Nice commentary on the second amendment case originating from D.C. However, while the Second Amendment certainly was intended to protect an individual's right of self-defense, the question rarely asked is "from whom?"
To quote the Declaration of Independence:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
In other words, the Second Amendment does not exist for the benefit of the state to raise militias in defense of foreign invasion, as often is claimed, nor does it exist primarily to defend one's family and self from one's fellow citizens. Rather, it exists for the benefit of the people to rise up against their own government when it ceases to protect their rights. In other words, the primary purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve the means for citizens to revolt against their own government---even if that meant the one they were establishing.
Would the Founders have meant any less, if the seat of the royal government had been moved from London to New York? Of course not. Thus, the fact that local militias are no longer needed to defend from British invasion is irrelevant. The founders were well aware that the government they were creating might not work, and might end up being no better than the British Crown. To paraphrase Franklin: "we have delivered a republic, if you can keep it."
Indeed, the very people who insisted that the Second Amendment be included in the Bill of Rights--the anti-federalists--did so because of their fear that the new federal government would become too powerful and infringe the people's natural rights.
To suggest that the Second Amendment was designed for the benefit OF the government rather than as a tool to overthrow government is to stand it on its head.
Then again, why do we expect any other interpretation from the government?
Friday, July 20, 2007
Government May Condemn Business Property Even if There is No Comparable Property to Use.
There seems to be a change of attitude in our society and courts with respect for private property. In the now infamous Kelo decision, SCOTUS held that a city could exercise its power of eminent domain for the sole purpose of allowing a business to acquire the property to generate more tax revenue. Now, the Wisconsin Supreme Court follows this trend in City of Janesville v. CC Midwest, Inc., where the court, in a split opinion held that government may condemn property on which a business is located even if it is unable to identify a comparable property that the business can utilize.
In so holding, the court agreed w that the law "expressly reject[s] the [notion]" that a property owner "would never have to vacate the condemned property if the condemnor could not identify a replacement property acceptable to the condemnee that could be acquired for an amount not exceeding the condemnation award plus relocation benefits." Further, the court stated "the statutes recognize that some business owners will opt not to relocate or may go out of business." To add insult to injury, the court concluded that the Takings Clause was not implicated in such circumstances.
However, as Justice Wilcox's concurrence recognizes, quoting John Locke,
While eminent domain often serves a common good, Wisconsinites' right to property is fundamental to the principles upon which this country was founded. So fundamental that it has been said "the great and chief end . . . of men's uniting into commonwealths and putting themselves under government is the preservation of their property."
Any society that allows government to confiscate private property for its own uses without adequately compensating the owner cannot remain "free" for very long. Indeed, in the waning days of the Roman Republic, private citizens saw their land arbitrarily confiscated by the state and auctioned off to the highest bidder or simply taken for the benefit of the "republic." Instead of a society of free, autonomous citizens owning land, Rome was transformed into a totalitarian state where the majority of people were forced to work as slaves or indentured servants for wealthy conglomerates that owned the entire countryside. Hence the beginnings of feudalism.
Our courts would do well to remember this lesson in history.
In so holding, the court agreed w that the law "expressly reject[s] the [notion]" that a property owner "would never have to vacate the condemned property if the condemnor could not identify a replacement property acceptable to the condemnee that could be acquired for an amount not exceeding the condemnation award plus relocation benefits." Further, the court stated "the statutes recognize that some business owners will opt not to relocate or may go out of business." To add insult to injury, the court concluded that the Takings Clause was not implicated in such circumstances.
However, as Justice Wilcox's concurrence recognizes, quoting John Locke,
While eminent domain often serves a common good, Wisconsinites' right to property is fundamental to the principles upon which this country was founded. So fundamental that it has been said "the great and chief end . . . of men's uniting into commonwealths and putting themselves under government is the preservation of their property."
Any society that allows government to confiscate private property for its own uses without adequately compensating the owner cannot remain "free" for very long. Indeed, in the waning days of the Roman Republic, private citizens saw their land arbitrarily confiscated by the state and auctioned off to the highest bidder or simply taken for the benefit of the "republic." Instead of a society of free, autonomous citizens owning land, Rome was transformed into a totalitarian state where the majority of people were forced to work as slaves or indentured servants for wealthy conglomerates that owned the entire countryside. Hence the beginnings of feudalism.
Our courts would do well to remember this lesson in history.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
A Brave New World
ABC News has this unbelievable story: http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3395856
When I was in preschool, I thought girls had cooties and didn't want girl germs. Now, preschoolers are supposed to be able to "identify the parts of the reproductive system," know "the changes a body goes through during puberty," and be able to define "appropriate touching"?
Huxley envisioned a dystopia in which random anonymous sexual encounters were the societal norm, commitment to a single partner was considered obscene, all of which was instilled in people as kindergartners through mandatory "hands-on" sexual education. He apparently wasn't too far off.
Before long, all of our kids will be singing "orgy porgy pudding and pie," which, come to think of it, may be somewhat tamer than what they are already saying.
When I was in preschool, I thought girls had cooties and didn't want girl germs. Now, preschoolers are supposed to be able to "identify the parts of the reproductive system," know "the changes a body goes through during puberty," and be able to define "appropriate touching"?
Huxley envisioned a dystopia in which random anonymous sexual encounters were the societal norm, commitment to a single partner was considered obscene, all of which was instilled in people as kindergartners through mandatory "hands-on" sexual education. He apparently wasn't too far off.
Before long, all of our kids will be singing "orgy porgy pudding and pie," which, come to think of it, may be somewhat tamer than what they are already saying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)