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.
"Piss on precedent, Parker broke from history and principle."
It didn't, of course. Unless you count the recent history of gun control.
ping
The government of Czechoslovakia did when they separated into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Even Great Britain had (and presumably still has) a provision to terminate its existing government and supplant it with a new parliament and monarch under certain circumstances. It was last used in 1688 when they ousted James II and replaced him with William III.
No the major difference is that unlike the confederate supporters around here, the Founding Fathers in 1776 were under no illusions that their actions were legal and didn't moan and cry when the British tried to prevent their rebellion.
First time I've heard collection of taxes described as 'protection of sovereignty'...
The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.
abe needed the cash. To continue the failed system of 'internal improvements'. Give him money he thinks is his due and he promises not to destroy your homeland. Some people would call that extortion. Course the Jaffaites will continue the claim abe was sent from Heaven itself to save the glorious union to eventually propogate 'democracy' around the world and he needed to protect Southerners from themselves....
The first successful mechanical cotton harvester wasn't introduced until the late 1930's. Seventy more years of slavery was OK with you?
However it happened I believe the two would have reunited eventually.
Using that criteria is makes no sense that the colonies didn't eventually reunite with Britain.
Then he went on to say, The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union
See, it was all about delivering the mail. Through rain or sleet or snow or gloom of night...or armed rebellion.
Essex Junto? War of 1812? Hartford? Bueller? Bueller? We should have just let them go and they (and those that thought like them from Illinois) wouldn't have caused the problems they did...
Off your meds again?
There may be some truth to that, but Southerners also helped fight those same British for the same freedom enjoyed by all. The colonists did not subjugate their newfound freedom when they ratified the Constitution. On the contrary, they insisted on the Bill of Rights to protect those freedoms forevermore.
Considering the wording of the Declaration of Independence and that of the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution, I still maintain that any given state does have the fundamental right to withdraw from the union at its own discretion --such a move is the only way to guarantee individual freedom.
I think the Founding Fathers would agree with me for we should always remember the opening line of the declaration, "We the people of the united States of America". "States" is capitalized while "united" is not. This was not originally meant to be one distinct country like England or France, but it was meant to be a common union of distinct countries like the EU.
Eventually? How many centuries later are we talking here? Canada hasn't reunited with its sister colony to the south yet. The thirteen original colonies havn't reunited with the crown yet. I'd say that there would be at least two separate nations still remaining today in what we call the USA. And if the secession was peacefull, then there never would have been the military buildup, the advances in military machinery, and the later war with spain that made america a world superpower. The annexation of hawaii, alaska, panama canal zone, and puerto rico would never have occurred. A pacific fleet would never been created because the phillipines would never have meant a thing to us and the panama canal, the link between the atlantic and the pacific, would not have been ours. In fact, the panama canal might not have even been built untill 50 or so years later, after europe asia and africa were united by the germans.
Considering that the world has a recorded history of slavery of at least 7000 years it doesn’t seem that much to have avoided over 400,000 deaths. And a peaceful end to slavery might have left country much less divided today on the issues of race.
Using that criteria is makes no sense that the colonies didn't eventually reunite with Britain.
You seem to argue that I make simplistic arguments yet you retort with simplistic arguments.
The CSA are much closer geographically and had a resent Revolutionary war in common. The USA and CSA had common ancestors and relatives across their borders. The US and CSA at the time were culturally opposed to Monarchy.
As for the US and Britain I do not easily discount the possibility of a closer union with Britain. I do not foresee an circumstances where a reunification would occur but who knows what may come.
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.As the Supreme Court rejected the US government argument that the case shouldn't even be heard, as Miller, not being a member of the organized militia, didn't have standing to bring it to the Court.
I certainly agree; we foolishly and needlessly sacrificed many American lives in that struggle. Again, we need only look at England or France, each with their own history of slavery, and race relations in both countries are far better than our own.
I will admit that I had not thought much about the economic justification for the South rejoining the North, but that alone would have been a compelling reason once immediate political discourse was eliminated.
Considering that this is all supposition and conjecture does it matter?
Canada hasn't reunited with its sister colony to the south yet. The thirteen original colonies havn't reunited with the crown yet.
Canada decided to stay loyal to the crown the USA had a passionate dislike for all things British up to the First World War. The CSA was established as a near copy of the USA constitutionally. Culturally the countries would have been nearly identical. The South had little industrial capacity and would therefore have generated little wealth and in the coming century would have increased its trading with the North.
Culture and economics would have driven the two back together or perhaps war over the Western territories.
Is it a certainty that it would happen hardly but it is a definite possibility.
The government is forbidden from infringing upon a free person's right to possess and carry weapons suitable for use in a well-functioning citizen army; to claim an artifact is protected, one must demonstrate some degree of military utility.
up yours you socialist myrmidon!
(directed to the author, not the poster)
This is a Republic. Get over it.
How do the economics of slavery compare with immigrant labor? If you buy a slave, you have a substantial up front cost in addition to the costs of keeping the slave well-enough fed, clothed, and sheltered to be an effective worker for a long time. Hire an immigrant off the boat and you'll avoid the up-front cost; in addition, if the pay is inadequate to keep the worker healthy and he becomes sick, no problem--just hire another worker off the boat.
The tougher issue with slavery, I expect, would be what to do with generations of people who had deliberately not been taught to exercise their own initiative. The Civil War didn't solve that problem; its effects persist 140 years later.
"States" was a noun, while "united" was an adjective. Most nouns in the Constitution are capitalized, a usage perhaps inherited from German.
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.