Posted on 05/15/2008 1:28:25 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The political “hot button” issues of guns and judges have become intertwined in this election year. The fate of both issues will be decided by the candidate we elect as president. Why? Because over a four-year term, that president will likely appoint at least two and possibly three justices to the United States Supreme Court. Simply stated, this year when we elect a president, we will also cast our ballot for the next Supreme Court.
Everyone concerned about the Second Amendment and judicial accountability should heed John McCain’s speech to the NRA on May 16. The presumptive Republican nominee will speak directly to guns owners about the Second Amendment at the NRA’s Celebration of American Values event at the NRA Annual Meeting in Louisville, Kentucky.
And in America today, there has never been a greater opportunity or a greater threat to gun rights. In March, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the watershed case of District of Columbia v. Heller, a lawsuit challenging the DC gun ban. Residents of the District of Columbia are categorically prohibited from possessing handguns and operable long guns (rifles and shotguns) in their homes, even for self-defense.
The Heller case turns on whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms refers to private, law-abiding citizens, or whether it is a right of the people “collectively” to have guns only when they serve in the National Guard or a state-sponsored militia unit. The Court is scheduled to decide the case the third week in June.
Whatever the Court decides, that decision will shape gun rights in America for generations to come. The Heller decision will become the definitive standard for gun rights in America. The Second Amendment is the insurance policy on American liberty. And whether you own guns or not, you cannot afford for a single minute to think that it doesn’t matter to you, your family or the security of this country.
Just like other controversial decisions, such as those on religious liberty and free speech, the Heller decision will lead to many more questions than it answers.
When the Court decided Everson v. Board of Education in 1947 it created the doctrine of separation of church and state. For over 60 years this nation has grappled with what that doctrine means, in a raging cultural battle.
When the Court declared a previously unnoticed right to abortion in Roe v. Wade in 1973, America’s courts and presidential politics were thrust into an issue that still stirs deep passions and is ever present in political debates.
From now on, the same will be true of the Second Amendment. The Heller decision will launch 30 years of defining the nature and scope of gun rights in our courts. The Heller holding will likely be narrow, and will leave open countless other questions, such as what kinds of guns are protected, how far that right extends beyond your home, and whether the Second Amendment controls state law. At least some of these questions will find their way up to the Supreme Court years later. Who sits on the Court when those cases arrive matters a great deal to those of us who believe in the value of widespread lawful gun ownership in America.
That’s why the 2008 presidential election has unprecedented importance for gun owners. Despite their campaign rhetoric purporting to support the right to keep and bear arms, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are categorically opposed to our Second Amendment rights. Hillary Clinton opposed the 2005 tort reform law that saved the American gun industry from bankruptcy. Barack Obama has declared his opposition to all concealed carry laws. He has refused to repudiate his answer to a 1996 questionnaire, where he answered “yes” to a question asking if he supported laws banning “the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.” And Senator Obama’s true contempt for gun owners came out when he described us as “clinging” to our guns out of bitterness.
In contrast, presumptive Republican nominee John McCain joined bipartisan majorities on a Congressional amicus brief in the Supreme Court in DC v. Heller for the proposition that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Both Clinton and Obama refused to sign that brief, instead supporting the District of Columbia’s law that prohibits its law-abiding residents from possessing any operable firearm at home, even for self-defense.
The president of the United States appoints all federal judges. Senator McCain has stated he will appoint justices like John Roberts and Sam Alito, and Antonin Scalia, all of whom seem likely to vote to uphold individual gun rights. Senator Obama, on the other hand, has promised to nominate liberal judicial activists and wants the Court to uphold the DC gun ban.
So who Americans elect as president this year will determine the fate of the Second Amendment. In electing a president we also elect a Supreme Court, and in the coming years the makeup of the High Court will be crucial in defining our rights.
For that reason I’m honored to serve on Senator McCain’s Justice Advisory Committee, and will do everything I can to make sure that America’s 90 million gun owners elect a president who will appoint Supreme Court justices faithful to the text of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment.
Gun owners are very sensible people. America’s heartland is filled with people devoted to faith, family and classic American values like lawful gun ownership for hunting, recreation and self-defense. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama could learn a lot from them, but I doubt they’ll be joining us at the NRA convention.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Froman is the immediate past president of the National Rifle Association of America, only the second woman and the first Jewish American to hold that office in the 136-year history of the NRA. The views expressed are her own and not that of any organization.
I too, knowing that Bush was not as conservative as I would have liked, voted for him to keep (gore then) Kerry out of the White House. Then when I was unhappy with his position on 'comprehensive immigration reform (amnesty)', I was attacked on this very forum by folks who stated that I knew Bush was very pro-border-crashers all along and I voted for him anyway. Apparently, I then had no right to complain. Nevermind the fact that Bush fudged the truth when he said time and time again that he was against amnesty and that he was FOR securing the borders.
Lesson learned. I will not support another politician that is favoring the continued flood of ignorant, low-class illegals, while making applicants with advanced degrees from other parts of the world wait in endless lines for admission to the country.
I'm not going to cut my nose to spite my face. McCain is quite lame, but Trotsky or Stalin will be worse.
There will be other ways to exercise some sort of grassroots restraint on President McCain. The places where he differs with the interests of Americans are all hot button issues. Bush wasn't able to get immigration through because of the grassroots, and McCain will have the same problem.
Nailed it. God knows what McLame is thinking, but social issues will be not a small deal this election. The dems are picking up seats in the House running as social conservatives since 2006. As far as immigration goes, look at voter sentiment about drivers licenses for illegal aliens:
Licenses fared poorly across party lines, including near-blanket opposition among self-identified Republicans, at 88 percent. Among independents and Democrats, it was still overwhelmingly unpopular, drawing 75 percent and 68 percent opposition, respectively.
Don't be surprised if today's California Supreme Court decision promoting gay marriage has some resonance on Election Day as well as four or five state referenda banning reverse discrimination.
And the GOP was never really a conservative party any more than the Democrats were. They were always parasitic politicians first, and conservatives second. It's just that we've all stopped giving them a pass on it.
Well said. Only about a third of the country self identified themselves as conservative in 2006.
In exit polls, 47 percent of voters described their views as moderate, 21 percent liberal and 32 percent conservative. And 61 percent of the moderates voted Democratic this year.(2006)
We need those who self identify as the small 'l' libertarians to have a fighting chance. The GOP needs to stop spitting in their face and get back to fiscal conservatism, and we can get them back. Enough of the remaining moderates will then be easy pickins', especially once the price of carbon cap and trade becomes known. Just remember how Congress reversed itself in the late 1980s after voting that medicare beneficiaries had to get catastrophic health care insurance.
Unfortunately our system is thoroughly broken, and just electing someone isn't enough anymore. Once we put them in office we need to continually hound and berate them to keep them on the right path. The interests of those in the government, and the interests of the American people are no longer the same. We will only be able to keep them in line through constant diligence.
That's true, but there is one way to fix the system for 2012. Close the primaries to pubbies registered well in advance of the primary vote! To think NY of all states has it right on this. It boggles my mind.
Yup. In some ways, that decision today was good news for us. It will thrust gay marriage (no pun intended) right back into the national spotlight. That's gonna drive more white working class voters further away from Obama in the general. It's going to make it a lot harder for him to win states like Ohio and Missouri.
Plus, I seriously doubt California will let this decision stand. I confidently predict the voters of the golden state will pass a constitutional amendment overturning it in Novemeber. The decision is nothing more than a Phyrric victory for the left.
There are two things NY has right, as of today: closed primaries, and there are NO “no-fault” divorces.
Who knows when these will change, but that is present law.
I honestly think he’s already lost this election.......GOP knew this would happen IMO. Very weak selection . No good solution yet no good can come from the next 4 years from any of these candidates offered too us..
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html
Stay safe !
I dont manage to hold my temper as well as you guys do, and I generally miss the opportunity to ask that they allow me the same coutesy that I allow them in their heart/vote...problem is that their hearts are so bound up in uncertainty and angst that the frustration lashes out at me and I instinctively strike back...bad habits that I am trying to correct...
Prayer and Faith in His plan has done wonders for my frame of mind, although it still sucks lookin into the crystal ball...sometimes...
Bless you both...
Yes, but how do their actual stances on issues with politicians who call themselves by those labels?
Here are my thoughts:
1) I can’t stand John McCain.
2) Despite 1), McCain is far from completely imperfect. He IS somewhat pro-gun, IS a genuine patriot (albeit misguided and mistaken quite often, but clearly different from Obama), and he IS fiscally somewhat responsible.
3) I positively fear the short-term and long-term effects of an Obama Presidency.
Look, this choice SUCKS. In my 47 years, this is the biggest train wreck of an election we’ve ever had. I am completely disillusioned about a political process that allowed Dems to nominate McCain in the Republican primary by crossing over, with the full support of the leftist media (who dutifully ignored the phenomenon so as not to arouse conservative Republicans).
BUT...
...there IS a clear choice. McCain is only the lesser of 2 evils, but he is so by a large margin on the most important issues.
Obama will abandon the War on Terror, making us a laughing stock as at no time since at least April, 1975, when we fled Vietnam with our tails between our legs. 4,000 of our heroes will have died for NOTHING, and $500 Billion would have been poured down a rathole for NOTHING. McCain will do no such thing.
Obama will raise taxes, especially on the biggest companies and the wealthiest individuals (of which I’m decidedly NOT one), the very engines of job creation and economic growth. McCain will be less than perfect, but won’t saddle the economy with vastly higher taxes.
Obama will do all in his power to ban, or make expensive and difficult the acquisition of, guns, ammo and accessories. He’ll be appointing the AG and the head of BATFE. McCain may not be our best friend (or even close), but he’s extraordinarily far from being our worst nightmare.
Obama will appoint the most leftist, activist judges and justices imaginable. The lower court ones will actually be more important, as 99% of their decisions are either never appealed or not accepted by the Supreme Court. McCain may weasel out on his promise to appoint Originalists, but the worst we’ll get is a bunch of raging moderates or weak activists.
Obama will abandon Israel (all the while proclaiming that we back its right to exist), leading soon to a general Mideast war and possible nuke use near 2/3 of the world’s known oil reserves. Not good for the economy - if you hate $4.00 gas, try $10.00 on for size, IF you can get it. McCain at least knows an ally when he sees one, and his position and military knowledge and experience will, if anything, deter such a war.
Obama will gut the military, McCain won’t.
The list goes on and on. Bottom line: there’s a clear choice, and the option of substituting a different Republican for McCain is simply not available. The argument that it’ll be good for conservatism to elect Obama and let him royally mess us up is - on its face - attractive (similar to Ford v. Carter in ‘76, with Reagan waiting in the wings for 1980). HOWEVER, such a scenario requires 2 things we don’t have: 1) a Reagan in the wings; and 2) a high degree of certainty that the damage inflicted by Obama, his minions and the rest of America’s enemies over the next four years can be absorbed by this country and shrugged off under a new Reagan. I’m not sure about that, and I’m not willing to gamble.
In short, as much as I despise McCain, I’ll vote for him ONLY for the purpose of stopping that walking disaster, Barrack HUSSEIN Obama. I despise McCain, but I love my country more. I can’t sit idly by and allow Obama to waltz into the White House because I’m in a snit about McCain.
Something else to consider: McCain is fairly old and not in the greatest of health. No, I don’t expect him to drop dead any time in the next 8 years (nor do I hope for it), but the simple fact is that there’s a significantly higher probability of his dying in office than a much younger and healthier man. As such, his Veep choice is far more important than Obama’s, and offers (at this point in time) at least the potential of getting a fairly conservative President in through the back door. Again, I do NOT hope for or expect this to occur, but it cannot go unmentioned.
Spoiled children take their ball and go home when they don’t like the direction of a game. Adults play it out, and never stop trying to win even if the odds look bad.
I don't have a clue, but I think there's hope.
David Mamet: Why I Am No Longer a 'Brain-Dead Liberal'
Maybe he can help you.
No, you are not alone. I have a feeling that there are many more who are nodding along with conversation, but don't want to weigh in and take the usual BS from the McCainiacs and GOPers.
If you are hoping that by NOT voting for a RINO that the Republican party will be forced to move right then that is a legitimate reason.
But unless you really believe that the movement to the right will offset the damage done by the election of Obama or Hillary, then you can't claim a moral distinction. Unlike liberals, those of us on this forum aren't "morally" entitled to claim that our intentions are more important than the actual outcomes.
“Maybe Conservatives are busy working.”
Well, of course, conservatives are busy working at 4 in the afternoon Tuesday, 6 in the evening on Wednesday and 7:30pm on every weekend. All conservatives are busy everywhere.
Me slapping hand to forehead. Gosh, shoulda realized that.
Conservatives are too busy to get involved in local government, attend a school board meeting or defend their right to own property, including a .22 pea shooter or an oak tree in the backyard.
Sounds about right.
My point is; that your vote is one way to affect the outcome of an election. It only makes sense to cast it in a way which causes an effect which benefits YOU. If you would withhold your vote from McCain, with no expectation that doing so will improve Republican candidates in the future, then what would your purpose be?
How is that going to work in states, like Texas, where you don't register under a party affiliation? I know lots of folks who normally would have voted in the Republican primary, who instead stood in long lines to vote in the 'Rat primary. Operation Chaos, don't you know. I couldn't bring myself to do it though, since if the 'rat I voted for won the general election, I'd probably not be able to get over it.
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.