After watching the Marchers this past weekend, retired Associate Justice John Paul Stevens wrote and Op-Ed for the New York Times in which he indicated that he felt that the marchers were “aiming too low.” He wants nothing less than a full repeal of the 2nd amendment.
Now, on the one hand, it is somewhat refreshing to hear the political left finally come clean and admit what its goal actually is.
On the other hand, the Progressive Lefts’ response to the idea has be nothing short of proving that we live in the post-Constitutional Era. To most of those who spoke about the idea, the limits of the 2nd Amendment are pretty much meaningless.
But even if you take that argument, where does that road lead?
It’s Constitution Thursday on a Wednesday as a sore throated Dave has medical appointments tomorrow…
In the early 1970’s, Congress passed an amendment to the Voting rights act to stop States from limiting who could vote based solely upon their age, specifically for those who were old enough to fight in Vietnam, but not old enough to vote for the leaders who were sending them to Southeast Asia.
Many people objected based on the same old ideas that young people have never been more sawcie and saucie. President Nixon was concerned that the amendment would not pass Constitutional muster, and that might endanger the entirety of the Voting Rights Act. He signed it, but he wasn’t totally onboard with it. Read the rest of this entry
In the ongoing (with no end in sight) debate over exactly what to do about mass shootings, the doctrines have become entrenched. On the Left, all guns must be eliminated, because Australia did this and ended gun violence. On the Right, Switzerland and Israel have guns everywhere and they have no such shootings.
Guns *must* be taken away; guns are a Constitutional right and *cannot* be taken away.
Who is correct? What if both sides are to a degree? What if neither side is correct at all? Read the rest of this entry