Gun Rights and the 9th Amendment

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
-Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
-Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution.

-Source: National Archives and Records Administration – www.archives.gov

________________________________________________________________________________________________

It is more than likely that the 2nd Amendment will be much discussed in the upcoming 110th Congress. It is a favorite topic of the Democratic Party. As are all of the Constitution’s amendments, not to mention the Constitution itself, the 2nd Amendment is ambiguous. Numerous readings bring no clarity as to the specific intention of the founding fathers. It is only through an understanding of the founders’ intentions that one can begin to interpret this or any clause in the present day.

First and foremost, it was the concern of the men who gave birth to the Constitution that the Federal Government not infringe upon the rights of the states or the individuals of the newly created country. The Constitution is set up so that no one branch may hijack the government and use it against the people. The amendments further provided safeguards against hegemony by enumerating specific rights that may not be violated by the central government. The document as a whole, Constitution and amendments, are designed to protect the American people from the government. That is its most basic function.

At no point in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights are the rights of the people restricted. Never does the document upon which this country is founded take away a right from an individual. The 9th Amendment in unusual directness states that rights not specifically ensured by the Constitution shall not be considered as a denial of those rights. It can very pointedly be argued that the 2nd Amendment addresses militias and the states and that it speaks to “people” and not “person or persons”. However, any interpretation that the 2nd amendment does not guarantee the individual the right to keep and bear arms would be to ignore the 9th amendment. This reasoning would be restricting the rights of the individual by arguing that the Constitution does not specifically enumerate that right. This argument runs counter to all that the founders hoped for. The Federal Government and the manuscript upon which it is founded may not restrict an individuals rights including the right to own a gun.

History does bear out an instance in which it the Federal Government did limit the rights of the individuals. The 18th Amendment made it illegal to sell or possess alcohol. Without going deeply into that case it must suffice to say that the people of this country, through the representatives in Washington, came to their senses and with the 21st Amendment made right that wrong. Currently there is talk of an amendment to ban gay marriages. One point alone must render this argument untenable: it would restrict the rights of the individual. No other point matters.

There are many good reasons why people should not possess guns these days. 230 years ago, when the Constitution was written, guns were a necessity of life for much of the population. They were a way to put food on the table and to protect one’s family and possessions. That is not the case today. Guns have no place in much of our society. However, arguing that a person should not have a gun is much different but not far from saying that one can not have a gun. By giving into the easy fix and allowing the Federal Government to regulate the tool that the founders intended the people to have in order to protect themselves from that government is not only stupid, it is unconstitutional. The way to quell senseless violence is not through restricting the rights of individuals but through including more and more people in the prosperity that all Americans have a right to achieve through peaceful, lawful means. Washington can start by addressing the inexcusably wretched state of public education in this country and in doing so watch the rate of violent crime in this country drop. It won’t happen overnight but it will happen in most people’s lifetime.

Posted by The Webtoad at 02:50 PM | Comments (0)

So Much For the Polls

I am glad that my analysis of the NY times/CBS poll was wrong. I am glad that we have a new party to run our Legislative branch. I am glad that I am now represented by a new person in the House. I am glad about a lot of things but my scepticism leads me to believe that I had best not get used to it.

The Democrats have had it easy the last couple of years. All they had to do was be against whatever it was that the Republican Party of George Bush was proposing. Alternatives were not necessary. The Republicans did such a wonderful job of screwing things up that they did not need any help from the Democrats. That has all changed. With Virginia's Senate race seeming to go to the Democrats, they control the entire Legislature. They now have the burden of setting a legislative agenda. That is their job. If the President were smart (no need for jokes here the man just got trampled) he would sit back and do what it is that the Constitution asks of him: execute the laws of the land. That would include vetoing any laws he disagreed with. Essentially, to help himself get back into the good graces of the voting public, he should stay out of the Legislative process. Let the Dems do their job and oppose what they put forward. More than likely, the Dems will be stepping in cow patties soon enough.

Posted by The Webtoad at 01:06 AM | Comments (0)

Donkey Stampede

I saw this cartoon on Tuesday. It seemed so fitting then as it does now.

Posted by The Webtoad at 12:58 AM | Comments (0)

So Much For A Change In Congress

The latest NY Times/CBS Poll is out and there are some disturbing numbers in it. For the most part, it is straightforward and bland. Nobody approves of the President. Most everybody believes that the country is headed in the wrong direction and everybody hates the members of Congress. Except for their own. Wait, what? That’s right, the only person that people want to remain in office is the only one that they can vote for. Here are the two pairs of questions that bare this out:

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job?
10/27-31/06 Approve: 29% Disapprove 56%

How about the Representative in Congress from your district? Do you approve or disapprove of the way your Representative is handling his or her job?
10/27-31/06 Approve: 58% Disapprove 26%

Do you think the representative in Congress from your district has performed his or her job well enough to deserve re-election, or do you think it's time to give a new person a chance?
10/27-31/06 Deserves Re-Election: 46% Time for New Person: 44%

Do you think most members of Congress have done a good enough job to deserve re-election, or do you think it's time to give new people a chance?
10/27-31/06 Deserve Re-Election: 16% Time for New People: 70%

I had to read these questions several times today. I could not believe my eyes. “Should we re-elect a new Congress?” “Hell yes! Throw the bums out!!! Except for my Bum. My bum is doing just fine.”

I am sure that I don’t need to spell this out but I am going to anyway. If everybody votes for the only Congressman that they feel is doing fine, then ALL Congressmen will be re-elected. There will be no change in Congress.

This is what we get when we have only two choices (one step away from no choice) in our political system. Who do you want to represent you? Dumb or dumber? Corrupt or criminal? Richie Rich or Richie Richer? Corporate America or Corporate America?

I go to the polls this Tuesday knowing that either way, donkey or elephant, America loses.

Posted by The Webtoad at 01:04 AM | Comments (0)

Fantasy Sports For Those Who Hate Sports

Fantasy Politics

Posted by The Webtoad at 11:26 AM | Comments (0)

The Burden of the People

As much as is said about the dire need for politicians' to change their dirty ways, the burden of change lies solely with the American public. Lobbying scandals, fears of Social Security shortfalls, tax reform, energy policy and the War on Terrorism are issues that impact every American. If the people want these issues to be dealt with by the politicians in Washington then the people must first deal with the politicians.

This November, all 435 seats in the House of Representatives and one third of the seats in the Senate will be up for re-election. However, by most accounts, fewer than 40 seats in the house are considered “in play” and far less than 50% of eligible voters will go to the polls to cast a vote. If this bears out, incumbency will reign and all hope for change will be pushed out another two years.

The argument given for not voting by the average citizen of voting age tends to focus on two points. First, voters do not feel that the issues at hand affect them personally. Secondly, they cite a lack of understanding of the candidates and the issues as well as a dearth of time in which they could brush up on politics of the day thus feeling that they can not make an informed decision.

Quite simply, the issues that come before Congress do impact the lives of every single American not to mention many non-Americans around the globe. The best example of an issue that theoretically affects all voters is taxes. If you are an American and you work then you pay taxes. In short, this is money that is taken directly out of an individual’s paycheck by the federal government and spent as the lawmakers in Washington see fit. Many a person can be heard railing against the free spending habits of our elected officials but in all actuality, those officials are exercising the will of the people. Election after election, the voters send politicians back to Washington to serve another term. In doing so, the voters ask that politician to keep on doing exactly what it was that they were doing prior to the election. If the American Public really is fed up with politics as usual in Washington, then it’s up to the voters to change things. Politicians will rarely change so the public must change the politicians.

Addressing the second point raised by those who do not vote is entirely dependant upon proving the first. By showing that politics does play a part in their everyday lives, one can convince the voters that they must find the time to acquaint themselves with the issues and the candidates. In fact, most eligible voters will admit that they should become more vigilant in keeping up with current events. So long as they don’t however, only half of the voting population will dictate the issues and will choose those who vote on the issues. It is remarkable that people will leave such pressing issues in the hands of people that they don’t know and most likely do not agree with.

Posted by The Webtoad at 03:06 AM | Comments (0)

A Case for a Third Party

“Meet the new boss! Same as the old boss!” These parting words to The Who’s “Won’t Get Fooled Again” seem more appropriate each time I hear the song. The title itself is a battle cry for each election cycle which unfortunately ends with the American public scratching its collective head wondering how it is that it got fooled again. It never seems to occur to the talking heads and the public in general that having just two choices in politics is only one step away from having no choice. Regardless of whom one votes for and more importantly, regardless of whom wins, very little will change in national politics so long as there is such limited choice.

Take the last Presidential election for example. Had John Kerry won, it can easily be argued that America would still be in the same position that it is in today in Iraq, Social Security would be no closer to a fix, taxes (and their allocation) would be the same and the problems that give rise to global terrorism would still be ignored. The one thing that really seemed to set the two presidential candidates apart in the 2004 election was healthcare. John Kerry put forth the idea that the health plan that covers all federal employees should be opened up to the American public. It was a step towards caring for the 45 million Americans who are without health care and relieving some of the burden for the rest of the country that is affected by the outrageous cost of health care. It was not national health care. It was also not the final solution but it was at least a start. However, in all reality, it never would have come to fruition. Just like President Bush’s goal to reform Social Security, it would have run out of steam as Congress refused to move to help the people it was elected to serve.

And why should these lifetime politicians step up to do their job? Far less than 10% of the 535 elected officials on Capital Hill are ever in jeopardy of losing their jobs. These people know that as long as they make no egregious errors, their seat is safe. The voters prefer a legislator with seniority over one with ideas. Yet day after day, week after week one can hear any number of conversations lamenting the inactions of Congress and their failure to address the issues that face Americans today. But that is where the mistake is being made. Elected lawmakers are not serving the constituency most believe that they should. Congress is serving those who dole out the money; lobbyists, corporations, super rich individuals. A voter may offer a candidate his or her vote but that is not ultimately what the candidate needs or wants. The candidate of either of the two dominant parties desires money. That is what gets him or her elected.

This is a cycle that must and can be broken. By introducing more people into the political process, more ideas will come forth. As it stands, each elected position ends up as a contest between two people. That number needs to be increased. On the day of the general election, the voter should have three, four or more choices. Debates should bring forth the voices of not just two people but any number whose parties qualify (currently there are prohibitive restrictions for the entrance of alternate parties into the election process). It is imperative that the American voting process see a return of the vote as that most sought after commodity in the election market. Money must take a back seat to the voice of the individual American. Bring more voices to the debate and more and better ideas will come forward. Vote for the candidate with the best ideas and the strength to act on those ideas and change will come to Washington. Stick with the two party system and the only party will be the one thrown in Washington at tax payer expense. And the voter is not invited.

Posted by The Webtoad at 01:27 AM | Comments (1)