Tag Archives: rights

Doctors and Gun Rights

Posted on by
Reply

Many in the medical profession have gotten their panties in wads because, on the matter of guns and gun rights, someone was impertinent enough to suggest that they’re really not that expert.  The National Rifle Association, it turns out, had demurred from an American College of Physicians paper calling for ways to keep guns out of the hands of people who are a threat—with “threat,” of course, defined by the ACP.

“We have an intimacy with our patients that nobody else has,” she said. “We open them up. We put our hands inside their body. And to have somebody say to you ‘You don’t belong here, this isn’t your lane’ is really condescending and really inappropriate. It’s time to post the pictures. Let’s show people what it looks like to work in a trauma center.”

With that first hand knowledge, doctors should be looking to minimize the opportunities for and occasions of gun violence. Moving to disarm honest Americans will only increase gun violence and increase doctors’ ER work load.

What’s condescending and really inappropriate is doctors pretending that gun violence is the fault of guns in the hands of honest Americans, freely carried as our 2nd Amendment—an outgrowth of our right to life and to defend that life—acknowledges our right to have and to do.

The ACP objects to domestic-violence offenders having access—never mind the corollary limitations on access by those living with the offenders (and never mind the hazy definitions of such offenders outside the clear core of that crime)—to guns.

More generally, the ACP objects to laws requiring States to honor each other’s concealed carry permits.  I don’t hear, though, the ACP objecting to laws requiring States to honor each other’s drivers licenses.  The outcomes of motor vehicle accidents are at least as horrific and far more numerous than the outcomes of gun encounters.

Perhaps the medical profession’s arrogance and hypocrisy disqualifies them from pontificating on gun rights.

A Bogus Beef

Posted on by
Reply

Recall CNN‘s Jim Acosta striking a White House intern (albeit lightly) and actively preventing her from doing her job.  In consequence of that, the White House suspended Acosta’s accesses to the White House.

Now CNN is suing the White House to get Acosta’s credentials back.  They’re doing it, too, on the risible grounds that the suspension violates Acosta’s 1st and 5th Amendment rights of free speech and due process.

Sure.

Acosta is in no way restricted from speaking his piece or from asking questions, either personally or in his capacity as a member of the press, although for the time being, he can’t ask his questions at White House pressers.  With regard to that last, the freedom of…the press, here personified by CNN, is in no way restricted since the suspension applies to Acosta personally: CNN is free to appoint another of its employees to attend such gatherings and ask such questions as CNN might consider useful.

Furthermore, getting credentials for access to the White House is a privilege, not a right; due process plainly does not apply.  On the other hand, striking White House personnel—or anyone else—however firmly or lightly is neither a right nor a privilege for anyone, much less for members of the press.

In my view, Acosta should not have his suspension lifted until his boss publicly apologizes for Acosta’s misbehavior.

Race and College Admission

Posted on by
Reply

During final arguments in the civil suit against Harvard over its use of race in its admission decisions, Harvard’s lawyers insisted that

plaintiffs had to prove admissions officers were motivated by racial animus….

This is a disingenuous argument, though. Racial animus isn’t necessary to get a disparate impact ruling.  With disparate impact established in the courts, for the time being, it’s clear that racial animus doesn’t have to be proved in Harvard’s bias case, either.

The Harvard lawyers weren’t through, though.

Harvard’s lawyers said race is only used as a preference among the most competitive applicants, in the same way exceptional musical talent can make a difference in admissions.

Here is the lie of the Harvard personnel. They deny race plays a role, yet they admit using race to play a role.

Beyond that, applicants’ musical talent (for instance) is entirely under those applicants’ control to acquire. Their race, however, is an accident of birth over which they have no control.  It’s an entirely irrelevant and valueless characteristic in determining merit.

The Debate Over Birthright Citizenship

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump is thinking about signing an Executive Order that would end the birthright citizenship that many say is encoded in the 14th Amendment of our Constitution.  Whether Trump has the authority for such an EO is an open debate, but the more important debate is another one such a move has triggered: whether we should have birthright citizenship, in particular for the children of illegal aliens.

Nor is this question as cut and dried as many would like it to be.  Josh Blackman, South Texas College of Law Houston, has argued

More than 150 years after the amendment’s ratification, this “gloss” on the Constitution cannot be trumped by disputed definitions of “jurisdiction…,”

This, though, is a very Brandeis-ian view of justice—that it’s better that the law be settled than that it be settled right. Of course, this is…suboptimal…since all it does is perpetuate the injustice and spread it far and wide.  Blackman further argued that

…with outlier statements (sometimes misconstrued) during the ratification debates.

There are a couple of things about this bit. One is the arrogance of one man deciding what (inconvenient) arguments are irrelevant because they’re “outliers.” The other, larger thing is the general irrelevance of the ratification debates themselves, including putative outliers. The text of what was ratified already includes the thrust of those debates—for, against, and outlier—and so all that matters here is the text of the Constitution, and not those now OBE pre-ratification debates.

Even the Supreme Court’s primary ruling on one birthright citizenship question isn’t dispositive here.  As Matthew Spalding, Hillsdale College Associate Vice President and Educational Programs Dean, pointed out, the Supreme Court in its 1898, but now-often cited, US v Wong Kim Ark ruling conferred automatic citizenship to babies born to legally resident aliens, not to those born to illegal aliens.

[The Court] held only that the children of legal permanent residents were automatically citizens. The high court has never held that the clause confers automatic citizenship on the children of temporary visitors, much less of aliens in the country illegally.

In the end, the nature of birthright citizenship, the legitimacy of citizenship based on the location of a birth, hinges on the nature of jurisdiction in the 14th Amendment’s phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

Americans’ ability to speak in public hinges on the 1st Amendment’s Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech phrasing and on the nature of abridging.  Americans’ ability to go armed in public hinges on the 2nd Amendment’s right of the people to keep and bear Arms[] shall not be infringed phrasing, the nature of bearing, and the relationship of this clause with a capable militia.

Yet, we carefully regulate both speech and keeping and bearing arms.  So it is that we can—and must—regulate the application of jurisdiction to the geographic and political surroundings of being born.

One additional thought on the nature of jurisdiction, beyond its regulability. Jurisdiction is a two-way street. Our polity can impose its jurisdiction on those physically within our borders. But those who enter our nation illegally are withholding themselves from our jurisdiction–by breaking our entry laws, illegal aliens actively refuse to submit to our polity’s jurisdiction. They do not, therefore, satisfy the 14th Amendment’s subject to the jurisdiction thereof requirement. And so the children of illegal aliens, born here, cannot satisfy the requirement on two grounds: from their illegal presence and by the fact that they cannot submit themselves; they are bound by their parents’ decision.

In the end, whatever the phrasing of Trump’s Executive Order turns out to be, whether it survives the inevitable legal challenges, whatever occurs in Congress, the proposal of an EO intended to address directly and explicitly birthright citizenship has triggered the necessary debate about that and about its applicability to children born of illegal aliens.