Sunday, June 28, 2015
My HEAD Literally EXPLODED!
Oh Alan West, I wanna gay marry you:
YEEhaw! This side-effect of the gay marriage ruling will make liberals EXPLODE
Prediction: it won't.
The Court used Section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to justify its argument, which reads: Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Now here is the kicker, as the writer articulately brings to light: “By using the Constitution in such a manner, the Court argues that the Due Process Clause extends “certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy” accepted in a majority of states across the state lines of a handful of states that still banned the practice. The vast majority of states are “shall issue” on the matter of issuing concealed carry permits, and enjoy reciprocity with a large number of other states. My North Carolina concealed carry permit, for example, was recognized yesterday as being valid in 36 states, which just so happened to be the number of states in which gay marriage was legal yesterday. But 14 states did not recognize my concealed carry permit yesterday. Today they must.
Here is the kicker: that's not how SCOTUS decisions work. IANAL, but it seems clear they rule on very specific issues within a case, which are applied to similar cases, not generally without further controversy. Situations often differ even if similar logic can be applied to settle matters.
Anyway, there's already been a case based on the 14th Amendment regarding the RKBA. Might've heard of McDonald v Chicago, which (selectively) incorporated the 2nd Amendment against the states. The majority also reaffirmed Heller's observations that some gun restrictions are still permissible.
While I wouldn't be surprised--nor upset--if a challenge against non-reciprocity were successful, up to this point I am unaware of any, and last week's ruling doesn't change that. So have fun stormin' da castle!
But this is my favorite section, natch:
Perhaps I should probably remind folks of some of the quotes of the Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment:
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” — Benjamin Franklin
“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” — George Mason
[Nope again. See above link.]
“No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state…such area well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.” — Richard Henry Lee
[Status unclear. See below.]
“[W]hat country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” — Thomas Jefferson
[Yeah, well, West must've learned his lesson...]
“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly for military, supplies.” — George Washington
That Richard Henry Lee one has to be spurious. I see the same exact quotation, including ellipses, all over the place, always with the same alleged citation of "State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788."
Whenever I find a quotation everywhere with something elided, and never any larger context, my alarm bells go off. What's more, it appears in his contemporaneous letters, including his famous rebuttal to Dickinson, that he rarely used 'freeholders' in any context, amongst other terms. And does "such area well-regulated militia" even make grammatical sense? Also, I suppose it's not a big deal, but the truncated name of the paper (State Gazette of South Carolina) doesn't ring true.
If anybody has a link to an original source document, they're mum out there. Imma say this is fake. Which would be unsurprising in the context.
Maybe I should ask West for help. It could just make him EXPLODE!
West will say "Do your own research, libtard."
Posted by: yastreblyansky | Jun 28, 2015 8:04:20 PM
The spurious Richard Henry Lee quote (sometimes attributed to "M.T. Cicero", 1788, who is in turn sometimes identified as a pseudonym for Richard Henry Lee) is actually from the Observations on the Act of Parliament Commonly Called the Boston Port-Bill.... 1774, by Josiah Quincy Jr., reproduced in his 1825 biography, p. 413. Of course the standing army he is objecting to is the British one, and the job of the militia is to "fight for their religion and their offspring" and "repel invaders", that's what's eliminated in the ellipsis. No idea how it got attached to Richard Henry Lee (who was, though, known as the "Cicero of America"), but the point of the fraud was clearly to make it relevant to the Bill of Rights and the fear of federal tyranny instead of George III and the redcoats.
Posted by: yastreblyansky | Jun 28, 2015 9:01:04 PM
Allen West, leagle skollar.
Posted by: Rmj | Jun 28, 2015 11:14:12 PM
No, wait, there's a somewhat better citation in "The origin of the Second Amendment: a documentary history ..."
David E. Young - 1995 - Snippet view -:
M. T. Cicero September 8, 1788 Newspaper Article: Charleston State Gazette of South Carolina (excerpts)1 Whenever, therefore, the ... Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, ... 2 This paragraph is almost an exact quote of Josiah Quincy, Jr. from his Observations on the Boston Port Bill printed in 1774. Foreign ...
But Google Books only gives the snippet view. Looks at any rate as if the quotation is real, but "Cicero" was plagiarizing Quincy.
Posted by: yastreblyansky | Jun 28, 2015 11:48:45 PM
Ah yes, Josiah Quincy, Jr, John Adams' co-counsel defending the Red Coats:
Thanks for digging that up! And that elided part is crucial, since it really mirrors all the debates about MILITIA and its role in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections, with the biggest controversy being who would control such a force:
Posted by: NTodd | Jun 29, 2015 7:53:46 AM