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 McCains speech to the NRA on May 16. The presumptive Republican nominee will speak directly to guns owners about the Second Amendment at the NRAs 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 doesnt 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, Americas 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.
Thats 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 Obamas 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 Columbias 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 Im honored to serve on Senator McCains Justice Advisory Committee, and will do everything I can to make sure that Americas 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. Americas 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 theyll 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.
The states, per se, don't control the primaries, although they may regulate them to some extent. The state parties control the primaries. They are, when all is said and done, party affairs, not governmental affairs as the general election is. I still think it's not the "crossover" problem so much as the order of primaries. That, to some extent, is a function of the national partie, in cooperation, or in the case of the 'rat primaries in Michigan and Florida, non-cooperation.
Now if I were making the rules, I'd require that any primary for President, national party convention delegates, or other method, such as caucuses, leading to the selection of a party's nominee for President, must be held on a particular date. That would be in keeping with federal power, granted in Art II section 1: "The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States."
The electoral college is a very effective voter fraud reduction mechanism. It limits the value of stealing votes in states where the controlling majority would have most opportunity to steal them.
Kalifornia is almost certainly going for the Democrats. My vote counts for little because this state is so dominated by morons. Perhaps your state is the same. But the value of stealing votes in either state is thus eliminated. Democrats are forced to steal votes in states where the Republicans are close to sharing the political power.
Baraq, who is Hussein, who is Obama, will not do that. The limp wristed, pussified GOP has done that. At the helm... our very own communist captive versus Baraq versus the second coming of Clinton.
I'm convinced it makes not one whit of difference who wins.
No, I'm not, nor have I ever been a Republican.
I'm the one the groupthink faults for the GOP losing the congress in 06. Naw, the GOP lost the congress. Next, the republic. Stay tuned.
If I were making the rules, I would use primaries to ELIMINATE candidates. Every state would have a primary on February 1. Only the top four candidates nation-wide would remain for a second nation-wide primary election on March 1. Three would remain on the ballot for an election on April 1 and the selection of a candidate from the top two would take place on May 1.
We should remember that the first two judges who will likely retire will be Stevens, who is currently 88, and Ginsburg, 75 and in ill health. The balance of the court barring death will probably remain throughout the Obama presidency. The replacement of either Stevens or Ginsburg probably will matter little because it should not alter the balance on the court.
If the Obama presidency turns out to be as many of us suspect, we should be able to wait it out without any effect on the court.
While B. Hussein's support in the Black community is astronomical, 90% in many states, white voters are not nearly so racist. The latest I've seen show about 45% of white Democrats voting for BHO. Many white "independents will also vote for him. White guilt if nothing else, but many will also be taken in by "hope" and "change", especially change, since the MSM has been telling them for years that the Bush administration is composed completely of pure evil robber barons, (ignoring the Secretaries of State, neither of which have much private sector connection at all) and the message that John McCain is just another Bush is already starting to be heard, and not just from the DNC.
There is indeed one big whit of difference — judges!
I think with my brain, not my heart.
We have a better Supreme Court under Bush than we would have had under the alternatives. Do you not agree with that? Under the socialists, we could have a Supreme Court which not only believes that a choice should be made regarding whether an unborn child lives or dies, but we could have a Court which rules that the government should make the choice.
The Heller decision will probably uphold the meaning of the Second Amendment by at least a 5-4 vote. Under the Democrats, the Court would be about to eliminate by a 6-3 decision the protection of the right for the remainder of my life.
I would still like to hear in what way our nation will be better off with the Democrats winning rather than McCain?
We do, but Obama will get California and New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Indiana, plus most every other red or purple state. McCain will get Texas and much of the South. Florida. Even in Pennsylvania, a current poll shows Obama beating McCain 46 to 39.
At the end of the next four years, we might have Stevens and Ginsburg replaced by 60 year old "moderates", or, in case Obama or Hillary wins, 60 year old communists.
You're right. If Obama or Hillary or some later Democrat gets to replace Stevens and Ginsburg then there would be no change to the Court. But if McCain is elected we could change the Court by two votes. The 5-4 losses could become 6-3 wins and could stay won for decades.
How do you think that Brazil, Russia, India and China are going to fare over the next twenty years? The standards of living of their people is growing dramatically year by year.
How do you think the people of France, with their thirty-five hour work weeks are going to fare? Not so well, I think.
I believe that the economic issues will sort themselves out, though painfully. Government entitlements, whether for you and me or for illegal immigrants are going to be dramatically reduced in the coming decades. There just won't be a choice.
What I worry about are the social issues that make us free and prosperous. Strong families, economic incentives to work hard and defer gratification, and the right to keep and bear arms to discourage tyranny. The Democrats seem to hate everything which has made this nation great.
That might work out. I'd take away the special privileges for the parties entirely. If they want to pick a single candidate to run in that first primary, fine, it's a free country. But others would be free to run in it as well. If that means that after the first primary, or the second, all the candidates are from the same party, that's OK too.
You nailed it.
I would include a few more examples, but your statement sums it up quite well.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE
It probably wont be 'better off' regardless...
Im at peace with my decision, from the heart...
You are welcome to intellectualize your way the polls and live in fear of the outcome...
In God I Trust...
We have a better Supreme Court under Bush than we would have had under the alternatives. Do you not agree with that?
Heller wouldnt have made a bit of diff, even with meyers on the bench...theyre gonna 'give' us an individual right that will be open for 'reasonable' restriction...precedecnt set FOR INFRINGEMENT...
you call that 'better' ???
I believe that the economic issues will sort themselves out, though painfully. Government entitlements, whether for you and me or for illegal immigrants are going to be dramatically reduced in the coming decades. There just won't be a choice.
IMO this whole line of reasoning is wishful thinking...
'entitlements' are growing exponentially, more revenue is all thats needed for them to be successful.../sarc...
I have ZERO faith that any of the three will alter this course of vote buying with the treasury...
What I worry about are the social issues that make us free and prosperous. Strong families, economic incentives to work hard and defer gratification, and the right to keep and bear arms to discourage tyranny. The Democrats seem to hate everything which has made this nation great.
the social and economic cannot be separated in the welfare [socialist/tyranny] state...
weve missed that boat again in regards to 'deterring' tyranny...we will be forced to defeat it, once the ruling class decides to 'make it official'... [maybe?] we will gitRdone...
ONLY if we quit worrying about the endless possibilities of the lesser than, and start concentrating on the Almighty God and His 'Greater Than'...In God We Trust[ed] and prospered...In gov [man] we trust and get screwed every time...
As in the rest of my ministies, most will never 'get it' but I have to keep suiting up and carrying the message...
I'm no expert in what would constitute a "non-fundamental" individual right. To suggest that our Founders included such a right in the Bill of Rights seems nonsensical to me.
The Heller decision may be able to side-step the issue of what level of scrutiny is required by recognizing that NO standard would permit outlawing of handguns for law-abiding individuals. If the right is "fundamental", then strict scrutiny applies and the standard of "reasonableness" is off the table. The burden would shift to government to justify any restrictions, most of which would constitute "infringement".
We have to look to Roberts to eliminate from the Heller majority decision anything which would act to diminish the right. The commies on the Court are in a bind. They can't suggest outlawing arms because somebody might get hurt, while protecting the penumbra of abortion, allowing forty million of the unborn to be killed.
If the Heller decision is flawed, and if the names of Roberts, Alito, Scalia, or Thomas are on the decision, then I could join some of you who just don't care which party wins. I am far from that point right now.
A healthy decision in Heller could constitute absolute proof that it does matter which party wins in Novemeber.
Although Im glad to hear that theres at least some point at which you would stand on principle, I aint holdin my breath that Heller wont just redefine 'is'...
they are all political lawyers in the end, I did have a thought that they may slam dunk 9-0 in an effort to look 'honest', but I still believe that it will be couched in legalese and only open the door for 20+ more years of avoiding 'shall not be infringed'...
to me this aint much 'better', even the fact that the issue is having to be debated boggles the mind...
Again, honestly, if I wouldnt welcome someone into my home to break bread, theres no way in hell I can vote 'for' them...
An illegal alien is not subject to our 'jurisdiction'. As the citizen of another country (and here illegally) the best we can do is put them behind bars for committing a crime, but we sure as hell can't hold them accountable for contracts they may enter as 'non-citizens'.
Our laws are applicable to U.S. citizens. Transients and illegals need not apply.
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.