The hobgoblin of little minds
Published Fri, Jun 27 2008 3:20 PM
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." — Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self Reliance
Perhaps this quotation explains a few things. By now everyone is familiar with the charges of "flip-flopping" that were hurled at Sen. Kerry during the 2004 election season. We are told that Barrack Obama is the candidate of "change", although it appears to me that by "change" he really means "change my position as the winds may blow". Even John McCain has changed his positions on a few things here and there. I know that I certainly have.
As we go through life, we learn, we are exposed to new idea, and if we are at all interested in growth we change our opinions as new information is presented to us. This isn't a bad thing at all. The problem though comes when we change our positions for mere expediency, as it appears to me to be the case with Mr. Obama, or when we don't hold to any principles at all and so are blown about on the breezes of popular fashion.
Speaking of changing our positions for mere expediency, what about changing our interpretations of the plain meaning of words, statutes, or… oh, say constitutional amendments to fit our ideology? Ruth Bader Ginsburg appears to have a bit of a problem holding to consistent interpretations of the Constitution. This became a bit clearer to me last night as I was re-reading the Heller decision. It seems that not so long ago Justice Ginsburg, as noted by Justice Scalia, had this to say about the meaning of the phrase "bear arms"…
“[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment… indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry… upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose… of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ”
Now though, it seems that she agrees wholeheartedly (she didn't after all write her own dissent) with Justice Stevens who seems to believe that it means, again as Justice Scalia notes, "the actual carrying of arms… but only in the service of an organized militia."
How foolish are we conservatives, with our little minds, to insist upon a consistent interpretation of the words of our founders?
The media has wasted no time in noting that this decision regarding the second amendment is incomplete and that there are likely to be any number of lawsuits trying to strike down other gun laws. Already there are moans that the court has overturned either 70 or 150 years of established precedent. I think that they're wrong about the precedent but right about the lawsuits that will be coming up.
I am somewhat dismayed, but not totally surprised, even at the conservatives on the court though. For one thing, this decision brought back to mind something that has been bothering me about the court's interpretation of the Constitution ever since I learned how to read it.
You see, I believe, even as Justice Scalia claims to, that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” That leads me to a very straightforward problem of interpretation that the courts for years seem to have twisted around — the notion of "incorporation". Apparently the court believes that the second amendment only enjoins the Congress from infringing upon our individual right to keep and bear arms (emphasis added below).
“We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States.”
Really? Is that what it actually says? I thought that words matter! Can you tell me please, even considering this statement from the fourteenth amendment; "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"; what the difference between these two amendments is in terms of which governments are enjoined from infringing upon our rights?
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
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.
I'll tell you the difference… THE FIRST AMENDMENT SPECIFICALLY ENJOINS CONGRESS FROM MAKING LAWS INFRINGING UPON SPECIFIC RIGHTS. THE SECOND AMENDMENT CONTAINS NO MENTION OF THE CONGRESS. So how is it that the courts interpret the fourteenth amendment as extending the specific injunction against the Congress crafting a law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" to all levels of State and local government — even to the level of school boards? The injunction in the first amendment specifically names Congress and not the states. The second amendment contains no mention of Congress. Shouldn't the principle of "incorporation" that applies to an amendment specifying an injunction against Congress then apply also to an amendment that doesn't?
Words have meaning don't they? If the framers had meant the second amendment to only apply to Congress and the national government then why didn't they say so? And, can you tell me how it is that the court's interpretation here (and in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 (1886)) is consistent with the plain meaning of the words of the Constitution and its amendments? Especially this bit of the Constitution…
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Ah. But there I go again, insisting on that hobgoblin of little minds.
This is why, in my opinion James Madison Alexander Hamilton [Update: A slight correction here.] had this to say about the role of the Courts…
In the first place, there is not a syllable in the plan under consideration which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State.
— Federalist No. 81
It's truly a shame that the founders didn't bother to do something about this oversight… like putting a syllable or two in that directly restricted the national courts from construing the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution — or the whim of one or two justices?
The Supreme Court of the United States of America may have found that the second amendment grants the right to keep and bear arms to individual citizens. They may have overturned an onerous ban on the rights of citizens of the District of Columbia to own handguns. What bothers me though is that they may have done nothing whatsoever to protect the rights of ordinary citizens of the several states to own handguns. After all, Congress makes the laws for the District of Columbia or holds the ultimate power to do so. Since the court assumes that the second amendment only applies to Congress then it had to overturn the D.C. gun ban. Since the court assumes that the second amendment isn't a general restriction on all government in the United States they may not choose to overturn a similar restriction elsewhere.
Who knows. If we keep up this fight, and we must, we may get more of our rights back. Including the right to say a prayer now and then in a public place. A man can dream can't he?
This linkfest is for the 27th through the 29th of June, 2008.
If you have something interesting you'd like to share, feel free to link it here and leave a trackback.
Just remember the trackback policy.
For the best exposure, go to the blogger's oasis and use the linkfest chooser to choose the posts you'd like to hook up with.
Cross posted at NW Bloggers.
Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=1182
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2008/6/27/1182.aspx
Right Truth trackbacked with "PATIENT EVIL - An R.J. Godlewski / Right Truth Blog Exclusive - Chapter Nineteen -eBook"
PATIENT EVIL
Democrat=Socialist trackbacked with "NEWS & OPINION ROUNDUP (28 JUNE 2008) THE DAVID ADDINGTON IS MY NEW HERO EDITION"
Yes! I love it when a true American (David Addington) gets in front of the bed wetting liberal communist (Wiliam Delahunt) and flusters them to the point of screaming for their mommies. How do they react? Veiled death threats of cours...
Stageleft:. Life on the left side trackbacked with "Things I Read On The InterTubes"
A military cover up, a coup, and Sharia law.
...
Beagle Scout trackbacked with "Support H.R. 3089, the No More Excuses Energy Act of 2007"
Those who haven’t yet done it and who care at all about US gas and energy prices may want to sign an electronic petition urging the US House of Representatives to pass H.R. 3089, the No More Excuses Energy Act of 2007. Here is the petition.
...
Adam's Blog trackbacked with "Call Me Hussein?"
Podcast Show Notes
Do we really need to know about comic heroes political affiliations?
Plus, the latest creepy Obama supporter trend: taking his middle name.
Plus Jon Stewart has his Jay Leno moment as he learns to stop worrying and poke fun at Obama ...
The World According To Carl trackbacked with "Lamenting The Pensacola Ice Pilots: Now Defunct"
Back in the mid-90s, I became a hockey fan thanks to my co-worker and friend Jonathan Dennis who introduced me to the sport when Tallahassee had an ECHL franchise, the Tallahassee Tiger Sharks. Since I grew up in Mississippi where hockey was a foreign ...
Democrat=Socialist trackbacked with "NEWS & OPINION ROUNDUP (30 JUNE 2008) THE WESLEY CLARK SMOKED HONDURAN CRACK IN SAN FRANSICKO EDITION"
Given San Fransicko’s penchant for harboring illegal immigrants, Honduran crack dealers, must be who Wesley Clark spent the weekend with, fiendishly pressing a crack pipe to his lips. This could be the only reason he would say such things a...
Woman Honor Thyself trackbacked with "Shalit, Regev and Goldwasser"
An inhuman murderer, who bashed a four-year-old girl’s head in with a gun………
The Arabs who danced in the streets after Sept 11th can hardly wait for his “triumphant” return to Lebanon.
...
Subscribe to this entry's
comment feed. (Atom)
Layla responded with:
 | Perri wrote, "As we go through life, we learn, we are exposed to new idea, and if we are at all interested in growth we change our opinions as new information is presented to us. This isn't a bad thing at all. The problem though comes when we change our positions for mere expediency, as it appears to me to be the case with Mr. Obama, or when we don't hold to any principles at all and so are blown about on the breezes of popular fashion."
I could not have said this better myself. And yes Perri a man or as I will add a woman can dream. Wasn't America built on a dream?
How soon so many forget. It is truly sad.
As for Congress it their purpose to enforce the laws, not make them or change them. The same holds true in part of the Supreme Court in that they interpret the Constitution as written, but not as they have done - using strategies that convey liberal interpretations or interpretations that are not even Constitutional.
I premise the above on the fact that according to the First Amendment we have freedom of press - the Supreme Court found several years ago that child pornography - the taking pictures of children in sexually explicit poses to be exact was allowed and granted under the First Amendment.
I am sure that our forefathers would not have considered this freedom of press and found it allowable because although most were liberal, meaning open minded, not like todays liberals - they had morals unlike our society and dare I add perhaps unlike our misguided justices. |
Perri Nelson responded with:
 | Well, actually the purpose of a legislature is to make law, so that is Congress' purpose. The laws that they can make are somewhat restricted in nature by the Constitution, but they're significant still. This is why it's actually more important that the people pay attention to congressional elections than to the dog and pony show that the presidential election has become. The President can make no laws. He cannot cut taxes. He cannot create jobs. He cannot even go to war without prior authorization by Congress. What he can do though is nominate judges and justices for the federal bench, assuming he can get his picks past the Senate. That, and that alone is enough today to swing my vote to John McCain despite his obvious shortcomings on immigration and campaign finance reform (also known as infringment upon the freedom of speech). The type of judges and justices that Barrack Obama would choose would have left us with no individual right to keep and bear arms. The executive (i.e. the Presidency) is charged with enforcing the laws, and the courts are charged with judging cases that arise under the law. Our courts have taken unto themselves power that is not explicitly granted to them under the Constitution and today they make law under the guise of interpretation. As for child pornography, the courts have not held that it falls under freedom of the press, yet. They have allowed pornography in general and as society's standards decay more and more even obscenity, but they have not yet gone so far as to approve real child pornography. Unless the courts are reined in at some point through the appointment of justices that honestly believe in the original public meaning of the Constitution rather than all of the other theories that have been applied though they will. They have sadly approved "simulated" child pornography and "virtual" child pornography using computer generated images. It's not far from there to ultimately declaring that there is nothing obscene. Our forefathers were indeed liberals in the classic sense. They believed in liberty rather than license, in opportunity rather than handouts and in personal responsibility and faith in God rather than faith in government. What we today think of as conservatism — true conservatism fits that definition quite nicely. Today's liberals are not truly liberals. They are socialists, Marxists, fascists and tyrants masquerading as people concerned for the plight of the common man. Their goals are power for government and control over society so that they can mold it in their own utopian vision. Unfortunately their vision of utopia is precisely my vision of dystopia. |
Mustang responded with:
 | Politicians avail themselves of opportunities provided by a largely under-educated society. They understand that most people do not know what is going on inside the Congress, nor much care, and they realize this situation gives them nearly unlimited/unchecked power. From a practical standpoint, Congress does pass unconstitutional laws and then they wait to see if anyone will challenge that law in court. Until someone does that, the Supreme Court will never be able to rule on the issue of constitutionality. In effect, the President does pass laws in the form of executive orders – and I can’t remember the last time a citizen challenged an EO in federal court.
We have long passed a time when government officials perceived themselves as servants of the people – beyond the election cycle, that is. They talk the talk, but they don’t walk the walk. Most politicians could care less about the opinion of the people; they don’t get that much mail any more. And this is why Nancy Pelosi, who I consider a Marxist of the first order, is attempting to muzzle opinion through such things as the “fairness doctrine.” It does not occur to her (or she vehemently disagrees) that the only speech that deserves protection is of the unpopular variety. For her, and many others, only government’s voice is important, only the government should have guns.
Our greatest challenge is to encourage people to take a greater interest in the affairs of state. If they fail to do that, they forfeit their rights as citizens. If they assert their rights and interest, they bend an obnoxious government to the will of the people.
As always, your articles are very thought provoking. You are making an important contribution, Perri . . . I hope you will continue the march.
Semper Fi |