Washington Hotlist » U.S. Constitution

Another Reason Conservatives Fear A President Obama

Joshua Rosenstock — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:07:59 +0000

Americans have cut back on buying cars, furniture and clothes in a tough economy, but there’s one consumer item that’s still enjoying healthy sales: guns. Purchases of firearms and ammunition have risen 8 to 10 percent this year, according to state and federal data.

Several variables drive sales, but many dealers, buyers and experts attribute the increase in part to concerns about the economy and fears that if Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois wins the presidency, he will join with fellow Democrats in Congress to enact new gun controls.

If only conservatives cared as much about other amendments to the U.S. Constitution as they do about the Second Amendment, this country might be getting somewhere. At least we know some necessities are recession-proof. Besides, didn’t the U.S. Supreme Court just recently give a big boost to gun owners when they struck down a ban on guns in DC? Maybe Obama wasn’t that far off after all when he suggested that conservatives are bitter and cling to their guns (or get new ones, apparently).

Quote Of The Day

Joshua Rosenstock — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 20:18:25 +0000

â€œThe executiveâ€™s current claim of absolute immunity from compelled Congressional process for senior presidential aides is without any support in the case law.”

Heller Opens the Door For Extra-Judicial Authority?

Aaron Brazell — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:15:51 +0000

Yesterday, the Second Amendment was preserved. At least it was somewhat preserved. The Supreme Court decided in District of Columbia v. Heller (PDF) that it was the right of individuals to “keep and bear arms” individually. SCOTUS had never decided on this aspect of the Second Amendment and I think it’s safe to say that precedent was set.

Adam Liptak at New York Times indicates that potential lawsuits will follow challenging gun laws in other cities but notes the caveat that the Court decided on a law in the District of Columbia making the decision applicable to federal law only and not necessarily state and local law.

What is interesting to me about the decision is not the gun aspect of this law. Somewhat of a pragmatic realist and a natural cynic, I see the decision (which I commend) as fraught with the possibility of other problems.

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54â€“55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

The decision, in essence says that no public policy may supersede that which is established in Constitutional law, a thesis that is somewhat vague. And therein lies our problem. By setting this precedent, we have to ask, “Hasn’t this always been the case? Haven’t we relied on the courts to tell us if a law passed by the legislature and signed by the executive branch was Constitutional or not? What is the Court saying here?”

My feeling is that this decision sets up extra-Constitutional authority to the Judiciary to also have to sign a bill into law. Congress passes. Thee Court rubber-stamps. The President signs.

This is not what our forefathers had in mind when they established a system of checks and balances.

Some might think I’m smoking crack. I just generally believe that where there is smoke, there is fire.

Supreme Court Tacitly Approves Warrantless Wiretapping

Steve Levine — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 01:33:08 +0000

Filed in Detroit in 2006, the challenge was brought on behalf of several Michigan attorneys and Muslim leaders who thought they may be the targets of domestic spying by the U.S. government. They claimed that a program by the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans without court approval violated the law and their constitutional rights.

Americans without court approval violated the law and their constitutional rights.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled in their favor after a hearing in her Detroit courtroom, an appeals court later overturned it. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take up the case, said attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union.

Ã¢â‚¬Å“ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a sad day for civil liberties when the President violates the fundamental rights of U.S. citizens, and the court declines to address the issue or serve as a check on the abuse of power,Ã¢â‚¬? said Michael J. Steinberg, legal director for the Michigan chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

The administration has maintained its surveillance efforts were legal and necessary in the war on terrorism.

A spokesman for the National Security Agency, Don Weber, told the Free Press in 2006 in an e-mail that “it is important to note that NSA takes its legal responsibilities very seriously and operates within the law.”

A sad day indeed.

What the hell is going on here? What hope do we have when even the Supreme Court is unwilling to halt the lawless behavior of this criminal administration?

What have we come to when we can’t even find FOUR JUSTICES to stand up and protect our civil liberties?

How Can A Budget Deficit Produce Rebates?

Joshua Rosenstock — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 20:47:21 +0000

It can’t. The numbers simply don’t add up. Normally, you can’t give money to people that you don’t have but when you are able to print more of the stuff, why should conventional wisdom apply? When members of Congress become concerned about losing seats, they temporarily forget that handy arithmetic they learned in elementary school. Indeed, desperate times call for desperate measures.

Democrats also are eyeing extending unemployment benefits beyond the 26-week limit and a temporary increase in food stamp benefits.

I think we can all guess when those temporary extensions and increases will terminate – sometime after November 4. It would be difficult to provide a more blatant example of pandering to a constituency than this, not to mention the fiscal irresponsibility of providing tax rebates while we still have a nine digit federal budget deficit.

Why should the public entrust the Democrats with the nation’s checkbook for two more years after witnessing the incompetent way they have handled it since retaking the majorities of both Houses of Congress last year? A balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution must be enacted so that situations such as these will stop occurring.

Bush Is All Talk, No Action On Earmarks

Joshua Rosenstock — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 20:34:56 +0000

“I am disappointed in the way the Congress compiled this legislation, including abandoning the goal I set early this year to reduce the number and cost of earmarks by half. Instead, the Congress dropped into the bill nearly 9,800 earmarks that total more than $10 billion. These projects are not funded through a merit-based process and provide a vehicle for wasteful government spending.”

If he didn’t like the bill, he should have vetoed it. Instead of exercising legitimate powers granted to his office via the U.S. Constitution, Bush would rather exercise imaginary ones that (in his mind) grants him the ability to be the sole source of our federal government’s power. By signing this awful bill into law, Bush has revealed himself to be just another single issue politician, caving in to the Congress’ pathetic fiscal policy just to secure billions of more money for wars overseas. Instead of making tough decisions, he did what was quick and easy. More inspirational stuff from the leader of the free world.

Have yet another great vacation, Mr. President.