NOTE: I PUT THIS UP EARLY THIS MORNING, BUT THEN MANAGED TO DISAPPEAR IT. (SIGH.) OH WELL. IT’S BACK NOW.
********************************************************************************************************
BOOK BANNING AND THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION: OH, NO, THEY DIDN’T!
It is a very sad day when I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with the often icky conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg, but I’m afraid that’s what we have here.
In an Op Ed in yesterday’s LA Times (and today’s NRO), Goldberg talked about the absolutely idiotic thing that Obama administration lawyer, deputy solicitor general Malcolm Stewart, said when arguing in front of the Supreme Court the other day.
It occurred in the midst of arguments about a case that questions whether the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act may restrict corporations and other special interest groups from putting out a blatantly political and partisan movie close to an election. At issue was a 90-minute anti-Hillary Clinton screed called Hillary: the Movie.
Here’s how the Boston Globe explains it:
The act says such groups cannot use money from their general treasuries for “any broadcast, cable or satellite communications” that refer to a candidate for federal office within a certain time frame before an election.
In the past, that has meant 30-second to one-minute campaign ads. But a lower court said the same rule applied to the conservative Citizens United’s production of a 90-minute movie on Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as she pursued the Democratic presidential nomination.
Then Stewart found himself pulled into a conversation as to whether corporate-backed political books could be banned under MCCain Feingold.
If the federal government could treat a movie like a political advertisement, then can it do the same with books? the justices asked.
In can, answered Stewart, “if the book contained the functional equivalent of express advocacy,” the test used in regulating broadcast, cable or satellite communication released 60 days before a general election or 30 days before a presidential primary or convention.
In other words, he cheerily said that, yes, the statute he was defending could, in certain circumstances be used to ban books.
Eeeek! First Amendment alert!!!! No, Malcolm! Bad lawyer! Bad! Very bad!
Good lord.
Anyway, it went downhill from there.
Look for the Supremes to rightly make trims in McCain Feingold.
**********************************************************************************************************
PASADENA POLICE CHIEF CALLS IN THE FEDS TO INVESTIGATE
Police Chief Bernard Melekian is a good guy handling a very bad situation. So he did the right thing, yesterday, in calling in the FBI and the Los Angeles County Office of Independent Review to conduct an outside investigation the February 19 shooting of Leroy Barnes by Pasadena police officers.
Barnes was shot 11 times, according to the coroner’s report, seven of those bullets in the back. The Pasadena PD’s investigation of the shooting concluded that the shooting was justified, that Barnes pulled a pistol and pointed it a officers in the course of a traffic stop.
Community members who witnessed the incident have repeatedly disputed the police version of events.
There are many troubling aspects to this shooting, so let us hope that independent investigators can and will get to the truth of the matter.
Kudos to Bernie Melekian for inviting them in.
Here’s the report from the Pasadena Star-News.
****************************************************************************************************
LAUSD BOARD PUTS OFF TEACHER PINK SLIP VOTE
After one more go-round of impassioned protests from teachers, students and parents about the massive lay offs planned in order to balance the district’s budget, the LAUSD board has put off the vote as board members complained they didn’t know enough to make such a big decision.
If the layoffs eventually do go though, they will affect approximately 8,540 employees, 3,500 of them teachers.
Board member Tamar Galatzan complained several weeks ago in her newsletter that board members had not been included in the earlier stages of budget cutting process or told the reasoning behind certain cuts (other than the obvious, that $700 million has to come out of the district budget).
“I still have just a page here of unanswered questions,” she said at yesterday’s meeting “… I don’t feel comfortable making these decisions in a vacuum.”
Good for Galatzan and others for refusing to simply rubber stamp the superintendent’s massive layoffs.
Superintendent Ray Cortines district has gotten a great deal of criticism for his teacher cutting plan, especially in light of recent stories about what appears to be piles of wasted cash on such line items as high-priced consultants and school construction cost overages.
********************************************************************************************************
The point you make is correct, but Goldberg’s column is mostly a disingenuous piece of crap that has little to do with the issue of McCain Feingold and everything to do with his usual partisan hectoring, raving about “liberal fascism.” The guy doesn’t have an honest bone in his body. What the hell is the LA Times doing employing that nerd ? Is it part of their apparent death wish ?
McCain-Feingold has been a disaster from the start. It was one reason conservatives were hesitant to back McCain.
Reg, your psychoses are showing.
The McCain-Feingold bill was always an affront to the 1st amendment and hopefully will be held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. This bill was only opposed by 2 Democrats (and also opposed by 38 Republicans), which give you an idea who really supports the first amendment in the Senate.
Also when eventually get the courts ruling on this, who do you think will vote to uphold book banning? I doubt that any of the conservative justices who reacted with incredulity to a series of answers from Obama’s lawyer about the scope of Congressional authority to limit political speech will vote to uphold McCain-Feingold.
My guess is the same liberal fools on the court who argued/voted that the Second amendments right to bear arms didn’t apply to American citizens will be the ones trying to re-write the constitution as a “living document†by banning books and free speech.
Moore – when you apologize for blogging in your “Useless Idiots” website that American journalists should have been hung, you can yammer about other people’s “psychoses.” Meanwhile, kiss my ass you fascist nerd.
Pokey has gone “Glenn Beck”….
reg,
If you read the 5-4 ruling on the 2nd amendment – DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER, you might also be horrified by the convoluted logic used to try and invalidate the 2nd amendment by the 4 liberal judges who I now deem as absolute fools. Prior to reading their pathetic arguments, I at least respected them.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Unless you believe that citizens should have the right to own grenade launchers and machine guns, you’re treating the Constitution like a “living document” and only differing with those 4 justices on degree, not principle. I have a nasty feeling John Moore probably lives in that ozone layer of “constitutional rights.”
STEVENS, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER all appear to believe that Citizens have NO RIGHT to keep and bear arms of any type.
They are not talking about limiting our right to keep and bear arms, as we do to “Free Speechâ€Â, by limiting the shouting of FIRE in a theater, they do not believe we have ANY RIGHTS AT ALL to bear and keep arms.
These justices came to the conclusion that to keep and bear arms means only military service.
STEVENS, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER all appear to believe that Citizens have NO RIGHT to keep and bear arms of any type.
Proof?
John Moore, if Reg disagreeing with you is evidence of psychosis in your opinion, then it appears youu suffer from delusions of grandeur.
Randy Paul – Needs Proof?
JUSTICE STEVENS suggests that “keep and bear Arms†was some sort of term of art, presumably akin to “hue and cry†or “cease and desist.â€Â
Faced with this clear historical usage, JUSTICE STEVENS resorted to the bizarre argument that because the word “to†is not included before “bear†(whereas it is included before “petition†in the First Amendment), the unitary meaning of “to keep and bear†is established.
STEVENS whent on for 30 pages parsing words to prove we have NO RIGHT to keep and bear arms an that this was a states right. –
IF YOU READ THE OPINION you will have have your proof!!!
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Since 1939, it’s been accepted interpretation of the Second Amendment has been that the right to bear arms is a collective right, in that the context of the 2nd Amendment is explicitly about ensuring that states can form militias. The language isn’t nearly as opaque as many argue and no gun advocates – except those who are clearly crackpost – are willing to take this “invdividual right”to it’s logical conclusion if it actually existed. We can argue gun control – I happen to think it’s wildly overstated in its effectiveness and believe that even in urban areas the law should allow registered gun ownership, but the constitutional law on this had been accepted for many decades and isn’t some crazy notion that these Ford-Bush-Clinton judges dreamed up a few months ago to steal your rights. The majority is merely flexing their muscles, largely for political purposes. They’re the group that threw out the Constitution in the 2000 elections, so why should I see them as anything other than partisan hacks. In any event, the issue of handguns is pretty marginal for self-defense in the home – and anyone who advocates a general right to carry concealed weapons in urban areas is pretty much off-the-charts nuts IMHO. For the record, I am not a prohibitionist when it comes to guns,I grew up with them, still have some skills on a shooting range and often find myself at odds with extreme anti-gun advocates on the issue of effectiveness more than abstract “rights.” I am pretty much “regionalist” when it comes to degrees of gun-control that make sense. But the facts are that no sane person is willing to advocate an unrestricted right to individual ownership of firearms, so there’s a lot of hypocrisy involved when this is argued as a constitutional principle. It’s not. You won’t even go there – unless you assert I should be able to carry a sawed-off shotgun under the seat of my car and keep an arsenal of automatic weapons in my garage. If you think that’s extreme it means – contra to what you appear to believe it says in the consitution – you’re treating it like a “living document” with implied meanings that you can parse to suit your version of “common sense” or social expediency centuries after it was penned.
That One: Unless you believe that citizens should have the right to own grenade launchers and machine guns….
I do. Citizens should be able to own arms sufficient to overcome a despotic government.
The Declaration of Independence: 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
U.S. Constitution: 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’m reminded of a bumper sticker: Only dictators, criminals, and Democrats fear armed citizens.
Note – defense of one’s home isn’t mentioned in the 2nd Amendment. Well-regulated militias are. What do you think was the founder’s original intent, given that? Frankly, if self-defense was mentioned explicitly, it would be a lot easier to determine a reasonable “constitutional” range of gun laws. But I, for one, don’t see the point of “well-regulated militias” that don’t have access to weapons with selective fire capablities, to grenade launchers, etc. etc. Your logic would necessarily extend access to such artillery as an “individual right” rather than “the people” of a “free state” maintaining a “well-regulated militia.” Actually, it’s hard to look at the 2nd amendment and not see a clear collective intent.
In reference to Troll’s comment #12, my point about “clearly crackpot” was made for me…
In reference to Tweedledum’s comment #13, my last sentence in #12 was made for me….
Canada – New federal bill would end long-gun registry
Reg,
English history is full of gun confiscation, which is precisely what the 2nd amendment was about. Specifically, the Catholic James II confiscated Protestant guns in the 1760’s which was fresh in the minds of our fore-fathers.
Do you really believe that our fore-fathers were just out to protect the rights of the individual states to have armies? Look at the context of the bill of rights. Do you really think that the second amendment was not to protect the peoples rights when ALL the other amendmendments were protecting PEOPLES RIGHTS.
If the first amendment read –
“A well informed press, being necessary for the security of a free Sate, the right of the people to freedom of speech, shall not be infringedâ€Â
Reg, would you argue that that only newspapers have the right of free speech and that people have no rights to speech?
What reg said, Pokey. All you did was spit back Scalia’s points.
I might add the issue at hand was handguns, not all firearms. Absent any evidence that Justice Stevens opposes hunting with rifles or shotguns your comment that he believs that citizens have “NO RIGHT to keep and bear arms of any type” is just hysterical hyperbole.
Take a deep breath next time.
The left-wing never gives up in parsing words and denying the truth about our rights–if it threatens in any way their power over individuals.
Our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution tie together to reveal our founders’ intent on gun ownership.
Randy Paul,
JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE SOUTER, JUSTICE GINSBURG, and JUSTICE BREYER join, dissenting.
It seems pretty clear that these four justices do not believe that individuals have a constitutional right to own a gun. This includes all guns of any type for any use but military.
“there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.”
This is a clear assertion of a common-law right of individual self-defense, which given the explicit language of the Second amendment was likely simply assumed on the part of the founders. Gun ownership by individuals is historically a matter of common law and tradition. The weaponry we’re talking about when gun control is discussed today didn’t even exist when the constitution was written and individuals did indeed routinely carry the same weapons as those used by the miitary. No sane person advocates this today – so all of this “individual unabridged right to bear arms” is hypocritical spin.. This doesn’t mean Stevens is against any right to individual gun ownership. There is no right of the individual to marry protected by the constitution. Does my assertion of this fact mean I want to ban marriage or don’t recognize a right to marry in common law ? Obviously not.
Pokey,
Only if you are itching to read that into it.
I think Reg’s comment regarding marriage is an appropriate analogy.
I’m not against gun ownership. I do believe in background checks and waiting periods. In a world in which competency is required to be demonstrated to operate motor vehicles, I hardly consider that to be unreasonable and restrictive.
The founders were aware that there would be new weapon developments in the future as there had been in the past, and they did not choose to limit individual ownership to muskets and bayonets.
If government became despotic and the population is forced to overthrow it to insure their freedom and rights, per the Declaration of Independence, the general population must have access and the right to own weapons equivalent to those that the army supporting the depots would use against the population.
Thus, proof that sane people advocates that today.
What we should be worried about are the insane who go berzerk if a kid draws a picture of a gun in school and insists on expelling him, which has happened.
Randy, there is no right to drive in the Constitution.
The Treason Constituency speaks – thank God for General Sherman !!!!
There is also no right for the unrestricted ownership of guns. The mentally ill and convicted felons can’t own them. In most jurisdictions you can’t conceal them on your person.
the general population must have access and the right to own weapons equivalent to those that the army supporting the depots would use against the population.
So we all should have tanks, mortars, bazookas, rpg’s, Blackhawk helicopters, etc?
Wingnut logic at its best.
reg: thank God for General Sherman !!!!
We’ve discussed it before. reg has nothing but praise for a war criminal who targeted civilians in states which had legally withdrawn from the Union.
– – –
Man has God-given rights that government cannot take away. If this be treason, then make the most of it.
Patrick Henry’s “Treason†Speech”
You can thank brave patriots, whom you call traitors, for your freedom today.
My God, Woody is really Glenn Beck! The hyperbole hysteria train has arrived.
Randy: So we all should have tanks, mortars, bazookas, rpg’s, Blackhawk helicopters, etc?
I’m looking forward to your next post demanding that the Palestinians give up their weapons and be limited to throwing rocks.
Apparently the strawman train has arrived as well as I have never made any comments regarding arming the Palestinians.
By my account, btw, we’ve had 54 successful presidential elections. I really don’t think we have to fear tyrants and despots, except if you dwell in the wingnut fever swamp.
“states which had legally withdrawn from the Union”
Leaving aside the violent attack on American forces at Fort Sumter, there’s no point in discussing the “legality” of a social system founded on human slavery. I’m not surprised this racist troll defends the legitimacy of a renegade slave empire bent on spreading its poison across the continent. John Brown foresaw that this sin could only be purged with blood and the tragedy of the Civil War ensued. Unfortunately, remnants of this sickness persist today, as evidenced here.
Okay, so once again reg attacks me when he previously said that he would quit responding to my comments.
Look, I’m not like the nuts from the Sons of Confederate Veterans who think that the war isn’t over until they say it’s over, and I’ve never defended slavery. I am simply bringing up what I consider to be the legal and historicaly correct aspects of the War Between the States. You guys fail to recognize that the U.S. is formed by states rather than people.
So, in response to your responses, Fort Sumpter was within the state boundaries of a state that had seceded, and the federal forces there refused to acknowledge the right of a state to withdraw from the union and leave.
Slavery was not an issue that started the war and only became an issue when northern support for the war was dropping and a new and moral cause was needed to stay with it. At one point, northerners felt that the price of war, in terms of lives and money, was not justified and to simply allow the southern states to leave the union.
Anyway, reg, you should be upset with Gen. Sherman and the northern armies. They effectively destroyed the businesses and farms in the south where the vast majority of Negroes worked and lived.
“they effectively destroyed the businesses and farms in the south where the vast majority of Negroes worked and lived”
Yeah, Eisenhower’s armies did the same terrible thing to the Jews in WWII.
Sure, but the Jews weren’t happy in their work and were better suited for something else, like mercantile jobs rather than the extermination business.
“Bill,” if you again post links to hostile websites, you’ll be deleted…..again.
What did I miss?