Posted on 03/30/2007 5:09:20 PM PDT by neverdem
Earlier this month, in the case of Parker v. District of Columbia, a three-judge panel of the Federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia broke with all other federal circuits by holding that a gun-control statute violated the Second Amendment.
In a split decision, the court found that the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and a companion law that requires that legally owned firearms be stored disassembled could not be reconciled with the text of the amendment.
The amendment reads, "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." The only modern Supreme Court case to look at the issue, United States v. Miller, found that the Second Amendment was designed to preserve the effectiveness of the organized militia.
The Parker case breaks from this precedent by finding that the militia purpose is but one among a laundry list of other individual uses of arms protected by the Second Amendment, including hunting, self-defense, and protection from the "depredations of a tyrannical government."
This last claim, that individuals have a right to take up arms against representative government, was last tried out by the Confederate States of America.
When Abraham Lincoln was elected president in 1860, many Southerners, fearing that Lincoln would abolish slavery, felt they had no obligation to accept the results of the election. Southern attempts to withdraw from the union quickly led to individuals taking up arms to fight what they perceived as federal tyranny.
As president, Lincoln acted on his belief that violence against the government was illegal and unconstitutional. In his first inaugural address he stated, "It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination."
As he asked the nation to go to war to protect its sovereignty, Lincoln added, "And this issue embraces more than the fate of these United States ... It presents the question, whether discontented individuals, too few in numbers to control administration ... can always ... break up their government, and thus practically put an end to free government upon the Earth."
Lincoln made it clear that individuals or even states did not have the authority to determine what was "just cause" to wage a war against the union. As much as it pained him to send young men off to die, he did so to vindicate the idea that the Constitution and its amendments did not create some kind of national suicide pact.
Following the Civil War, the Supreme Court, in the case of Texas v. White, adopted this view and held that the Constitution did not countenance armed rebellion against the federal government.
The Parker court, by implicitly reviving Confederate constitutional theory and wrapping it in the authority of the federal courts, takes the ideals of conservative judicial activism in a lunatic direction.
The case is likely to be appealed. Let's hope that the rest of the D.C. Circuit knows enough history to recog´ nize that Lincoln, not Jefferson Davis, is the guiding spirit behind our system of constitutional government.
Horwitz is the executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and a visiting scholar at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
in MANY cases they were confined on the ORDER of lincoln, personally. (even the head docent at Ft McHenry admits that, though he TRIED to make lincoln's UNlawful actions SEEM less DIShonest & tyrannical.)
free dixie,sw
True, in Ex Parte Milligan. However there was no precedent in place when Lincoln was forced to suspend habeas corpus and the government operated as they believe the law required. To the best of my knowledge the federal government abided by the Ex Parte Milligan ruling after it was made.
free dixie,sw
that is the situation with the "declarations". SAYING something does NOT make it TRUE!!!
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
I am WELL aware that only a fool takes anything you say seriously.
lincoln was perfectly willing to PROTECT slavery by Constitutional Amendment (in pont of fact, lincoln was a "stone bigot" who cared NOTHING about "the plight of the slave".) he said that in his own hand. (the source document has been posted on FR more than once by "nolo chan".)
actually the WBTS was about just ONE main thing = FREEDOM for dixie from a faraway government, which the common citizen of the south believed (RIGHTLY imVho) was acting AGAINST his own informed self-interest AND was likely to become evermore controlling of his personal life & LESS just.
southerners simply wanted their FREEDOM!) free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
Individuals?
you posts, considered separately and as a whole are:
deceptive,
KNOWINGLY DIShonest,
simplistic &
designed to FOOL the UNwary & naive into believing decent the WORST excesses of the DAMNyankee invaders.
be sure and openly say that you favor FAIL to believe the RACIST slaughter of MY family by the "filth that flowed down from the north" was IMMORAL & a WAR CRIME. (saying that will make you look like the "holocaust DENIER", that you are, to all your readers.)
free dixie,sw
Your assertion does not constitute proof or even evidence.
The SC Convention created three documents:
A short one paragraph Ordinance of Secession. (We're outta here. No details as to how or why.)
A long Address to Slaveholding States inviting them to join to form a Confederacy.
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes, etc.
Your contention is that the Convention published the first two as official documents of the State Convention, but that the third, intended purely for propaganda purposes (as was the original Declaration of Independence) was not published and was generally disregarded at the time.
This makes no sense. The South's ace in the hole, they thought, was British/French intervention. So the Declaration of the Immediate Causes, fairly obviously aimed at obtaining the sympathies of the European powers, was not distributed. (The Address to Slaveholding States was worded in such a way that it would NOT have appealed to the sympathies of the British.)
I'm still waiting for a reference.
go do your own reading. it's NOT hard to find out the TRUTH. all you have to do is STOP reading the KNOWING, sanctimonious,REVISIONIST lies out of the most extreme "idiot fringe" of northeastern LEFTIST academia and seek out the TRUTH.
free dixie,sw
Based on your handle, I will assume you have been referring to Cherokee ancestors.
Are you aware that any Cherokees killed by Union troops during the WBTS, presumably in OK, are dwarfed by the numbers killed by southerners, notably Georgia militia, over the years?
Andrew Jackson, a slaveowning southern president, drove the Cherokee onto the Trail of Tears, on which somewhere around 4,000 Cherokees, a significant percentage of the tribe, died unnecessarily.
Northerners, for obvious reasons, had no direct incentive to drive out the Cherokee. Northerners actually supported the Cherokee appeal to the US Supreme Court, which they won, but which was then ignored by the southern president, of southern sympathies, acting in southern interest.
Why obsess over a little over a hundred family members, (I do you the courtesy of assuming your numbers are accurate) killed by Union troops in a war, while ignoring thousands killed during peacetime by southerners 30 years earlier?
seek out the TRUTH.
I am attempting to do so. However, your hollering does not constitute TRUTH. It merely demonstrates your essential childishness for all to see. Don't you realize that a calm presentation of evidence is much more effective at convincing others that your position is correct?
If you have EVIDENCE for any of the assertions you have made, I am interested in seeing them. If not, I have more important things to do than to respond to your rants.
BTW, I charge $125 an hour for doing research.
IF you don't like my admittedly eccentric typing style, just "scroll on by". i won't be bothered/inconvenienced by NOT answering your questions.
fyi, people who carp about "typing style" are generally silly twits. are YOU a twit????
free dixie,sw
I don't obsess about punctuation or typos, but when someone argues a position I like to see something resembling evidence.
I'm still waiting for your response to my question as to why you are so terribly upset about "northern" atrocities against your family, but apparently indifferent to far more serious and extensive in time "southern" atrocities against the Cherokee.
also slaughtered, as it was cheaper to murder them than to feed/house/clothe them, were about 70-100,ooo helpLESS CSA POWs. (15,ooo were MURDERED in coldblood at Point Lookout DEATH Camp, alone. FOUR of the murdered POWs were members of MY family.)
free dixie,sw
also, could it be that you are desperately trying to "change to subject", as you don't want to talk about the HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of DAMNyankee atrocities, which were committed against civilians & POWs???
admitting, what the DYs did in dixie to the helpless (particuliarly to the slaves, who the DYs said they were coming to free. fyi, MANY slaves were freed from being ALIVE, by the "filth in blue".), makes the DYs seem to be no better than many other invading horde of freebooters in world history.
otoh, "confession is good for the soul", so you really should go learn about the "hecatomb in dixie".
free dixie,sw
Yes, spies have been around for aeons, but were they ever considered worthy of any sort of legal protection?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.