Now that Hunter Biden has been convicted of lying on an application to purchase a weapon while addicted to drugs, many have speculated as to how his lawyers will craft their appeal. If they decide to do so on Second Amendment grounds, they have a powerful argument supplied by, of all people, Clarence Thomas.
Haha. Thanks. The 2nd Amendment argument is legit, but if Hunter's lawyers make it, they can be viewed as undermining his father's views on gun safety laws. Still, I would love to see them put the conservative justices under pressure.
Me too. And watching conservatives try to hypothesize about how two Bidens with opposite approaches are still colluding (Biden Crime Family?) will be delicious as well.
The problem is that we've reached a point in this country where large segments of population would deny that the Earth is round if Trump said so. It isn't that they don't recognize the truth as much as they don't care what the truth is. Trump, taking a page from his odious mentor Roy Cohn, has convinced them that all that matters is gaining and keeping power and it doesn't matter what you do with it or who you hurt once you have it. Fighting this sort of amorality with truth, therefore, is a waste of time. We just have to hope that enough people recognize the magnitude of the threat, not just to democratic norms, but to their own well-being.
I don’t much like hope as a strategy. I prefer persuasion, even if only one person is persuaded. That person may tip the balance or may persuade another to do so.
Hope isn't a strategy--it's how you feel about your strategy. Got to keep pounding away at the sliver of voters who will decide the election. For more than 95% of the electorate, November is just theater, but the others have a huge responsibility--like jurors--and we can't let them forget the consequences of their choice.
Thanks for spurring me to think about it this way. The juror analogy, especially given that the NY jurors are now in fear of their lives, seems spot on.
I think the real idea of originalism centers on the meaning of the constitution as it applies to today. Using the second amendment, we should remember the British were going to confiscate the militia’s armory, an obvious threat to the totalitarianism. The second amendment is the idea that militia ( or the states armies) need arms to protect against a central government’s totalitarianism. It does not mean using N AK47 to shoot feral pigs is a protected right. Gun ownership is protected as long as it helps individual states stop dictators. If it prevents crime or increases individual protection it is an added benefit as determined by federal and state laws. We need to emulate originalism as the founding fathers ideals made us who we are. Example. The founders believed in Natural Law, that a creator was responsible for our inalienable rights. This is now under attack as progressives use white evangelicals as threats to the constitution. Is Christianity, treat others as you would yourself, really a threat. I think not
You make some good points, but then miss the target. It is necessary to read the debates to understand both what the delegates were trying to achieve and what they were trying to avoid. (Farrand, Records, 4 volumes.) You're right about weapons possession--but only in the context of state controlled militias. Thus the 2nd Amendment's first clause--which Scalia end-ran by violating his own rule against using intent in his analysis. Once the nation had created a standing army, the 2nd Amendment became an anachronism, as Justice McReynolds, as conservative as they come, wrote in US v Miller in 1939. This does not mean Americans have no right to own weapons, just that it is not a Constitutional right. If we as a people wish to allow--or to control--firearms possession, it is for Congress and the states to legislate that, as New York did. You're on shaky ground with your natural rights argument. They absolutely, positively did not believe that a creator was responsible for maintaining inalienable rights--in fact they did not believe in alienable beyond life, liberty--and property--a category in which most of the delegates, even from the north, meant slaves. Since southerners justified slavery through Scripture, I don't think you can make the argument that Christianity was no threat. Don't go by the Declaration of Independence--that was Jefferson writing for effect. Finally, no religion is a threat when those who practice it recognize that their beliefs are personal and should not be forced on those who believe differently. When religion is used as a justification for social policy or to discriminate--as the slaveholders did--it does indeed become a threat. You need to examine white evangelicals support of Donald Trump to determine whether they are currently a threat to the Constitution.
Also, sorry to pitch my own book, but I think you'd get a lot out of Imperfect Union. It's written for general readers, not academics, and it will give you a good idea what the delegates were up to--and what they were trying to avoid. There's a chapter Arms and the (Common) Man, that covers the standing army question.
Good post. I’ll pass it on to Hunter 😉
Haha. Thanks. The 2nd Amendment argument is legit, but if Hunter's lawyers make it, they can be viewed as undermining his father's views on gun safety laws. Still, I would love to see them put the conservative justices under pressure.
Me too. And watching conservatives try to hypothesize about how two Bidens with opposite approaches are still colluding (Biden Crime Family?) will be delicious as well.
The problem is that we've reached a point in this country where large segments of population would deny that the Earth is round if Trump said so. It isn't that they don't recognize the truth as much as they don't care what the truth is. Trump, taking a page from his odious mentor Roy Cohn, has convinced them that all that matters is gaining and keeping power and it doesn't matter what you do with it or who you hurt once you have it. Fighting this sort of amorality with truth, therefore, is a waste of time. We just have to hope that enough people recognize the magnitude of the threat, not just to democratic norms, but to their own well-being.
I don’t much like hope as a strategy. I prefer persuasion, even if only one person is persuaded. That person may tip the balance or may persuade another to do so.
Hope isn't a strategy--it's how you feel about your strategy. Got to keep pounding away at the sliver of voters who will decide the election. For more than 95% of the electorate, November is just theater, but the others have a huge responsibility--like jurors--and we can't let them forget the consequences of their choice.
Thanks for spurring me to think about it this way. The juror analogy, especially given that the NY jurors are now in fear of their lives, seems spot on.
I think the real idea of originalism centers on the meaning of the constitution as it applies to today. Using the second amendment, we should remember the British were going to confiscate the militia’s armory, an obvious threat to the totalitarianism. The second amendment is the idea that militia ( or the states armies) need arms to protect against a central government’s totalitarianism. It does not mean using N AK47 to shoot feral pigs is a protected right. Gun ownership is protected as long as it helps individual states stop dictators. If it prevents crime or increases individual protection it is an added benefit as determined by federal and state laws. We need to emulate originalism as the founding fathers ideals made us who we are. Example. The founders believed in Natural Law, that a creator was responsible for our inalienable rights. This is now under attack as progressives use white evangelicals as threats to the constitution. Is Christianity, treat others as you would yourself, really a threat. I think not
You make some good points, but then miss the target. It is necessary to read the debates to understand both what the delegates were trying to achieve and what they were trying to avoid. (Farrand, Records, 4 volumes.) You're right about weapons possession--but only in the context of state controlled militias. Thus the 2nd Amendment's first clause--which Scalia end-ran by violating his own rule against using intent in his analysis. Once the nation had created a standing army, the 2nd Amendment became an anachronism, as Justice McReynolds, as conservative as they come, wrote in US v Miller in 1939. This does not mean Americans have no right to own weapons, just that it is not a Constitutional right. If we as a people wish to allow--or to control--firearms possession, it is for Congress and the states to legislate that, as New York did. You're on shaky ground with your natural rights argument. They absolutely, positively did not believe that a creator was responsible for maintaining inalienable rights--in fact they did not believe in alienable beyond life, liberty--and property--a category in which most of the delegates, even from the north, meant slaves. Since southerners justified slavery through Scripture, I don't think you can make the argument that Christianity was no threat. Don't go by the Declaration of Independence--that was Jefferson writing for effect. Finally, no religion is a threat when those who practice it recognize that their beliefs are personal and should not be forced on those who believe differently. When religion is used as a justification for social policy or to discriminate--as the slaveholders did--it does indeed become a threat. You need to examine white evangelicals support of Donald Trump to determine whether they are currently a threat to the Constitution.
Also, sorry to pitch my own book, but I think you'd get a lot out of Imperfect Union. It's written for general readers, not academics, and it will give you a good idea what the delegates were up to--and what they were trying to avoid. There's a chapter Arms and the (Common) Man, that covers the standing army question.