens or mayors or cities, ask the judicial system to render a decision on an issue dealing with the constitution they are going about it in a MOST PROPER way for it is the judicial system that in the end is in charge of seeing if a decision is constitutional or not.

    While he may be no friend of the 2nd amendment as it pertains to New York City, I think you are being quite ridiculous in portraying this as an all out attack on the 2nd amendment. The way NYC went about the so called ‘attack’ was the PROPER way to have a judgement rendered on constitutionality. If what they were asking was unconstitutional then that decision would be made as such and no damage would be done.

    What is significant is the amount of attacks he is going to receive based on the sanctuary city aspect of NYC that was in place by executive order before he became Mayor – (think regime change in Iraq was policy of the U.S. before Bush was President under Clinton so Bush was to carry it out.) It is going to be very easy for others to attack Giuliani based on New York City, but I have to wonder how much of that is going to stick.

    By the way, I’m happy to see you are looking like you will start to back Fred instead of Tancredo, I think he has a better shot to defeat Clinton than Huckabee (whom I like most), Romney, McCain or any other besides Rudy at this point, and that is what counts most. I don’t think it’ll carry though, he looks too old and frail and that alone will turn a decent percent of voters. Don’t laugh, I know a lot of people who vote not on any issues (because they don’t watch or read news) but on if a guy looks shifty or trustworthy or good looking. Most of these are ladies so I don’t know how that will play with Hillary as a Dem. nominee.

  2. other doug,

    Yes. Giuliani inherited the sanctuary city policy, but he also embraced it. We’ve covered that ground here before.

    Doug Parris,

    He’s “happy to see you are looking like you will start to back Fred instead of Tancredo.” That should tell you what you need to know.

  3. Michelle,

    I’ve listened to Rudy lately on dealing with illegal immigration, he does have some good ideas that should be implemented. (biometric non-tamperproof ID cards, plus he’s more in line with me in believing this country’s workforce is extremely short of supply of low-cost legal immigrants). I have a problem with sanctuary cities to a point, yet all the court decisions that have come out have been pointing that it is unconstitutional for anyone other than the Federal Govt. to have any policing jurisdiction over illegal immigration. While, I would love if all cities and towns notified the feds if they found an illegal immigrant, I’d have to wonder if the constitution allows them to, with all the rulings going on. Sounds to me like the Feds need to do more of the work for them to go after the illegals.

  4. Attempting to amend the Constitution is not an attack on it. It’s called for within the Constitution and is the proper way to change it.

    The scenario Doug Paris details above IS very clearly an attack. It is “change by exception.” There is a right to life EXCEPT for these [fill in your list here] people. There is a right to bear arms EXCEPT in these [fill in your list here] circumstances. There is a right to property EXCEPT in these [fill in your list here] circumstances. There is a right to conscience EXCEPT in these [fill in your list here] circumstances.

    Once you’ve opened the door to change in this manner the Constitution and your rights are gone. (Thank you Roe v. Wade.) Politics is then simply a power struggle to define who is excepted and who is not — with the weak and powerless on the losing end.

  5. Mary’s right, other Doug.
    You say, “…I’d have to wonder if the constitution allows them to, with all the rulings going on.”
    The Consititution is not a credit card for judges. What it says it what it says. If the Judge rules improperly, it doesn’t change the meaning, and, similarly, you don’t have to wait for a ruling to know what is or is not Consitutional. Just read the darn thing.
    The history of modern Liberal ajudication is that they don’t even PRETEND to be interpreting the Consitution.
    Such judges should be impeached and shunned by civilized people. They are the enemies of American Freedom and Justice.

  6. Mary and Mr. Parris,

    No, I believe you two are incorrect. Let’s start with the 2nd Amendment. Clearly there are folks out there who believe that convicted felons should not be able to get guns. Clearly there are people who believe it is okay to be against the law for 12 year olds to bring shotguns to public schools. Clearly there are folks who believe it is okay to regulate whether or not psychotic people can purchase firearms. And I am one person who believes I personally can make sure that you are not allowed to bring a firearm into my house even though you may claim it is your 2nd amendment right.

    The constitution does not disallow proper regulation of things such as second amendment rights and first amendment rights. You are not allowed to pull your pants down and show my children your privates even if you think you have a first amendment right to do so. Any regulatory attempt by a government agency to set limits on second amendment rights or any other amendment rights is fine and dandy and NOT AN ATTACK – as long as those regulations don’t violate the constitution. If the agencies, congress etc. intentionally pass a law or regulation that violates the constitution, that is an attack on the constitution.

    Any Presidential candidate who’s beliefs on 2nd amendment or 1st amendment or any other differs from what is constitutional is mistaken. However, if Rudy is correct and the government can regulate amendments (most of the time based on your rights violating someone else’s) then their belief really isn’t an attack on the constitution.

    As for suing the manufacturers of firearms, it will end up being quite similar to lawsuits against Mattel and toys made in China. If gunmakers knew one of their dealers is intentionally selling the firearms illegally and the gun maker turns a blind eye, well I don’t see why they can’t be sued. However, I agree with most of the tobacco and firearms and drug maker class action suit outcomes so far in that it really isn’t their fault – at least until it is their fault.

  7. O.D.
    The Constitution does not allow proscription of First OR Second Amendment rights. You mention laws that fall outside the scope of those rights as if they were regulations within it. To the contrary.

    You hypothesize, “…However, if Rudy is correct…” but he’s not. He was not asking the court to rule pursuant to any regulation or law, but, rather, in the ABSENSE of law, in effect, inventing law in direct contradiction to a Constitutional right. That is precisely the judicial activism from which he now claims he will protect us.

  8. Doug P., why is it you ignore valid arguments, and only cherry pick the statments that you think advance your views? You need to addredd OD rational statement about regulating certain aspects of the constitution (rights to own and bear arms is not applicable to certain individuals- underage, felons, mentialy ill, etc).

  9. RBN,
    I did not ignore OD’s arguments, but addressed them in the first two sentences of post 7. Felons and mentally incompetent forfeit rights, minors have not yet acquired them. Those are not a regulation of the rights at all and fall outside the clear scope of the delineation of the rights in the orignial document. I ignored some O.D. arguments that are patently ridiculous, literally out of compassion for OD. I enjoy discussing with him and did not want to refute arguments that most readers will reject without discussion anyway.

    Finding “people who believe” that something ridiculous is a Consitutional right is no challenge to the real Consitution. They are not having any Consititutional right “regulated” since the right never existed in the first place. Disrobing in public, for instance, has nothing to do with free speech and making it (or pornography) illegal is not a “regulation” of the First Amendment. Tresspassing with a gun is not a protected right ever contemplated by the Second Amendment. I was trying to go lightly on this because I felt that OD’s comments are well-meaning, though steeped in ignorance, as are yours.

    The ability to understand the basics of American Freedom, indeed, to comprehend the concept of the rule of law at all, upon which Consitutional Law rests, depends on basic education about our founding, some history and moral/political philosophy. I am aware that the public schools, and some private ones, are no longer providing those basic skills, or are even providing falsified history and anti-moral phliosophical programming, and so I am sympathetic when someone is handicapped in debate by that educational disadvantage.

  10. You are just plain wrong, and miss the point completely. The argument for govt. intervention on constitutional items was with extreme examples (you should recognize the tactic, you use it all the time in your arguments). There are varying degrees of how much a regulation can go before being in violation of the constitution, and that is where the courts can make that determination. If Rudy or anyone else attempts to change or alter policy, to improve and protect society, it is ridiculous for anyone to insult, demean, call names, just because your you do not agree.

    With regard to your attacks on education; In the words of my favorite president, “there you go again!” Blasting the entire institution with a broad brush. To be sure there are issues, but my sons have been fortunate to have fantastic teachers, who are smart, hard working, and focus on the basics. Calling anyone in school handicapped is just plain mean, cruel, and has no bearing on this debate.

  11. RBN,
    An illustration is not useful just because it is “extreme.” In order for O.D’s “extreme examples” to be pertinent, they needed to illustrate some necessity of government intrusion on constitutional rights. Instead, he gave examples of people who misbehaved in some way that was not protected by any Constitutional right. A law against someone coming into your house with a gun, but without your permission has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. The example is only “extreme” in the sense that it is extremely irrelevant.

    Of course laws can go to various lengths to accomplish something. Of course, some extend beyond Constitutional authority and some don’t. One reason public officials take an oath, though, is so they will not exceed the limits of Constitutional authority, and NOT simply defer to the courts. To overstep that boundary or attempt to do so, necessitating legal action to stop them, is a violation of that oath. The whole purpose of Rudi’s lawsuit was to overstep that boundary. Firearms manufacturers have the absolute right to manufacture as many legal guns as they want under the Constitution and Giuliani, explicitly and admittedly, was attempting to abridge that right by leveraging the liberal judiciary and seeking injunctive abrogation of their rights.

    He demonstrated the opposite of what we need in a Republican Presidential Candidate.

    Taking away the public’s right to defend itself is not attempting to “change or alter policy, to improve and protect society” but quite the reverse. If you, however, believe that eradication of the Second Amendment is a good thing you are perfectly within your rights to propose an amendment to the Consitution, repealing it, but if you try to change or alter rights protected under the Second Amendment by any other means, as Rudi was clearly doing here, you cannot then claim to be a defender of the Constitution. That is attacking it.

    And calling someone a “liberal” is not name-calling if they are a liberal. Liberalism, itself, is demeaning; pointing it out is liberating.

    Regarding your remarks on eduction:

    1. I engaged in no “attacks on education,” or anything that could be construed as such. I made accusations of the socialist/agnostic policy aristocracy that dominates public education, and I admit I did so with a broad brush, just like “your favorite President” did:
    “If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might have viewed it as an act of war.”

    2. It does not matter how fantastic, smart, hard working, or focused your sons’ teachers happen to be. They don’t control the curriculum. They are its victims. It is being controlled by educrats with a far-left, pro-abortion, gay rights, global socialist, sexually amoral, environmental scam agenda. Follow the NEA’s political activities for a while, and it’s unmistakable. For instance, the public education establishment is, right now, claiming in court the right to indoctrinate your children in the homosexual agenda, against your will, without your permission, without your knowledge, contrary to law.

    3. Pointing out that someone, who, through no fault of his own, has been disadvantaged, is, thereby, “handicapped,” whether it is physically, financially, educationally or in any other way, is not even slightly demeaning to them and, hence, cannot be construed to be “cruel.” To the contrary, your assertion, that being “handicapped” is demeaning, is an insult to the handicapped.

  12. Doug Parris,

    The US Supreme court has held that citizens are afforded all rights of the US Constitution at birth, they don’t have to reach a certain age to have the constitution apply to them (except where required within the constitution). As for felons and mentally ill, of course there is nothing in the constitution that specifically requires them to give up their rights as well.

    The courts have held that government institutions may regulate the rights afforded in the Bill of Rights and thus Student’s aren’t allowed to wear pro-drug shirts to school or give hate speech at graduation ceremonies if it violates school policy that is meant to ensure an orderly education. The Supreme Court has ruled in cases as such and pornography cases, that yes it is a first amendment issue, but the legislative branch under Sec. 8 can reasonably regulate the rights afforded in the amendments to an extent to ensure other peoples rights aren’t violated.

    If you really want to get technical, there really is NO RIGHT under the 2nd amendment that guarantees that an individual gunmaker has the right to manufacture guns, it really doesn’t address the purchase or sale of firearms, only the possession of them.

    And beyond that there is absolutely no rhyme or reason to believe that a gunmaker cannot be sued in civil court because they have a ‘get out of jail free’ card in the 2nd amendment. But I do note that you put in your logic they have the right to produce as many ‘legal’ guns they want. Once again, another hole, who determines which guns are legal and why? You are already admitting that congress has the right to limit the type of firearm by making some illegal – If they have that ability under Sec. 8 (the ability to limit what type of arms you can bear) then they have the ability under Sec. 8 to regulate even more aspects of the right to bear Arms.

    Also, please read and understand Sun Tzu’s Art of War, should be required reading for all students not just at our graduate business schools. I learned long ago not to assume my adversary is less intelligent or less educated than me.

  13. Supreme Court rulings can be unconstitutional. Neither Roe vs. Wade nor Lawrence vs. Texas, for instance, made any pretence at Constitutional interpretation. An argument that the court has ruled this way, or that, without reference to any Constitutional reasoning within the ruling is not dispositive.
    I am well aware that the Court has ruled (erroneously) that pornography is speech, but while the ruling is effective in that it wields power, it must also be admitted that it is irrational, evil in nature, destructive in effect and can find no ground in the Constitution. By contrast, I believe that burning the flag is a purely symbolic act and, though it is wildly unpopular, does fall within the purview of the First Amendment, and should be proscribed, instead, by amendment.
    “…believe that a gunmaker cannot be sued in civil court because…” I’m not sure what you mean to imply, here. Of course anyone can be sued and can be sued on frivolous or even false grounds. I could sue you, for instance, for expressing ideas on this blog that hurt my reputation. I would, however, be attacking your First Amendment rights in such a suit. In that kind of a suit, the First Amendment should be, in fact, your “get out of jail free” card and the only question is whether a judge would act consistently with his oath of office and honor it. The same was true in Rudi’s suit. That’s why I said it was an attempt to leverage the liberal Judiciary. It depended, for its success, on finding judges that would rule contrary to the Constitution.

    The Constitution actually has words. Words mean things. Those meanings can, and do, get contradicted by lawless judges. Your assertion, that there is no right, under the Second Amendment, to manufacture guns is just such a logical contradiction. It is like saying that having a right to breath does not suggest a right to air or to move your lungs.

    I weighed the use of the term “legal” before choosing it as an adjective to modify “guns,” wondering if you would catch hold of it. Very astute. But my purpose was only to emphasize the depths of Giuliani’s litigious depravity, since he was seeking to forbid access to arms whose legality is not in any question, even by you gun-grabbers. It was not to concede the privilege to regulate that right by laws impertinent to his suit and I did not.

    Establishing the extent of the intent of a Constitutional principle is the legitimate business of the Supreme Court. Ruling by principle not inherent in its meaning, however, is Judicial Activism and, in addition to being immoral, is illegal because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and specifically prohibits the exercise of such power.

    Thanks for your comments about “The Art of War.” I hope that you didn’t mean to imply that I made such assumptions, I do not assume you did.

  14. Doug Parris,

    I am not a gun-grabber and regularly donate to the NRA. I do believe the states should train a portion of the teachers in the use of firearms and make them available at schools in locked cases for some of the teachers. I don’t believe there should be a 5-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns or any other weapon (the so called cooling off period), but I do believe the states and Feds have the authority under Sec. 8 and 5 of XIV to require a delay in the purchase of a firearm for the sole purpose of doing background checks if they also have legal authority to keep certain people from obtaining firearms (such as non-citizens).

    A also believe that if the city of Baghdad was in the United States with the conditions it has right now, that it would be constitutional for the mayor of the city (and it’s lawmakers) to use a temporary ban on all firearms including arresting innocents who have them and going after sellers of such who knowingly sell guns within it’s borders during that ban. The Supreme Court would rule that a temporary ceasement for the purpose of bringing order would not be unconstitutional in that situation.

    The Supreme Court has many a decision that has to take into account different conflicting sections of the US Constitution. The extreme examples show that. A 12-year old (even an adult for that matter) can be prevented from taking a shotgun into a public school. The XIV amendment, Arc. I Sec. 8 and the 2nd Amendment, the first amendment and a few others all come into conflict there. It is my personal belief that the courts are supposed to determine what is the appropriate mix to find a solution. Very seldom does an issue come up that deals with just one right. The extremes of the political spectrum try to make issues that deal with just one amendment, they don’t want it to interact with others because that is where their particular amendment loses prominence.

    My assertion that there is no right under the 2nd amendment for companies to manufacture, buy and sell firearms is correct. That assumed right is a 14th amendment sec. 1 issue.

    Supreme Court rulings are constitutional until overturned or fixed a bit. Roe v. Wade is a very good example. Even though the opinion had lots of references to the US Constitution in it, they were applied incorrectly. Thus Casey v. Planned Parenthood’s decision corrected that (though I still disagree with it). However, their decision really is the interpretation of the ‘supreme law of the land’ and must be considered Constitutional.

    That is what I find most intriguing about Rudy’s campaign and statements. On the issues of guns and abortion he doesn’t share my views but unlike just about every candidate that has ran for President in the last few decades, his views are what the current rulings of the Supreme Court hold. When was the last time you saw a Presidential candidate who isn’t for abortion on demand or against abortion no matter what? Neither of which is the current law of the land according to Supreme Court Rulings. State’s Rights that’s where his stance is…Guns the same way, he recognizes that different cities or states have different situations and that there is authority to an extent under the Supreme Court rulings to regulate firearms if necessary- depending only on the need.

    My point is that when a candidate has a States Rights mentality it really shows up where you relate his views to what the Supreme Court has decided is constitutional. So even though Rudy and I don’t match that well on some social things, I have to admit that his views are currently constitutional and as long as he says he will appoint strict constructionists to the bench I can’t complain about it.

  15. Mr. Other,

    I’ve been in a bit of a quandry as to how to respond to your last post. It betrays either a sincere misunderstanding of, or a clever ideological subversion of the Consitution and the rule of law so apparently profound that an adequate response could stretch into thousands of words. Let me just summarize.

    But first, let me post four notes:
    1. You say “the states and Feds have the authority under Sec. 8 and 5 of XIV” (to restrict the 2nd amendment). But section 5 gives them the right to strengthen Constitutional rights through enforcement, not weaken them, and “section 8” does not exist.

    2. You hypothesize the takeover of an American city by enemy forces (” …the city of Baghdad… with the conditions it has right now.”) and suggest that our right to disarm that enemy would, somehow, be a “regulation” of the Second Amendment.
    Absurd. But, that you so easily can picture an American city in enemy hands and treating them as Americans helps illuminate your views on immigration including rewarding criminal alien invaders with work permits.

    3. How does the right to keep and bear arms exist if the manufacture and sale of them can be made illegal?

    4. What, in your mind, does the word “infringed” mean?

    Now the Summary:
    You begin by asserting that you support the Constitution and the Right To Keep And Bear Arms incorporated within it, indeed even donating to an organization connected with Arms Rights, but then you articulate and support ideas incompatible with either… and you do that without filling in the blanks, without giving us the reasons that the Constitution can be abrogated by five men breaking their oath. And you express justification for a Presidential candidate who endorses that abrogation as if hostility to the rule of law was support for the rule of law.

    There could hardly be an indictment of Giuliani’s supposed support of “State’s Rights” more comprehensive that pointing out that “his views are currently constitutional” in the sense that he supports the Liberal Supreme Court’s long-standing assault on the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.

    That Constitutional Provision states:
    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

    Without any Constitutional delegation of power, in direct violation of that provision, the national government, empowered by the Liberal Court, driven by activists like Rudi Giuliani, has moved into such areas as public housing, gun control, Social Security, Medicare, nationally funded student loans, farm subsidies, speed limits, education, gay rights, abortion and marriage. A fuller listing would, of course, take pages. I’ve seen it printed out in 12 pt. type on bound documents filling wheelbarrows.

    This vast and illegal transferal of power, primarily to unelected bureaucrats in unconstitutional agencies like the NHTSA, Department of Energy, NEA and Department of Education, has been the central engine of assault on American Freedom.

    It is the foundation stone of American Marxism.

    Rudi supports that and you support Rudi calling him “currently constitutional.”

    You have said, “I am a conservative…” Your ideas are incompatible with your inclinations.

  16. Mr. Parris,

    I would be interested to hear your take on the interpretation of the 2nd amendment as it relates to your post on Rudy on the statement dealing with the gunmakers should have stopped making them after enough were made for legitimate purposes. This is argumentative, but I’d like to hear your train of thinking:

    If previous court rulings hold true, then it can reasonably be assumed that the 2nd amendment rights to keep and bear arms isn’t necessarily defined as an individual right so much as a right of the state to maintain a well-regulated militia. ‘People’ have the right to keep and bear arms under the 2nd amendment as long as that right serves the purpose of having a sufficient potential militia (and properly armed for that matter) for the state.

    Is it possible that Rudy is right (in law that is, not in opinion) that if there are more firearms available than is necessary in order to maintain a well regulated militia that Congress has the right to limit the number to only what is necessary?

    I ask that because court rulings have been clear on types of guns allowed by the 2nd amendment and who can bear the weapons and when the court has held the limitations it has done so based on how they relate to the militia aspect of the amendment – the ‘infringe’ word is really a red herring as the laws created are meant to ‘curtail’ but only if they meet the well-regulated militia standards.

    Your diatribe about the government not having authority to do those things you listed really is falling on deaf ears, re-read section 8 – FYI that is Article I section 8 – just usually referred to as section 8. Congress (read Fed. Govt.) has the power to provide for the general welfare of the United States. In what I deem to be my conservative interpretation of the General Welfare clause, I would say the Govt. has the right and responsibility to insure that the general economic health of the country is provided for. Obviously some of your list (gay rights, abortion, etc.) have nothing to do with that clause and therefore are for the states, and Rudy’s insistence on a strict constructionist judge will move us closer there (as opposed to some of the candidates fawning over O’Connor). As for gun control, Rudy has already said that is more of a local level decision than a federal one – he continues to say it so that doesn’t belong in your diatribe.

    Farm subsidies, a small portion of the education, some social security and some medicare are all issues that to a point are intregal in new federalism thinking. That means of course that to an extent they must be dealt with to keep the strength of the U.S. relative to other countries. However, looking at your list, the issues where the Feds are deeper into, are the ones that have more in common with the economic well being of the country and the ones where there is less influence at a Federal level (gay marriage) are those that don’t fit the General Welfare clause.

    This is conservative, not allowing the government to do some of those things on your list is of course telling the government they can’t provide for the general welfare. Granted they have overstepped their bounds in some of the departments (like education) that still doesn’t mean there is no need for a department of education. If the feds determined that our country status in the world was at risk because our science ability was too low in relation to other countries, it would be Congress’ job to provide a way to improve science education.

    Sure Reagan wanted to dump the department of education as a cabinet level position, that’s fine, but the necessary work needing done would still have to continue. But yes, some of the federal agencies are overbloated, which is one reason why I like Rudy (only after the fact that I think he’s the one most likely to be able to defeat Hillary), he is awfully good when it comes to being fiscal conservative, vs. the other candidates.

    Gay rights and marriage issues are going to be a problem for the strict constructionist with social conservative idealogy. I already am fearful of the outcome. I guess that is why we are looking at a marriage amendment, because we already see that we lose with the current constitution. Rudy’s position, allowing states to determine whether gays should be allowed civil unions, is probably the correct interpretation of our constitution. I’d prefer it not be the case, but I guess it’s better than requiring states to recognize gay marriage. Either way, a ‘liberal’ interpretation of the constitution on this issue will be uncomfortably similar to a Thomas/Scalia interpretation — the concurrence with the order will be the same, reasoning far different.

  17. Your otherness,
    Briefly,
    1. Anyone who can read English sentences can tell that a well regulated militia was neither a condition of the right to keep and bear arms nor its only purpose, but only a listed reason. The right protected has no limit with regard to militia except that invented by judicial criminals. You are simply regurgitating the reasoning of the far left. The National Guard, to exceed the point, is not a militia at all as then constructed, since it doesn’t use private weapons.
    2. The 2nd Amendment is clearly an individual right. People are people. Government is in contradistinction to people. The only proof needed is a casual reading of the tenth amendment. The feds, the states and the People. Here again, your thinking is collecivist. Far left stuff. You are helping me make my point about Giuliani.
    3. No. It is not even remotely possible that Rudi is right.
    4. “Infringe” is not a red herring, but central. “Infringe” is what the courts are doing when they rule on the “well regulated militia” standard since there IS NO SUCH STANDARD in the Consititution. If you want to become a conservative, learn to parse English sentences.
    5. While we’re on that topic (reading comprehension)… you say, “Congress (read Fed. Govt.) has the power to provide for the general welfare of the United States.” You take the phrase “to provide for the General Welfare” from a sentence that only empowers Federal taxation. For what purposes? The common defense and general welfare. There is nothing suggesting that “economic” is an adjective to “welfare.” It is “general.” Adding the word “economic” is not conservative because it is adding. Not original. Not strict. Now, if we take the naked word “welfare” to mean “anything Congress thinks is good for us,” as you aparently do, and take the phrase to be empowering the Federal Government for that purpose, as you do, then the Constitution is no restraint on any Government act at all. A Marxist Congress could, by the “general welfare” clause, so interpreted, eradicate all free enterprise, assume ownership of all property, dissolve legislatures, re-locate “the workers” from cities to collective farms, bring all members of the “management class” and capitalists to summary executions, and begin the ongoing re-distribution of all wealth. For the long-term welfare of society, don’t you know.
    No, yours is an untenable interpretation, clearly not the original intent. The “General Welfare” is, beyond all doubt, only the financial support (by taxation) of legitimate Governmental functions enumerated, specifically, elsewhere in the Constitution as the Tenth Amendment, even had there been an ambiguity in the original text, made undebateably clear. The Federal Government has only the enumerated powers. Enumerated powers are specific, not general. Again, you simply repeat liberal doctrine. It is as un-American as hell.
    6. You say, “As for gun control, Rudy has already said…” But to the extent that his actions in office contradict the appearance of his words while running for office, you need to discount the words. Remember his “I hate abortion”? A blatant, transparent lie. The anti-gun lawsuit is the reality, the rhetoric is the illusion, and a classic one. Pro-abortion Republicans in Congress say abortion should be a State issue. When they’re in the State Legislature they assure us it’s a Federal issue. Rudi is just using that classic dodge.
    7. Rudi does NOT “insist on strict constructionist” anything, as your ongoing explication of his philosophy demonstrates. He doesn’t even know what it is. His use of he term violates his entire political history.
    8. “Education, some social security and some medicare,” are issues where the illegal intrusion of the Federal Government have so seriously WEAKENED the country, we are, as a traceable result, within sight of disaster and financial collapse. Without major changes we will, this century, face the involuntary re-structuring of all the lives of every American except the super rich. Here again, you make it clear that you have no concept of conservative economic principles.
    9. Your analysis that Federal involvement is less in social issues is seriously erroneous. The destruction of marriage, entirely independent of gay rights, is a fixture of federal legislation. And gay rights is, right now, an inventied Constitutioinal principle of Lawrence vs. Texas, simply awaiting political implementation. Rudy would help implement it if he could ever get elected, but, of course, his natural constituents will be voting for Hillary (from whom he couldn’t even wrest the NY Senate seat) and Conservatives will be spending their time preparing for the holidays early that November if he is the nominee.
    10. If Congress really wanted “to provide a way to improve science education.” They would begin by eradicating the unconsitututional Department of Education and all Federal funding. They are destructive forces that have empowered the worst factions in educational burraucracy, the destruction of academic curricula, nationwide, the imposition of socialist and sexual indoctrination, instead, and enormous financial waste. You clearly are unfamiliar with the conservative/liberal struggles in education, aren’t you? Why do un-trained mothers have a better track record educating their own children at home? Because our system is broken. One tool that broke it was the liberal Constitutional ajudication you are supporting.
    11. You say, amazingly, “we lose with the current constitution.” There is absolutely no problem with the Constitution. The problem is with the kinds of judges you and Rudi would appoint. Liberals who re-write it.
    12. You say, again, astonishingly, “a ‘liberal’ interpretation of the constitution on this issue [gay rights] will be uncomfortably similar to a Thomas/Scalia interpretation.” Are you unaware that this issue has already come before them – and that the opinions were as far apart as you can get?
    Scalia:
    “This case does not involve the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court. Many will hope that, as the Court comfortingly assures us, this is so. The matters appropriate for this Court’s resolution are only three: Texas’s prohibition of sodomy neither infringes a “fundamental right.” (which the Court does not dispute), nor is unsupported by a rational relation to what the Constitution considers a legitimate state interest, nor denies the equal protection of the laws. I dissent.”
    Thomas:
    “…just like Justice Stewart, I can find neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a “general right of privacy”, or as the Court terms it today, the ‘liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions’”
    Majority:
    “Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific.”

    Here we got to see authentic, conservative, strict constructionist, original intent interpretation of the Constitution contrasted, sharply and clearly, with the kind of ambiguous, make-it-up-as-you-go-along and impose-your-own-political-philosophy-on-the-nation, revision that liberals, and particularly the kind that Rudi would appoint, engage in. The liberal majority literally inventing powers it admits are NOT in the text, while Thomas and Scalia, in the minority, hold true to the Constitution, their oaths of office and their souls.

    This issue, alone, is reason enough not to vote for Giuliani, but of course, there are so many, we need not be picky.

  18. Mr. Parris,

    Good golly where did you come from. The general welfare clause interpretation as I shown is over 2 centuries old. The purpose of it was settled over 200 years ago as being put in there to provide a little leeway for the govt. to take care of national issues general to the people that weren’t foreseen by the founders. Hamilton won back in the 1790s and Madison was so mad that he decided to use the powers specifically granted to him by the constitution as President to single handedly determine that the spending bill was unconstitutional and tried to veto it (sarcasm for the man who basically wrote the constitution). It wasn’t until the New Deal decision that the clause took on more than it was intended. The limited scope of General Welfare is not what is specifically enumerated and it doesn’t matter how conservative of a court you get they aren’t going to willy nilly start striking down spending bills based on this clause, they never have since the day the amendment was approved and if they ever do it would be to limit it’s scope back to the pre-1930s decision.

    As for the gay rights issue I was referring to civil unions. The decision you refer to I believe had to do with the criminal act of sodomy and not gay marriage or gay civil unions of which whom the desenters would be different.

    On the 2nd amendment your first paragraph needs rephrased. The right to bear arms is a right that existed before the amendment was passed and the ONLY reason that right is mentioned in the constitution (not just ‘A’ reason) is specified by the need for a well regulated militia. Madison’s quotes and reasoning pretty much show that as well. The right as an individual right does exist in there but only to the extent well-regulated militias could form if need be. To read the General Welfare clause as what is specifically stated, but to not want to do the same for the 2nd amendment doesn’t work.

    Therefore, the 2nd amendment has some interesting limitations: First, if you think the right is only an individual right then that would be based on the pre-existing common law right from Britain. This is possible because our founders probably would have been happy to have the right in any form at the time and would have considered the British law in all it’s encumbrances as a right – of course the British interpretation of the right to bear arms was wrought with regulation at the time and so for the portion of founders who agreed to this amendment language for the right to self-defense, they also knew that it could be well-regulated.

    Most of the founders, it appears, agreed to the language with it’s wording for this rephrased reasoning: There will be times when the states need to call up an easily trainable militia and in order that they have that ability the people should have ample opportunity to have practiced in the use of firearms and own firearms and not allowing the people to own and use firearms during times of peace would not satisfy this need.

    Collectively the end result is that the people have the right to bear arms individually for self-defense (and lesser extent to hunt, and even lesser extent for leisure) to protect oneself from criminals or the government, and that right could be regulated. This does NOT come from the second amendment, this comes from common law. The second amendment right comes from the days when the citizens were REQUIRED to have a gun and be trained on how to use them. That amendment specifically refers that the right to bear arms is necessary for the states to be able to call up well regulated militias if need be.

    The 2nd amendment grants no individual right, the individual right is already there by common law (and hence a well regulated law as it was at the time the founders made the 2nd amendment) and did not need to be added to the constitution. The 2nd amendment only explains the reason the common law right exists. It is quite complicated but it does not do what the liberals think it does by only refering to people serving in a militia. But it also does not do the action word ‘grant’ individual rights as some conservatives think it does.

  19. Doug, Other:

    I found your first paragraph almost incomprehensible. Beginning with inquiry into my place of birth and ending with my position (not yours) as a conclusion you hypothesize that over 200 years ago the “General Welfare” clause was settled with regard to justifying public housing, gun control, Social Security, Medicare, nationally funded student loans, farm subsidies, speed limits, education, gay rights, abortion and marriage. That is what we were discussing, remember?
    Your historic creativity is ridiculous. No. Social Security did not start in the Eighteenth Century and none of those other things did, either. Rolling back Consitutional interpretation to pre-FDR socialism is exactly what is called for.

    You say “I was referring to civil unions.” What is it you were saying about them? And what did it have to do with what we were talking about? We were talking about gay rights; the development of the dogma that perverse sexuality (including, but not necessarliy limited to homosexuality) is equal to natural sexuality. Once you establish that principle (and, barring reversal, it has already been done at the Supreme Court level) the rest goes with it, eventually. As Scalia, I believe, pointed out, the position established in Lawrence (identical with Rudi Giuliani’s, in point of fact) was not narrow, but carried with it the whole question like an egg carries a whole chicken. Once we have established that ludicrous equality (once again, for which Giuliani is an activist advocate) it does not matter if a lawless Judge like Washington’s Richard Hicks imposes, or a disingenuous legislature passes, “reciprocal benefits,” “civil unions,” or “gay marriage.” The issue is all one. The courts will eventually abolish all the irrational and cosmetic distinctions of creative euphemism, unless and until we first abolish liberal ajudication.
    Our avenue to that overdue abolition is, primarily, by rejecting the Presidential candidacies of judicial liberals like Rudi Giuliani who endorse not only sexual, but legal perversion.

    You say, “To read the General Welfare clause as what is specifically stated, but to not want to do the same for the 2nd amendment doesn’t work.” Here, again, we’re dealing with your salient reading comprehension disability. In both cases, I am dealing with ONLY what the language clearly states.

    If you have something from Madison establishing that the right to keep and bear arms accrues only collectively, please produce it. I’ve never seen anything like that and I don’t belive it exists. I assume such obscure, but significant language would have surfaced in the more than 20 years I’ve studied and debated this issue, concurrent with the highly-publicized national debate. It is more likely language you’ve misinterpreted as you have the Second and Tenth Amendments and Rudi’s lawsuit.

    Your attempt to invent previously invisible firearms restrictions imbedded, secretly, in popular assumptions about the Consititution from alleged weaknesses in English Common Law are, to say the least, fanciful. But good try. You hypothesize a psychology of the Colonists that strains even the suspension of disbelief you might expect if you were writing a novel.
    Aparently you’ve never lived in the country.

    You say, “This does NOT come from the second amendment, this comes from common law”
    No, of course not. No Rights came from the Consititution or any of its provisions or amendments. None of them. The Consitution simply restricted Government from taking them away. But they, most emphatically, did not come from common law, either, though much of Justice was recognized there. You must have missed the earlier document. (this is the kind of thing I meant when I lamented the weaknesses of public eduction.) Let me quote from it:
    “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…”
    The real revolution, the real “shot heard round the world,” was this assertion, that rights do not come from Government at all. That deeply revolutionary mindset is almost unattainable by modern Europeans or the Giulianis of the world. It is, nevertheless, the touchstone we must recover if we are to salvage freedom.

    “…by only refering to people serving in a militia.” Once again, this is utterly false. It doesn’t “only refer,” in fact it
    never refers to “people serving in a militia.” It refers to a right, the right to keep and bear arms; it says it cannot be infringed, and it preceeds that declaration by mentioning a government necessity of the day that was dependent on widespread gun ownership, not visa-versa. IT DID NOT, BY ANY LANGUAGE, EXCEPT IN YOUR IMAGINATION, MAKE THE RIGHT, ITSELF, SUBJECT TO ANYTHING. That is plainly what the language, itself, says. LEARN TO READ. Here, let me help you:
    Let’s say your grandmother dies and leaves you a little house she used to rent out. In her will it says, “Because my beloved Other Doug was the only one who mowed the lawn at my rental house and he did it without charging me for 20 years, I hereby bequeath to him my rental house.” Now you own it. Now, suppose you rent it out and, intelligently enough, make mowing the lawn a contractural obligation of the renter in the lease. Can your evil cousin Rudy now claim that you have violated the terms of the will and demand that you give up your ownership of the house? Share the profit? His reasoning would be identical to yours on the Second Amendment. He would say “the only reason Other Doug has that house is because he mowed the lawn, therefore, now that he is no longer mowing the lawn his ownership can be taken away. His right is directly connected to mowing the lawn in the original will.” Would your evil cousin’s interpretation be accurate? Suppose he were to help elect a judge that he got to rule in his favor in some way and monitor your lawn-mowing activities? Would the judge’s ruling change the meaning of the will? Wouldn’t it be right for you to vote for someone not connected with Rudy, indeed, to liberate yourself from the judicial philosophy of Rudy?

    That’s what I’m going to do.

    You say, “… it also does not do the action word ‘grant’ individual rights as some conservatives think it does.”

    You’re quite right here. It would be much weaker if it pretended to “grant” a right. The American Revolution established that the government is the servant of the people, not the other way around, as the Europeans, liberals and Giuliani think. It does not “grant” anything to the people. It is the people who “grant” to government the power to do anything and powers not enumerated by the Constitution have never been legitimately granted to the Federal Government.

  20. On your example of bequeathing the rental house:

    A more useful analogy would be “Because my beloved Other Doug was the only one who mowed the lawn at my rental house and he did it without charging me for 20 years and the rental house will continue to need it’s lawn mowed without charge in the future, I hereby bequeath to him my rental house.”

    The founders determined that there was a need for a well-regulated militia and that need could be best satisfied by not infringing on the right to bear arms.

    I would expect a judge in the first example would side with my cousin if I started charging to have the lawn mowed when the need was for it not to have been charged.

    In the example you have given you failed to mention a continuing need that is the reason for the granting of the property. In our 2nd amendment the only continuing need is given for the reason of protecting the right.

    Also, I just repeated a liberal mantra, that I know is false, when mentioning that people serving in the militia have the right and others don’t so don’t pin that one on me.

    I still don’t understand it when you tell me to learn to read plain English. Does not the plain words of the 2nd amendment tell you the reason why the right to keep and bears arms shall not be infringed? You keep saying there is no qualifier in the plain language of the amendment even though the qualifier is plainly printed there and the reason our constitution doesn’t allow for the infringing on the right is because of the need for a well-regulated militia to secure free state.

    It’s like your post on the first amendment where you are saying how great it is that Russia is able to control it’s liberal press and why can’t we. Well, plain words in the first amendment, that is why.

    And it all goes back to you saying that Rudy has an all out attack on the 2nd amendment. I just disagree with that and I would predict that even if he is elected President, he will not enforce any law relating to the 2nd amendment that is determined to be unconstitutional.

  21. In the house analogy, who would you be charging for your lawn-mowing services? How do any rights accrue to your cousin Rudy whether or not you mow the lawn, yourself, or cause it to be mowed by others?

    If your grandmother meant your personal lawn-mowing to be a CONDITION of title, she could have said: “SUBJECT TO” his mowing the lawn himself…” or “As long as he mows the lawn himself…” But it was not a CONDITION. It was the only listed reason. It was her motivation. This interpretation is not my invention. This is how language is interpreted in law as well as literature. It is clear. A “reason” is not a “condition.” That is the meaning of the English words. “Subject to” and “Because of” mean entirely differnt things. Were you unaware of that?

    By the same token, the Second Amendment lists only one reason for protecting the right to keep and bear arms: because of the PEOPLE’s need for private, individual gun ownership to remain securly free. At the time that right was manifested in militias. But it DOES NOT, by the language say, “Subject to…” or “As long as…” or “To the extent which…” or any other phrase that, by the meanings and definitions of the English Language, or the technical use of that language as legal contract, indicates that it is a CONDITION of the right.

    It would have been very simple to do so. The proper language to indicate a CONDITION has existed as long as contracts and laws have existed. The framers did not do it. It is not there. No CONDITION exists.

    Use the same language in a real estate contract and see if a judge gives you the title back to land: “Because Mr. Smith is a good neighbor I hereby deed to him the following described real property for three hundred thousand dollars…” Write a deed that way and see if you can get the property back by claiming Mr. Smith is no longer a good neighbor. You would lose because the wording does not make your REASON a CONDITION.

    You say, “In the example you have given you failed to mention a continuing need that is the reason for the granting of the property. In our 2nd amendment the only continuing need is given for the reason of protecting the right.”
    One point of my analogy was that the thing granted was of much greater value than the listed reason. That is true in both cases. Another was that the nature of the “continuing need” changed over time. Of course the lawn needed to be mowed, but there is no reason or justification to seize the house from you should you have the tennant do it or pay for a service. Our National Defense is no longer considered dependent on the militias that once were based on the right of private gun ownership, but other kinds of security are dependent on that right and there is nothing in the language suggesting that a change in the nature of militias could or should result in the infringement of the right.

    What the Second Amendment says is that ARMS in the hands of private citizens as embodied in militias, are necessary for the SECURITY of a FREE people. At that time, Colonial militias existed that had exhibited the power, in the Revolutionary War, to overthrow an abusive government. Time may demonstrate that Armed force in the hands of citizens is a necessary safeguard to freedom for the same reasons today, to give pause to opressive socialist government. Certainly, the left acts, even today, as if disarming us was a necessary precursor to taking our money and property, the takings being an undeniable part of their agenda.
    So, while we see that at the time of authorship there were three kinds of SECURITY that were protected: security against foriegn enemies, security against governent tyranny and security against crime, it is clearly the second and third types of security, that are directly threatened by Rudolph “the red” Giuliani.

    So why is he talking about “hunting”?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s