A Round in the Chamber

District of Columbia v. Heller and the Future of the Second Amendment

A new shot will be fired in the development of constitutional law this term when the U.S. Supreme Court decides the meaning of the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller. Although the Court has only touched upon the Second Amendment in a few dozen cases, only once has the Court even begun to address its meaning. But the question presented in Heller requires a clear statement about its meaning. The Court will have to choose between three competing interpretations of the Second Amendment, a task made more difficult by a profoundly disappointing brief filed by the Justice Department in the case. What it does, and does not, decide will likely forever shape the future of Second Amendment jurisprudence and gun rights in America.

The excellent article, co-authored by Arizonan Sandra Froman and Kenneth Klukowski, for the Federalist Society, continues here.

A Stanford University graduate with a law degree from Harvard, Tucson lawyer, Sandra Froman is the immediate past president of the National Rifle Association.

Shootout at the SCOTUS Corral

  

“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 U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments today in the most important Second Amendment case in generations. The last time the high court has ruled on the protections to keep and bear arms was in 1939—sixty-nine years ago.

Heller challenges the District of Columbia’s strict ban on handguns, imposed in 1976.

The Heller case has even split allies such as Vice President Dick Cheney and the Bush Justice department.

Rick Moran, writing for American Thinker, describes the magnitude of the case. This is definitely one worth watching.

In the meantime, check out the facts and background provided here.

Justice Scalia: “I’d be lucky to get 60 votes today.”

 

How fortunate we are he received 98

U.S. Supreme Court Justice and constitutional originalist Antonin Scalia, speaking earlier this week at the University of Central Missouri, said he would be lucky to get 60 votes in today’s political climate where abortion rules how senators vote on judicial confirmations. He was nominated by President Reagan in 1986 and approved by the Senate 98-0.

Regarding abortion: “The reality is the Constitution doesn’t address the subject at all,” Scalia said. “It is one of the many subjects not in the Constitution which is therefore left to democracy.

“If you want the right to an abortion, persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. If you feel the other way, repeal the law.”

On secularizing America: “It has never been the American tradition that you have to drive God out of the public square. Absolute impartiality between the denominations of religion—yes—but being able to favor non-religion over religion is absurd,” he said. “It’s a lie!”

Thank you, Justice Scalia.

Angst over federal judge’s decision

Challengers plan new law suit, amid cries of “foul!”

The daily is in a near frenzy over U.S. District Judge Neil Wake’s dismissal of the lawsuit challenging Arizona’s Employer Sanctions law last Friday.

Judge Wake’s ruling is available here.

The paper, and the challengers they support, are wringing their collective hands as the January 1, 2008 implementation date nears. In fact, today’s daily has devoted several articles on numerous pages solely to this matter.

Business and Hispanic groups hoping for a different outcome are preparing to file a challenge as early as Monday, in an effort to seek a temporary restraining order.

Yet, according to one report, “Lawyers representing business groups in the case are still telling employers to hold up on signing up for E-Verify, the free, federal on-line employment verification program mandated under the state law.”

The paper is still reeling over Phoenix Mayor “Sanctuary City” Phil Gordon’s policy reversal decision last week allowing police to question suspects about their immigration status. Gordon’s new move has widespread support of the 2,200-member Phoenix Law Enforcement Association.

Also, a ballot measure challenging the birthright citizenship provisions of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment has been filed in the state legislature. The post Civil War Amendment was enacted to provide citizenship to the American-born children of African-born, newly freed slaves. It was never intended to give the gift of American citizenship to an illegal invasion of foreign nationals whose children happen to be born on U.S. soil.

Expect these issues to remain front and center in the coming months.

Executing executions?

 

Incrementalism aims to ultimately undo death penalty

The U.S. Supreme Court’s docket for the coming term includes a case challenging Kentucky’s use of lethal injection as a means of carrying out death penalties. The court recently blocked a Texas inmate’s lethal injection execution, indicating the Kentucky case might produce a broad statement about the widely used method of exacting punishment in the most heinous cases.

In recent years the court has inexplicably appeared to be mesmerized by the concept of globalism as it pertains to interpreting law, looking to Europe for guidance on strictly American matters.

Europeans, who brought us public beheadings via the bloody guillotine, are now aghast at imposing the death penalty. The European Union is opposed to the death penalty in all cases. The EU written declaration states,: “The EU is deeply concerned about the increasing number of executions in the United States of America (USA), all the more since the great majority of executions since reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976 have been carried out in the 1990s.”

Lethal injection became accepted practice since imposition of death penalties by gas chamber, electric chair, hangings and firing squads were viewed by some within the criminal justice community as “cruel and unusual.” That term should, in fact, apply to the hideous acts that warrant such punishment, rather than the punishment itself.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg addressing the American Constitution Society said, “Your perspective on constitutional law should encompass the world.” She and Justices Breyer, Kennedy and former Justice O’Connor, have previously endorsed the practice of consulting foreign and international law. The justices have increasingly cited such laws in attempting to undo the death penalty, even though its legality is recognized.

“International law is a help in our search for a more peaceful world,” said O’Connor.  Ginsburg stated, “Our island or lone-ranger mentality is beginning to change.” Justices, she added, “are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives.”

The concept of ceding U.S. legal authority to the Hague rather than following our own Constitution should alarm every thinking American citizen.

Illogical 2010 census count to include illegals

 

Skewed figures will determine increases in congressional seats

United Press International reports that states such as Arizona, with large numbers of illegal aliens could receive additional congressional seats after the 2010 census is conducted.

Although they are ineligible to vote, illegals will be counted in the population tabulation. This past August, the U.S. Census Bureau actually requested that immigration agents halt raids during that period to facilitate the count.

The U.S. Constitution requires the Census Bureau to count everyone, including those residing here iln violation of our law, in the census. The unanswered question is why should congressional representation be based upon illegal aliens who disregard our laws and national borders, are not citizens and are unqualified to legitimately cast ballots?

Is this what our Founders envisioned?

The perils of the Fourteenth Amendment

An interesting site, providing excellent information regarding the  historic reasons  for ratification of the  Fourteenth Amendment  to the U.S. Constitution, along with the myriad current abuses.

This site carries linked news articles in national dailies reporting, for example, that thousands of  South Korean  and  Venezuelan  women are traveling to the United States to give birth— ensuring birthright U.S. citizenship for thei newborns.

This startling information is a must read.