“The Progressive” sprays us with lies. Friday, Jun 27 2008
Here is what The Progressive said about District of Columbia v. Heller:
What Scalia did in his majority opinion was basically disregard the preamble about “a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.” ( here)
Here is what Justice Scalia said:
2. Prefatory Clause.
The prefatory clause reads: “A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State . . . .”
a. “Well-Regulated Militia.” In United States v.
Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that “the
Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in
concert for the common defense.” …
b. “Security of a Free State.” The phrase “security of
a free state” meant “security of a free polity,” not security
of each of the several States as the dissent below argued,
see 478 F. 3d, at 405, and n. 10. Joseph Story wrote in his
treatise on the Constitution that “the word ‘state’ is used
in various senses [and in] its most enlarged sense, it
means the people composing a particular nation or community.”
1 Story §208; see also 3 id., §1890 (in reference
to the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause: “The militia
is the natural defence of a free country”). It is true that
the term “State” elsewhere in the Constitution refers to
individual States, but the phrase “security of a free state”
and close variations seem to have been terms of art in
18th-century political discourse, meaning a “ ‘free country’
” or free polity. See Volokh, “Necessary to the Security
of a Free State,” 83 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1, 5 (2007); see,
e.g., 4 Blackstone 151 (1769); Brutus Essay III (Nov. 15,
1787), in The Essential Antifederalist 251, 253 (W. Allen
& G. Lloyd eds., 2d ed. 2002). Moreover, the other instances
of “state” in the Constitution are typically accompanied
by modifiers making clear that the reference is to
the several States—“each state,” “several states,” “any
state,” “that state,” “particular states,” “one state,” “no
state.” And the presence of the term “foreign state” in
Article I and Article III shows that the word “state” did
not have a single meaning in the Constitution.
There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be
“necessary to the security of a free state.” See 3 Story
§1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions
and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large
standing armies unnecessary—an argument that Alexander
Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the
militia. Third, when the able-bodied men of
a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are
better able to resist tyranny.
3. Relationship between Prefatory Clause and
We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with
an operative clause that creates an individual right to
keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the
history that the founding generation knew and that we
have described above. That history showed that the way
tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the ablebodied
men was not by banning the militia but simply by
taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or
standing army to suppress political opponents. This is
what had occurred in England that prompted codification
of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.
The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear
arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was
not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was)
but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution.
During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that
the federal government would disarm the people in order
to impose rule through a standing army or select militia
was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric. (23-25)
Clearly all of what Scalia wrote above “basically disregard[ed] the preamble about ‘a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.'”
Here is some more Progressive bullshit:
[T]he reactionary majority…have now conferred on individuals the right to own a handgun…
Actually, the Constitution ‘conferred’ that. If you read Scalia’s opinion, you will see that.
Indiana Jones and the search for other Diatribes Thursday, May 29 2008
So, yes—I saw the new Indiana Jones movie. If you can’t tell by the title, I wasn’t all too thrilled by the it. It seemed as if the spirit of cinema was raped for the sake of profit. After it was raped, it was deep-fried, sugar-coated and served with ice cream to please all the little children — all of whom, and I’m pretty sure of this, are unable to truely understand the ‘complexity’ of the othe Indiana Jones films; that includes the Yound Indiana Jones films, which have been seen worldwide by about ten people.
In other news, which I’m going to call “the bullshit that is sending this country straight to hell.”
The FDA has stated that Meat and Dairy products from cloned animals is safe. Ok—bullshit.
You may be unaware of this, but nature has created a way for us to produce new livestock.
It goes like this:
Bull: Hey, Hun… How you doin’?
Cow: I do declare: who is this handsome bull talkin’ to me?
Bull: Hey, Hun… I think we should fuck, but just a little.
Cow: I don’t know: all the other cows think you should wait till marriage.
Bull: Come on, Honey: you really gonna listen to that crap?
Cow: Ok — but just a little bit….
some months later…
Cow: Hey, Frankie. I got some news for ya.
Bull: yeah, what is it?
Cow: I’m pregnant.
Bull: Umm, yeah, I’m gonna go over to the other pasture: they say it’s greener over there.
As you can see, nature hath clearly created a natural pathway to create new life: it isn’t cloning.
Can McCain go above the Barr? Wednesday, May 28 2008
People are wondering what I’m wondering: what effect will Bob Barr have on the General Election?
Barr said he expects the party to be on the ballot in at least 48 states and perhaps all 50 if the party can qualify in West Virginia and Oklahoma. Barr said he also expects to be invited to the national political debates by qualifying with poll support of 15 percent or more of registered voters. (Politico)
Without Paul’s passionate legions, Barr would have a difficult time attracting grass-roots and financial support.
In other words, if Paul stays on the sidelines and does not get behind Barr, the Libertarian nominee could be as much of a nonfactor this year as in every other recent presidential cycle. (Politico—John Martin)
Regardless — I and others think it very possible that Obama, partially thanks to Barr, could get the nod from Georgia in November—but we’ll just have to see.
Bob Barr the Spoiler? Thursday, May 15 2008
While I’m not really a supporter (in the least), mind you, I am excited by the fact that this ex-Republican might play a bigger role than one might expect from a third party candidate. Clearly it is quite unlikely for a third party to win—but he could tip the balance in the General Elecection — which is what I’m hoping for.
Bob Barr could easily take votes away from McCain — if he were ‘viable enough.’ Democrats, therefore, should fund Mr Barr’s campaign and do everything possible to get him in the Presidential debates in the fall.
I Opine on Voter ID Tuesday, Apr 29 2008
rant/venting 7:23 am
OK, seriously, folks I don’t understand what is the deal with all of this hype about the voter ID. To me, it seems like a very germane policy.
Likewise, I don’t really understand the erroneous accusations of “Poll Tax!!!”
It just makes sense to me that people should present some form of ID when they vote. It would be a very good way to help fight voter fraud.
Al Franken? Tuesday, Apr 29 2008
Seriously? Al Franken for Senate?
What the hell;—I’ll endorse him too (I’ll pretend really hard that it actually matters who I endorse).
Earth Day Wednesday, Apr 23 2008
rant/venting 9:34 am
Today we pretend to care. Tomorrow we will wake-up and our houses will magically be solar-power’d. We will have flying electic cars, and there will be a giant glass dome around all of China.
Mother Earth should be happy to be like everyone else: have one day out of 365 where everyone else pretends to care about you.
Happy Earth Day, Earth.
Big fuckin who-ha
My Day at the Capitol Thursday, Apr 10 2008
OK, so today was at the Tennessee state capitol. I sat in and watch’d the Government Operations committee. WoW!!!—what a bunch of insanity. It look’d like the circus.
This committe had no concept of House rules and basic parliamentary procedure. They debated for about ten minutes how many people the committe need’d for quorum (which was 9).
Stacy Campfield, Susan Lynn, and Eric Swafford threw a temper-tantrum and walk’d out.