Category Archives: rights

“Historical Tradition”

Posted on by
Reply

US District Court Judge Renee Marie Bumb extended her injunction against New Jersey’s Progressive-Democrat Governor Phil Murphy-led law attempting to block New Jersey citizens from carrying firearms virtually anywhere within the State. Her extension blocks

restriction[s] on permitted gun owners from carrying concealed weapons in public parks, on beaches, and in casinos.

Her prior injunction already blocks enforcement of those parts of the law that banned

guns from being carried in “sensitive locations,” including public libraries; museums; entertainment venues like stadiums, arenas, and amusement parks; bars; restaurants where alcohol is served; public parks; beaches; playgrounds; and airports and public transportation hubs.

That’s all to the good. However, I disagree with the rationale for her lately extension of her injunction.

“Bumb cited [New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v] Bruen and said that New Jersey had failed to supply sufficient evidence that some of the “sensitive places” where firearms are banned are rooted in “a historical tradition of firearm regulation,” which is the legal standard established by the Supreme Court.

I think the Supreme Court is wrong on this. Historical tradition as a legal standard gives already extant tradition the force of law instead of leaving it an informed input into court understandings of what the actual law is and means. Further, using historical tradition as the standard prevents the establishment of new traditions as informed input into court understandings of what the actual law is and means.

Keep it simple: …the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

From Johnson’s Dictionary, 10th ed, pub 1792, Infringe: 1: To violate; to break laws or contracts.

From The American Heritage Dictionary, current: Infringe: 1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate

Nothing material has changed in the meaning of the term. There’s no need to read anything else into it.

Jim Crow 2.0, Deprecated

Posted on by
Reply

The Just the News lede tells the tale after President Joe Biden’s (D) widely spread conspiracy theory.

A full 0% of black voters in Georgia report having a “poor” experience voting in the 2022 midterms, a notable showing after several years of Democratic politicians arguing that the state is working to suppress black votes.

The University of Georgia’s School of Public & International Affairs ran a poll:

Among black voters, more than 72% said “excellent,” 23% said “good,” just under 9% said “fair,” and 0% said “poor.”

Will Biden or anyone in his syndicate apologize for his smear?

Nah. Suggesting that would be carrying conspiracy theories to ridiculous extremes.

In Which I Disagree with the Congresswoman

Posted on by
Reply

Congresswoman Nancy Mace (R, SC) has come out in opposition of the move to bar Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D, MN) from the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

I think we have to be very careful about what we are as a constitutional republic. I am not a fan of Ilhan Omar. She’s an anti-Semite. She’s a bigot. She’s a racist. She’s a socialist. But that doesn’t mean that we cancel people in this country. Republicans don’t stand for cancel culture. And that’s essentially what this is.

And

I think it sets a very dangerous precedent. And you know, there’s so much anti-Semitism in this country. We should be condemning it right and left as we always have, but there’s also the First Amendment right to do that[.]

Mace is correct that we’re a constitutional republic with a First Amendment right for all Americans to speak their piece, whatever that piece might be.

However.

Omar wouldn’t be barred from all House committees, any more than Congressmen Adam Schiff (D, CA) and Eric Swalwell (D, CA) are barred from all House committees. They’re barred only from the House Intelligence Committee; they’re free to serve on other House committees.

Omar would be barred only from the Foreign Affairs Committee and remain free to serve on other House committees. Omar’s rank bigotry makes her presence on Foreign Affairs counterproductive; her presence would give the lie to our nation’s international efforts to counter bigotry.

Our First Amendment free speech rights are limited in certain narrow circumstances. Military members cannot speak counter to military policy while in uniform or in other situations where they can be understood to be speaking for the military or for their branch or for their particular unit. They can be subject to discipline if they do. They can speak as freely as they wish on whatever subject they wish when they’re speaking as private citizens.

When Omar espoused her bigotry, she too often spoke as a Congresswoman, not as a private citizen. It would be entirely correct to bar her from Foreign Affairs; it would be cancel culture only were she barred from all House committees.

In Which the Vermont Supreme Court is Wrong

Posted on by
Reply

Vermont’s State government enacted a law allowing non-citizens to vote in certain local elections. In particular, the law allows Montpelier and Winooski to change their charters so that non-citizens can vote in those municipalities’ elections. Suits ensued, and the matter wound up before Vermont’s Supreme Court.

That court then proceeded to rule in favor of the law, arguing in part

[W]e conclude that the statute allowing noncitizens to vote in local Montpelier elections does not violate Chapter II, § 42 because that constitutional provision does not apply to local elections.

The court, right after that claim, actually quoted that chapter and verse:

Chapter II, § 42 of the Vermont Constitution provides:
Every person of the full age of eighteen years who is a citizen of the United States, having resided in this State for the period established by the General Assembly and who is of a quiet and peaceable behavior, and will take the following oath or affirmation, shall be entitled to all the privileges of a voter of this state:
You solemnly swear (or affirm) that whenever you give your vote or suffrage, touching any matter that concerns the State of Vermont, you will do it so as in your conscience you shall judge will most conduce to the best good of the same, as established by the Constitution, without fear or favor of any person.

The court then went through a convoluted argument to claim that the text of this Chapter and Section does not say what it says.

It’s really cut and dried, and hung in the cold cellar. Only persons who are citizens and have met a couple of additional—not substitute—criteria are permitted, via the plain, obvious, and rational meaning of the State’s constitution, to vote in any election, at any level of jurisdiction, in the State.

The State’s Supreme Court…messed up.

The Vermont Supreme Court’s ruling can be read here.

Dehumanizing Babies

Posted on by
Reply

Florida has a law (HB5, Reducing Fetal and Infant Mortality Act) banning abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Florida’s Governor DeSantis (R) has characterized the law as

protect[ing] babies in the womb who have beating hearts, who can move, who can taste, who can see, and who can feel pain.

Planned Parenthood and the ACLU have sued, claiming that the ban violates the Florida Constitution. The Florida Constitution, Art I, Sect 23, grants a right of privacy to every natural person. The only part of the Florida Constitution that directly addresses abortion is Art X, Sect 22, which authorizes the State’s legislature to enact laws requiring notification of a minor’s parent or guardian prior to termination of the minor’s pregnancy.

Whitney White, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project:

…we are dismayed that it has allowed this dangerous ban to remain in effect and to harm real people each and every day until this case is finally decided[.]

The State’s district-level judge, Leon County Circuit Court Judge John Cooper, siding with PP and the ACLU in issuing an injunction barring enforcement, wrote in part that (as cited by Fox News)

the Florida Constitution contains an explicit “right to privacy” that is “much broader in scope” than any privacy right under the United States Constitution. He further ruled that a 15-week cutoff for abortions is not supported by sufficient state interest.

Florida appealed the judge’s ruling and got the injunction lifted; the matter now is before the State’s Supreme Court.

It’s important to note that, both the ACLU’s and Cooper’s arguments can have legitimacy only by denying that unborn babies—especially after those 15 weeks—are not “real people,” are not natural persons. The only way in which the law’s abortion cutoff time is unsupported by sufficient State interest is by denying that unborn babies are not natural persons. After all, a core responsibility—a core duty—of the State government is to see to the safety and welfare of every “real” natural person in the State.

This is Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and a Florida judge shamefully denying babies’ personhood, shamefully dehumanizing babies, just because they’re unborn.