|
 |
||
|
Latest Stories
Recent blog posts
|
March 18, 2008 - 3:41pm.
The is without a doubt one of the more inflammatory issues presently on the Court's docket, and within society as we know it today. Reading several articles on this subject today has brought me out of my quiet period of "lurking", and once again into expressing an opinion. While I acknowledge that there are so many more complex and vitally pressing issues out there, I think this one is one that is going to carry an enormous "ripple effect" on all of the others for the rest of this country's history from this point on. What this decision will represent is the very nature of existence, a future philosophy, and official the facade of the nation to the world at large from this point forward. Simply put: Are we a free Republic, or a dictatorship in which the citizenry are viewed as little better than tax paying cattle that will "do as they're told" because there is no choice, or means, to remove such a government from power. The present candidates for both of the major parties, are either being deliberately vague on this issue, or are stunningly clear in their wish to deprive the citizens of this country their Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Both extremes cause their own type of concern. Before commenting folks, I ask that you give the 2nd a real and honest read. Please, try and refrain from the facetious "living, changing document" argument. This IS the supreme definition for the law of the land, and as such can (and has been) changed by act of congress. Even that procedure is clearly mapped out. So PLEASE let's keep it sane, polite, and above all real, so as to further intelligent debate. Thanks in advance. My own thoughts on the matter are as follows: While part of me looks at the present structure of personalities currently on the bench, and by extension their "version" of what the job of the court is...I find my opinion almost evenly split. Part of me says that the Bush administration by way of it's appointees to the bench, will prevail in their view that as citizens we have the right to defend ourselves from harm , which includes the lawful right to have/carry firearms. However, there is the part of me that does not trust government to ever do what is right, and respect our rights. Certainly the present administration has proven that point repeatedly. This distrust is also extended to the U.S. Supreme Court. The arrogance and defiance expressed by the court, and willingness to autocratically legislate from the bench repeatedly, (both historically, and currently)... has me worried. I for one will be very curious about the outcome of this one. The power to "reposition" this country on either the path of a free republic, or a dictatorship, now lies in the in the hands of a frighteningly small number of people that for all intents and purposes are untouchable no matter what the outcome...an equally scary prospect in my mind. What say you folks? M. Terry.  Technorati Tags:
Capitol Hill Blue's columnists, blogs and reader comments Capitol Hill Blue is an independent, non-partisan news site that belongs to no political party and subscribes to no political or philosophical point-of-view. Our columnists are welcome to their opinions but readers should understand that their views do not necessarily reflect the editorial policies of this web site. We also welcome comments to selected opinion columns and in our popular ReaderRant discussion forum. Please remember, however, that we believe in civility on this web site and comments may be reviewed, moderated or removed if we feel they contain obscenities, racism, bigotry, anti-Semitic remarks or attack other posters. Our goal is reasoned discussion on issues facing this nation and we do not feel that goal is served by personal attacks and by seeing how many cute adjectives you can attach to an elected official or politician's name. Copyright © 2008 Capitol Hill Blue
|
User login
 |
For starters, the Congress
Submitted by Ted Remington on March 18, 2008 - 9:55pm.For starters, the Congress can NOT change the Constitution. True, it is part of the process, but not by itself.
You stated elsewhere:
Are we a free Republic, or a dictatorship in which the citizenry are viewed as little better than tax paying cattle that will "do as they're told" because there is no choice, or means, to remove such a government from power.(sic)
I will reiterate for the whateverteenth time:
Until such time as someone takes away the will of the people, as expressed in the ballot box, we ARE the Government. The preamble to the Constitution states:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
A statement such as yours reflects this us-versus-"them" approach to the political process, an approach that is flawed in and of itself because it neglects the first three words of the Preamble. Such an attitude is inflammatory since it invites people to take a position which would support a violent overthrow of our Government.
Every two years we elect an entire House of Representatives; every four years a President, and every six years a new Senate. This is, to me, ample opportunity for the voice of the people to be heard.
We have pretty universal suffrage in this country, and the electorate is empowered to make sweeping changes, not only in the people who run the Government but also in the fabric of the Government, since there exists a populist method for changing the Constitution.
How one can view this as a dictatorship is beyond me; if anything, it is the dictatorship of the majority over the minority, but we have to draw the line somewhere.
As to the Second Amendment, this is an extremely complex issue, and I will not be surprised, nor should anyone else, when the Supreme Court passes on its opportunity to try to sort it out.
Somewhere I have a draft of a change to the Second Amendment that I worked on a few years ago; it's too late at night to look for it. Basically, what it says is:
1. Each state shall determine the right of its citizenry to bear arms.
2. Congress may not infringe upon that right, but may establish legislation to prevent movement of weapons into a state which has opted to get rid of weapons.
3. Congress may regulate the sale of ammunition, which is not mentioned in the Second Amendment, at least in interstate transportation.
4. The proposed amendment would require ratification by three-fourths of the state in the form of a state-wide referendum; the State legislatures would be powerless to act on the amendment; and the proposed amendment would fail if not passed within 7 years from the date of submission to the States.
Ted
Every two years we elect an
Submitted by Caine on March 19, 2008 - 10:45am.Did you ever think that we still have this right to vote partly because the second amendment remains intact? What scares me is, that once the second amendment is repealed/altered, which I believe it will be in the very near future, we will no longer have the ability to change our elected officials. Then what course of action will we have to change our country?
OTW, the second amendment enforces our right to vote out those we don't like in office.