"The Bill of Rights is not an a la carte menu from which you may pick and choose;"
Had the NRA not intentionally mucked up the program, SCOTUS may well have finally agreed to that right and proper statement.
A P or I incorporation would have undermined, check that, obliterated, the Doctrine of Selective Incorporation itself. That should have been the outcome in McDonald, and would have, imho, had the NRA just shut up.
However, it may still be in the batters circle because of Heller.
The most profound line from Heller, imho, is one of the shortest. "The Second is no different." This statement in the context of the First Amendment can only mean exactly what it says.
Inalienabl rights cannot be subject to the interest balancing approach because Scalia was right, enumerations are the product OF that approach. Neither can they be subject to the changing whims of the majority vote. The very purpose of their enumeration in the specific was to put an exclamation point on the boundary line that government cannot cross.
As for my favorite talking point debate, I like to ask this question.
Would you, or other Americans, accept, much less support, being required to pay and otherwise qualify for a permission slip so that you are allowed to go to church, speak, write or assemble? How about one that allows you not to do those things?
Most either run for the hills away from the debate or I get to quote that tiny line from Heller as the right hook that follows the straight left that was the question. I love it.
Sadly, often times I am asking his question to supposed warriors, the self appointed leaders, in the fight to regain the right to carry here in Illinois.
Thank you Mr. Patrick for your thoughtful response to yet another attack on freedom. I read your article carefully and, whilst we are on the same side, I noticed three points which I would like to bring to your attention. One point is so minor that I hesitate to bring it up publicly, but it is relevant to the dumbing-down (anti-free speech) of America in the 20th Century. The most important point first:
1. "Both items [books and guns] are given equal weight in the Bill of Rights." Please consider the phrase, "being necessary to the security of a free State," which are found only in the Second Amendment. It suggests to me that the whole concept of The United States of America depend upon this . 2. "[F]irearms are tools of ... Police who would protect you." I have read about court cases which decided the police have no duty to protect individual citizens. I apologize for not providing references. This point does seem to make the Second Amendment even more important to one's personal pursuit of happiness.
3. Lastly the minor point, to wit: "And the price paid was far to[o] high to let them go wantonly." I dimly remember the admonition, "Never begin a sentence with a conjunction." Since that time, long ago, I have observed this usage by authors. who I assumed, would have known better. But, (there, I did it!) the use of "to" to mean "too" is perhaps a spelling error that still should not be made. It was, I dimly remember, the same tutor who taught me this little gem, "Two cents is too little to give." Then she said, "Write the sentence, 'There are three [to's|too's|two's] in this sentence. One may say it, but it cannot be written.
2 comments:
"The Bill of Rights is not an a la carte menu from which you may pick and choose;"
Had the NRA not intentionally mucked up the program, SCOTUS may well have finally agreed to that right and proper statement.
A P or I incorporation would have undermined, check that, obliterated, the Doctrine of Selective Incorporation itself. That should have been the outcome in McDonald, and would have, imho, had the NRA just shut up.
However, it may still be in the batters circle because of Heller.
The most profound line from Heller, imho, is one of the shortest. "The Second is no different." This statement in the context of the First Amendment can only mean exactly what it says.
Inalienabl rights cannot be subject to the interest balancing approach because Scalia was right, enumerations are the product OF that approach. Neither can they be subject to the changing whims of the majority vote. The very purpose of their enumeration in the specific was to put an exclamation point on the boundary line that government cannot cross.
As for my favorite talking point debate, I like to ask this question.
Would you, or other Americans, accept, much less support, being required to pay and otherwise qualify for a permission slip so that you are allowed to go to church, speak, write or assemble? How about one that allows you not to do those things?
Most either run for the hills away from the debate or I get to quote that tiny line from Heller as the right hook that follows the straight left that was the question. I love it.
Sadly, often times I am asking his question to supposed warriors, the self appointed leaders, in the fight to regain the right to carry here in Illinois.
The Second Amendment is no different." Period.
Here is my comment to Mr. Patrick's article:
Thank you Mr. Patrick for your thoughtful response to yet another attack on freedom. I read your article carefully and, whilst we are on the same side, I noticed three points which I would like to bring to your attention. One point is so minor that I hesitate to bring it up publicly, but it is relevant to the dumbing-down (anti-free speech) of America in the 20th Century. The most important point first:
1. "Both items [books and guns] are given equal weight in the Bill of Rights." Please consider the phrase, "being necessary to the security of a free State," which are found only in the Second Amendment. It suggests to me that the whole concept of The United States of America depend upon this .
2. "[F]irearms are tools of ... Police who would protect you." I have read about court cases which decided the police have no duty to protect individual citizens. I apologize for not providing references. This point does seem to make the Second Amendment even more important to one's personal pursuit of happiness.
3. Lastly the minor point, to wit: "And the price paid was far to[o] high to let them go wantonly." I dimly remember the admonition, "Never begin a sentence with a conjunction." Since that time, long ago, I have observed this usage by authors. who I assumed, would have known better. But, (there, I did it!) the use of "to" to mean "too" is perhaps a spelling error that still should not be made. It was, I dimly remember, the same tutor who taught me this little gem, "Two cents is too little to give." Then she said, "Write the sentence, 'There are three [to's|too's|two's] in this sentence. One may say it, but it cannot be written.
Thank you again for you response to Mr. Mann.
Post a Comment