Justice Stevens op-ed: get rid of the Second Amendment
This is shocking (or rather, it should be): former SCOTUS Justice Stevens (who is now 97), has written a NY Times op-ed piece calling for the elimination of the Second Amendment. The reason he gives is this:
Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.
…But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.
Gotcha.
As Ann Althouse writes:
It would not be simple [although Stevens had said it would be simple] to get rid of the Second Amendment through the amendment process. It would be virtually impossible.
And the idea that you’d excise a right from the Constitution to “weaken” a lobbying group that “stymie[s] legislative debate” is repellant. Notice the motive of restricting speech. A group speaks too powerfully; we need to change the Constitution.
Stevens concludes:
That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform.
We should remove rights from the Constitution because it would be dramatic and because it would move marchers closer to their objective??
I am very sad to see Justice Stevens writing like that, but he’s made this proposal before [in a 2014 book].
You can feel Althouse’s outrage, which I share. But I am really not surprised. What is somewhat new is that the anti-Second-Amendment folks are becoming less shy about their true aims regarding the Constitution. But even that was foreshadowed in 2013, when the NY Times published an op-ed by Louis Michael Seidman, a con law professor at Georgetown, in which he basically said many of the Constitution’s provisions are “archaic, idiosyncratic, and downright evil” (I wrote about Seidman’s piece here).
Justice Stevens wrote the dissent in Heller, as Althouse points out. My guess is that he’s still smarting at the fact that it wasn’t the majority opinion, and he sees an opportunity now, looking at MSM coverage of the protests, to rally the troops for the big prize, Second Amendment repeal.
It is one of those ironic facts of life that Stevens (who retired in 2010) was one of a number of justices originally appointed by Republicans, and thought to be at least moderately conservative, who turned more liberal over time. He often served as the “swing” vote on the Court. First appointed to Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit by Richard Nixon and with a conservative record as a jurist, Stevens was then nominated by Gerald Ford to SCOTUS. But Stevens later said (2005) that “learning on the job” was important. In addition, “a 2003 statistical analysis of Supreme Court voting patterns found Stevens the most liberal member of the Court.”
That’s quite a change.
I have a theory about this conservative-to-liberal drift for judges and justices, and one day I plan to write a longer post about it. But for now I’ll just say that the main explanation I see is that people enjoy power, and when they get power they like to expand it if possible. A SCOTUS justice has a lot of power to determine the course of events; more power than most non-elected people in this country ever get. Liberal judges tend to be in favor of not limiting themselves to things such as the language of the Constitution. They are more likely than conservatives to see “penumbras” in the law and want to follow its supposed spirit rather than its letter, and to regard the Constitution as a living, changing document. Pleased with their own power, they see themselves as just the people to lead others who wish to change what those old, archaic, and downright evil framers put in place.
I would imagine it’s a temptation that’s hard to resist, even for justices who start out conservative.
“A well regulated Militia (trans: an armed populace ready to fight), being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
If they get what they want and manage to repeal the 2nd in its entirety and not re-write it according to their definition, they may as well remove all ten, as well as erasing the rest of the Constitution.
Counterpoint – from someone who agrees with Stevens about the Heller decision.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-27/second-amendment-repeal-suggested-by-justice-stevens-is-a-mistake
“It’s understandable that Justice John Paul Stevens would call for repeal of the Second Amendment, as he did Tuesday in an op-ed article in the New York Times, in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s misinterpretation of it to protect some gun sales. I have great respect for Justice Stevens, and what’s more I agree with him that the Heller case was wrongly decided by the court in 2008. But it would actually be a terrible idea to attempt a repeal of the Second Amendment just because the Supreme Court got it wrong. Experience shows that the Constitution is weakened if we respond to bad Supreme Court precedent by trying to amend it right away.
… [omit examples, include Roe v. Wade]
But amending the Constitution just because the Supreme Court may have taken its interpretation too far would undercut the very idea that the justices have the authority to interpret the Constitution to apply and expand basic rights. Live by the judicial interpretation, die by the judicial interpretation.
If you believe that the Supreme Court has the legitimate authority to find the constitutional rights to abortion, gay marriage and freedom to burn the flag, then you had better acknowledge that the court also has the legitimacy to expand the Second Amendment — even if you disagree with that judgment.
To be sure, it’s logically possible to think that the justices have the authority to decide the Heller case, which overturned restrictions on handguns in the District of Columbia, but that their judgement should be overturned by an amendment. But logic alone misses the reality that calling for the amendment of the Constitution in response to judicial overreach weakens judicial legitimacy itself. The point may be subtle, but it is important nonetheless. The legitimacy of judicial interpretation of the Constitution is a delicate thing. It rests in part on broad social acceptance of the wisdom of the system. That acceptance should be able to survive unpopular decisions that anger the left as well as the right.”
I think Ford said Stevens was his biggest mistake.
My memory fails me, but haven’t at least a couple high level Dems recently advocated for an Australian style gun confiscation? Was Hillary one? And now this from Stevens.
Can we now dispense with the argument on the left, that NO ONE wants to take your firearms. We just want common sense gun safety legislation. Ha!
Our creator has bestowed our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The first one is meaningless without the means for self-defense.
I don’t understand why you see this as “shocking”. If a person has come to believe in gun control, that the 2nd Amendment is archaic and a mistake, then calling for its repeal is the correct thing to do. No different than all the other amendments that have passed or failed to pass.
It’s certainly a lot better than leaving the 2nd Amendment as is, paying lip service to it, and then undercutting and restricting it via judicial decisions.
I hope we see more of this kind of thing on lots of issues. Voters need to really see what the left wants to do.
I don’t know anyone who actually believes the leftist when they say they only want common sense gun laws. Or no one want’s to take your guns away. They want them all. Not just the AR’s but all of them.
But their logic is flawed. They think if they just get rid of guns everyone will be safe. But they won’t be any safer.
Once again the truism that, “there’s no fool like an old fool” is demonstrated.
RohanV,
I agree that if someone believes in those positions that calling for the 2nd’s repeal is the correct thing to do, as long as they have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that position also removes all support for the assertion that we have ANY “unalienable rights”…
As an ‘inalienable right to life’ is meaningless sophistry without an effective means of self defense.
John,
Useful idiot liberals think that if they just get rid of all the guns they’ll be safer.
Leftists know that if they get guns out of the law abiding public’s hands, a necessary precondition to achieving power and tyranny has been met.
“to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.” George Mason, Constitution Convention Delegate from Virginia
Repealing the Second Amendment, and any other Amendment to the Constitution, is quite simple, from a process perspective; there are very few steps. However, repealing an Amendment to the Constitution is quite difficult, from a political perspective. Therein lies the beauty of what the Founders wrought.
Stevens, like oh so many of the Left, knows precisely what is best for you and me, and he is determined to make us have it.
RohanV:
First of all, I said that it should be shocking, not that it is.
I’ll give it a brief answer to your question; just the tip of the iceberg, really.
You write:
“If a person has come to believe in gun control, that the 2nd Amendment is archaic and a mistake, then calling for its repeal is the correct thing to do.”
But those things don’t follow logically from each other; at least not the first two propositions, and it’s the transition from first to second that should be shocking, not the transition from second to third. The transition from believing in gun control to believing the 2nd Amendment is archaic and a mistake is not an obvious or logical progression at all. For example, many people on the right (me included) believe in some gun control but nevertheless believe the Second Amendment is basic to our liberty.
Not only is there no obvious or logical progressions from idea 1 to idea 2 (it’s like saying that if a person believes in drinking moderately that person believes in Prohibition), but the idea that the 2nd Amendment is a mistake does not need to rest on on idea that it is archaic. And yes, if a person thinks it’s archaic and a mistake (or just a mistake without being archaic), then repeal would be a normal and obvious thing to propose.
However, the Bill of Rights—and the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rightsi—is considered a very basic foundation of and safeguard for our liberties. There has never been a serious effort to repeal any of them, and with good reason. Of course there are people who believe that any or all of them can be jettisoned and should be jettisoned. Most of those people are not former SCOTUS justices. That’s another thing about this that should be shocking—the fact that it is a former SCOTUS justice suggesting it.
Still another “should be shocking” thing about it is that this guy, long ago, was regarded as conservative. Plenty of conservatives are for some form of gun control. But to be against the 2nd Amendment and to argue for its repeal is a very un-conservative position.
The argument about this proposal being shocking is not about method: undermine it through judicial decisions or through outright repeal. It’s about this proposal itself, and who is issuing it.
Of course the left wants to disarm the peasants. DUH! What 90% of their useful idiots do not realize is how swiftly they will become peasants once the totalitarian state is achieved. They also fail to realize 3/4 of state legislatures will never agree to repeal the 2nd. Some character running for county sheriff in NC has stated he has no problem with killing anyone who will not surrender their firearms. And, I am supposed to have blood on my hands because I am a member of the NRA. I hope these people, especially the Hogg boy, keep flapping their gums.
However, there is one amendment I strongly support: limit all appointed to the federal judiciary to one 10 year term on the bench.
Not to sound ageist but this guy is 97 years old. Are we certain this is his actual writing and that his mental state is intact enough? I know he said something similar a few years ago but still could this just be a continue of his thinking by someone writing in his name. Would he have wrote this in 2011? Maybe he’s as sharp as a tack but I have a little experience with the extremely elderly and not many at that age are close to their mental peaks.
Ah, the penumbra, the twilight fringe, a faith, religion, and tradition that is full of wicked solutions, fantasies, colors, congruences, and ulterior motives.
The mass abortionist in Florida was a well known risk and should never have passed the background check; but, once he did, his Choice to deem life unworthy should have been confronted and denied by would-be victims and authorities on the scene. Never again, and again, and again.
Unless they address the “fast and furious”, Planned Parent, lunatic fringe, prosecutorial discretion, self-abortion, and criminal (i.e. selective, opportunistic, congruent, Pro-Choice) loopholes, then it’s not about the children or even minimizing risk. So, what is their motive?
I know it is almost trite to say it–even if it is true–but the idea that only the government and criminals will have guns is rather chilling.
Anyone who believes that gun confiscation would take guns out of the hands of the criminal class, also would believe in the tooth fairy or unicorns.
On the other hand, I recently read of the number of armed government agents in the United States. It was cited that there are more armed federal officers that there are Marines. Their number include “special agents” of the IRS. If that doesn’t appall you, I don’t know what would.
I grew up in the ’40s/’50s when gun ownership was common among teen age boys in small towns and on the fringes of cities. My brother, my friends, and I went hunting on our own from the time we could drive. I won’t say we weren’t a danger, but only to ourselves. I never once heard of a kid massacring school mates. Guns haven’t changed; but, the culture has. The so-called entertainment industry glorifies violence, for profit, at a level that surely desensitizes people who may already have a diminished hold on reality. The Left chooses to ignore this toxicity.
I know I am preaching to the choir to a degree. But, I think law-abiding gun owners need to push back hard when the Left resorts to simplification of the issue, by demonizing inanimate objects, rather than focusing on why people use them lethally. Obviously, citing the second amendment as justification for gun ownership is not enough; because the Left has no respect for the Constitution.
There are many legitimate reasons to own a gun; among them are the innate right to self preservation. A long time ago, my most gentle grandmother kept a pistol beside her bed, and was prepared to use it, because grandfather was a rail road engineer. She was often alone with her children and, she knew, as most folks then did, that the police response would likely not be timely in moments of crisis. Now we are falsely led to believe that it will be–despite ample recent evidence to the contrary. I have two guns in the house, even though I don’t expect to ever fire either. I simply believe that I am as entitled to defend myself and my home as much as the officials and glitterati wtih their paid armed protection.
“to disarm the people — that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.”
–George Mason, Constitution Convention Delegate from Virginia
Geoffrey Britain: I haven’t deeply explored 2A issues, but I did run across the Mason quote when I drilled into the question of what the founders meant by a “well regulated militia.”
I found Stephens confusing (or confused) when he leapt from the ability of lawmakers to enact gun control legislation (e.g. the prohibition of sawed-off shotguns) to his disagreement in Heller that “that there [is] an individual right to bear arms.”
A standard anti-gun argument is that 2A does not apply to ordinary citizens owning guns and never did, at least until the Heller decision made that explicit.
The standard pro-gun response is that the founders did intend to protect the right of individuals to own guns, as Mason said.
I figured if Hillary had won, she would put in a liberal judge to replace Scalia, then find a way to overturn Heller and interpret “well regulated militia” in the most narrow terms. Which would effectively repeal the Second Amendment for individuals.
However, I am not a lawyer nor a person well-versed in these matters.
“A standard anti-gun argument is that 2A does not apply to ordinary citizens owning guns and never did, at least until the Heller decision made that explicit.”
Those making that argument have to explain the events of April 19, 1775 as something other than a revolt against the Crown for attempting to take away the Americans’ guns so that the edicts of the King and his ministers would be obeyed unquestioningly regardless of the Americans’ arguments and wishes. The Second Amendment refers directly to those events.
As has also been pointed out, even if it were repealed, the right would still exist since it’s inherent and not granted by some political body.
One cannot honestly examine the founders comments on arms and fail to conclude that they fully supported the individual’s right to bear arms.
The Heller decision was not needed to establish clarity on the issue, it was needed as a bulwark against deceit.
It is the Left’s embrace of deceit wherein they move from error to lawlessness. They have become an enemy of reality’s truth.
To Huxley and Paul in Boston’s point about the meaning of “the militia.” I haven’t looked up the following for its veracity, but just copied from elsewhere. Supposed the current US code has a definition for the US Militia.
Section 311 of the US code 10
“(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32 , under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; ?and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.”
_____
So any man aged 17 to 45 who is not avoiding citizenship or any woman serving in the Nat. Guard is “the militia.”
Note the 2A refers to “a well regulated militia” which I presume to mean that it is OK to deny firearms to convicted criminals.
Because I was conceived and 9 months later born to breathe the atmosphere, I have a right to life. I inherently have a right to the tools to defend my right to continue to breathe the atmosphere. Sticks, stones, spears, bows and arrows, swords or blades of any king, later firearms, it is my natural born right, not granted by government, to possess arms.
Only idiots trust governments.
Tommy Jay,
Read the Federalist Papers. Your confusion might be cured.
Al McGuire won a national championship at Marquette. He said doctors bury their mistakes while a coach’s mistake rides the bench for four years.
Jerry Ford’s mistake is still with us and running his mouth.
A few hours ago I wrote a rather long bit here about why our family has guns, I reread it and it was to much of an explanation, etc. Long story short, we are Americans, a unique nation with hundreds of years of private gun ownership by responsible INDIVIDUALS we who own guns will continue to own our guns. That’s it.
Oldflyer: “Guns haven’t changed; but, the culture has. The so-called entertainment industry glorifies violence, for profit, at a level that surely desensitizes people who may already have a diminished hold on reality. The Left chooses to ignore this toxicity.”
True dat. I had no knowledge of the new video games until a couple of months ago when I sold a used TV to a gamer. He wanted to test it out with his gaming equipment before deciding to purchase. I was shocked by what I saw. Non-stop murder. A shooting gallery with humans as targets. All very realistic – the CGIs are amazing. I was gobsmacked. I had no idea this was what young people were spending their idle hours doing. Harmless fun for the well balanced? Probably. Too suggestive for the mentally unstable? Very probable. I think it would have a desensitizing effect on anyone who spent hours at such a morbid activity. Like the use of alcohol, some people will be affected quite differently than others, but I see no social value whatsoever in these gruesome games.
J. Paul Stevens was encouraged and exhilarated by the anti-gun rallies over the weekend. I took note of them as well. They made my pulse quicken, but it was not with approval. The demands of the progressives are out in the open. The GOP better get ready to vote in vast numbers in November
To Parker,
I don’t think I’m confused, and I don’t know how old that US code is, but I’m sure it’s much newer than the Federalist papers and the Constitution.
So I’d say that the 2A wording is inferring a generalized meaning to the word militia (where men older than 45 can still bear arms), whereas the US code is intended to create a precise actionable definition. My reason for citing it, is that it is still a pretty expansive definition and precludes such nonsense as saying it is just another word for a National Guard.
The left owns the media complex, as it were, so without rewriting the constitution they could just quit making movies and video games featuring guns– and objectifying women, for that matter. Since they feel so strongly.
The founders couldn’t have anticipated movie and video game technology, but look it, they are covered by 1st amendment free speech protection anyway.
(Can I just say, those kids with the straight arm salutes are freaking me out.)
there is also the issue of social approval. Us boring middle class people don’t run upper middle class DC society.
It’s, Stevens’ essay, behind the paywall, so I can’t read it to know for sure what he has in mind in regards to “get rid of the 2nd Amendment, but knowing Stevens, I will assume this part that Neo writes……
….perhaps gives Stevens too much credit for adhering to constitutional processes. I imagine what Stevens has in mind is more a process of ignoring the 2nd Amendment altogether through political pressure. In other words, Stevens isn’t asking the gun-control crowd to pressure politicians- he is asking them to pressure federal judges.
Yancey Ward: I am often able to go behind paywalls by using a private/VPN/Incognito window (name depends on browser):
https://www.howtogeek.com/269265/how-to-enable-private-browsing-on-any-web-browser/
This trick worked for the Stevens’ op-ed. Stevens is indeed calling for a “simple” “repeal of the Second Amendment.”
It is simple in the sense it takes five words to say it; however, Stevens makes no attempt to deal with the practical issues involved.
Charles Cooke wrote a great I double-dog-dare you to try and repeal editorial in “National Review”:
“An Open Rant Aimed at Those Who Would Repeal the Second Amendment”
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/08/rant-second-amendment-repeal/
Sure, there is no historical precedent in America for the mass confiscation of a commonly owned item – let alone one that was until recently constitutionally protected. Sure, it’s slightly odd that you think that we can’t deport 11 million people but we can search 123 million homes. But that’s just the price we have to pay. Times have changed. It has to be done: For the children; for America; for the future. Hey hey, ho ho, the Second Amendment has to go. Let’s do this thing.
Hmm…for a Brit, Charles Cooke sure knows a lot about the Second Amendment. Here’s a meaty take-down of the current claim that the Second Amendment is a collective right, not one for individuals:
“No, Salon, the U.S. Was Not ‘Founded on Gun Control’”
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/12/salons-second-amendment-911-truthers-screed-misses-mark/
Wiki summarizes Stevens’ dissent to Heller:
The Stevens dissent seems to rest on four main points of disagreement: that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the “militia” preamble and exact phrase “to keep and bear arms” demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only; that many lower courts’ later “collective-right” reading of the Miller decision constitutes stare decisis, which may only be overturned at great peril; and that the Court has not considered gun-control laws (e.g., the National Firearms Act) unconstitutional. The dissent concludes, “The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons…. I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
““No, Salon, the U.S. Was Not ‘Founded on Gun Control’”
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/12/salons-second-amendment-911-truthers-screed-misses-mark/”
Wow – Asner is either a moron (don’t think so) or a deliberate liar.
He should (publicly) examine the meaning and events of April 19, 1775 if he wants to explore what the U.S. was founded on.
OriginalFrank:
Asner could be a deliberately lying moron.
Asner could be a deliberately lying moron.
Yeah, I think some people are lying — like all this “Hate speech is not free speech.” Some people know better but say it anyway to keep the drumbeat going.
Besides in their heart of hearts they know what’s best and they certainly know better than the archaic Constitution.
I’m glad Democrats have taken down their moderate colors and now openly, proudly fly under the Jolly Roger of socialism and authoritarianism. They want our rights. They want our money.
Act accordingly.
Carter’s outburst (as to justice stevens) now leaves the hapless Democrat Party with the current roster of prominent spokesmen:
Nation of Islam bigot Louis Farrakhan;
93 year-old ex-President Jimmy Carter;
18 year-old high school demagogue David Hogg;
78 year-old budding pugilist Joe Biden;
Fake Indian Senator Elizabeth Warren;
Communist Senator Bernie Sanders.
[and they left out the ex cp member thats been saying other things. not that the name matters… oh, and lets just leave out the multigenerationals.. you know, the people who are very wealthy and their grandchildrens children are still in the fight? (they are the one who would lead post change having four or more generations involved and financed)]
neo-neocon
finally i can shorten something..
Anachronism is not a turning point of proof of anything…
there are old things that are great (bowls, stools)
there are old things that are horrid (human sacrifice)
but other than being a young moron who wants their luck to define their current selves as great, ignoring their changing condition into marginalization of their own, created now for their future, young, old, etc. were never arguments for or against, just conditions to consider
That is worth pointing out because one of the primary angles of attack by the anti-RKBA crew prior to Heller, was that the Dick Act had federalized the militia, and thus taken the state militias under its wing, effectively rendering any individual right to keep and bear arms supposedly “predicated upon” (itself a suspect contention) a well regulated militia, altogether moot.
I spent more time that I’d ever wish to admit arguing these issues. And I can tell you that the anti-RKBA crowd used everything from Hobbsean ‘Civic Republicanism’ claims that we grant the state an absolute and unconditional monopoly on violence by living in society; to endless grammatical discussions of the meaning of the words “militia” and “well regulated” ; to the notion that the Militia was the organized militia, and that “to keep” meant in state controlled arsenals, and that the Dick Act had made even that kind of “keeping” irrelevant.
So shut up like a good little peasant, and do as we say.
Note the 2A refers to “a well regulated militia” which I presume to mean that it is OK to deny firearms to convicted criminals.
depends on the crime.. in the past, killing the enemy, might be overlooked… ie. slave kills slaveholder to get away, north looks the other way on that one… south, not so much. [bad example in the time i have, but given more i could do better]
parker Says: March 27th, 2018 at 10:01 pm: Because I was conceived and 9 months later born to breathe the atmosphere, I have a right to life.
WRONG…
and no, i dont agree, but you see, the battle for what your talking about was fought, won, and put to bed decades ago, and is ignored today and a big part of the schizms confusion
It is NOT because you concieved and made it to term that your a person
its because the power of womanhood grants personhood and your mom gave that to you – dad had nothing to do with it by the way
the thing you bring up was overturned a long time ago, and since you dont know these rooks garding pawns bs i keep bringing up, you have no idea on what crux these arguments turn on..
you think your arguing a “plain truth” – something “self evident”
but your here for the big important battle
but you guys been absent at the little ones that i said were the important ones
as they come before, set precident and more for decades before they reach the point of your argument which was done in 30 years ago, before you ever even thought it.
its the whole point of selective inforcement… (a unconstitutional item in itself)
by doing that, you get the power to create laws that cant be opposed until you enforce them… but you wont do that until some event that allows hundreds of them to be in power in one day, and no way to do any kind of habeus corpus or friend of the court brief.
for isntance (a silly example characature to show you the principal in action)
a law or several that disband the supreme court are created
they of course cant go to the supreme court, becasue they are not enforced
how so? no one is harmed by a law that is not inforced and only the litigant harmed can bring case to the court.
now, when the emergency happens that puts the EO points in place that enables the specail powers, that then disbands the supreme court.
how long will the supreme court have to remain to sit judgement after its not there?
dont think so?
well i have told this story for over a decade without traction
but the penumbra of the abortion point turned on personhood for feminists just as the new sex laws turn on abandoning the concept of reasonable person (to victim which is why you can imagine a slight and its real for you so they are guilty) and the uplifting of parens patria till no child belongs to any parent any more, they are property of the state that the parents mind for the state… but hey, that was the 1980s and even today you cant say anything against them… or else!
Artfldgr Says: July 1st, 2010 at 9:47 pm
September 2nd, 2008
Three ancient tales of unwed pregnancies
submandave Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:36 am
you guys missed out on these things..
you let the queen take up position to guard rooks and pawns and knights
and have them protect the queen
but as i said. in chess. you move these tiny nothings in plae FIRST
when people dont get why. a plan hidden in front of you!!!
even more complicated in Go or wei wu…
so, this is how they change whats in front of you
by avoiding the trigger, and changing everuthign around it
and suddenly, rip van winkle wakes up WAY TOO LATE
its fun when you study their METHODOLOGY not the effects of it
Personhood In The Womb: A Constitutional Question
https://www.npr.org/2013/11/21/246534132/personhood-in-the-womb-a-constitutional-question
they know this and even seek to change WHEN personhood happens since they also missed out on that debate that solidified roe v wade..
and the lefts argument is that if you take the granting of personhood away from mom as a power she has (and negates dads power, the infants power, etc.. and embues in her the ability to destroy her own civilization and import other peopel under the whims of outside influences).. then the whole eugneics program the russians stopped to save themselves gets halted here.. which wont do if you dont want the USA any more, and you want some world government… without any choice or defender of any alternative positions.
whats to care about?
careing late is double plus ungood unhelpful
they have moved on beyond that so far and msot have no idea about any of these key points… unless you go to harvard and read the papers i do and send to neo and others… there they lay out things as if the public will never hear them… you know, like exterminating the dominant culture, etc.
by the way, if you try to hold a conversation and its obvious you dont know these things, they wont listen to you cause you a rube idiot!!!
so thats how come your points have no traction
they sit there hearing you spout what was disproved
so, you sound like a flat earther.
funny…
but mechanics isnt as much fun as what? emotive wandering?
Six Israeli citizens have reportedly been fined in Moscow for lighting a menorah on the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah in December 2017. Police deemed the candle-lighting inside an office “illegal missionary work,” the Sova Center think tank – which monitors racism, nationalism and xenophobia – reported on Tuesday. “Thanks to the support of lawyers, they managed to avoid deportation from Russia and get off with just a fine,” Sova Center wrote…
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
nothing has changed but labeled perceptions.
I was going to make a relevant and profound comment but after the artfldgr bloviation no one will read it. People decry the hecklers’ veto but what about the bloviation veto? That stifles discussion just as effectively as heckling.
skeptic: Pray, sir, proceed anyway.
I appreciate your comments.
I always suspected that my old town board used extreme bloviation as a crowd control device.
Folks would sometimes come to a meeting, fixing for a fight, as happens in towns, and the board would go on and on and on and on in a low, monotonous drone.. and soon the agitated townfolk’s eyes would roll up in their heads and they’d fall fast asleep. And the town lived happily ever after.
The census is essential to our political process because it provides a population count of citizens and noncitizens that drives apportionment of U.S. House seats
so, unlike slaves, illegal aliens count full individuals?
can the north count their pets AND tractors now?
Well, getting back on topic, Justice Stevens did not address the essential right for aborting in the 2nd Amendment due to technical issues, or something.
Why is this Stephens matter posted here?
It is a NYT op-ed, which leads me to suspect it was written by a Timesian to which a 97 year-old geezer and dotard lent his name.
We also get pronunciamentos from another old and error-laden geezer, with brain metastases of all things, the last being that Bolton is Trump’s worst appointment ever. This from a man who was our absolute worst 20th century president, the Carter of peanuts, whom a swimming rabbit frightened.
And a 3rd geezer, McCain, remains a senator despite a malignant and always fatal brain tumor infiltrating that part of his brain which has to do with reason and judgment. He is pontificating less these days, which likely indicates tumor progression.
TommyJay brings up an interesting point: under 10 USC 311, and the history of the Militia Acts going back to 1792, I think it is clear that Congress, under Article I, Section 8, Para. 16 of the Constitution, could require all able-bodied men between the ages of 17 and 45 and all female members of the National Guard to possess a military-grade weapon and ammunition, and the report for enrollment, training, and service in the militia.
Now that would explode Justice Stephens and David Hogg’s heads, wouldn’t it? That would be a sight to see! And all able-bodied women would be required to serve as well — hah!
This isn’t new from the left. They need YOUR kids so they can indoctrinate them. They don’t trust the family unless it runs counter to the nuclear family. They need YOUR money to foot the bill “for the greater good.” They need YOUR guns to feel safe. After all you YOURSELF are archaic and hence their tone towards you. You need to phased out, but the honest ones will say they can’t wait till you die.
The left loves to satisfy their gluttony as they eat vegan food. It’s just that they satisfy it in a different way than, say, you and I satisfy our gluttony. We may eat and then work out. The left destroys and then moves on to their next target, like a girl who introduces her new significant other as her “current boyfriend”. How long will it last? Who knows. It’s like a bad tv series that keeps on getting renewed. And you’re tied to the chair.
One big change, seemingly overnight, has been the normalization of homosexuality, and then same-sex marriage With that in mind, it’s not much of a stretch to think that the Left could one day soon be successful in overturning the Second Amendment.
How could the Left do that? Perhaps by increasing the number of people in the country who do not have long-standing ties to this nation, and with having a population increasingly concentrated in urban areas, places where there is less need for any sort of gun, and where there is no space for recreational shooting.
Thus, with time and numbers, a characteristic that has made the USA unique among most developed nations (private gun ownership) could be regulated out of existence.
Harry:
I was changing from regular to HD service, and also hooking up a new set, and there was a glitch in the whole thing and I had no service for a while.
Yankee:
I agree that these days opinions change with lightning speed. I can well imagine opinions on the 2nd Amendment changing, particularly with younger people. A more urban population, kids that go to school learning nothing about how dangerous it can be to disarm a citizenry and some of the historical precedents for it, and people could turn against the 2nd Amendment.
Or, just have another president like Obama and change the makeup of the Court, and it’s done that way rather than through an amendment. I think this is the more likely threat to the 2nd.
Re lightning change, Ireland has been an overwhelmingly Catholic country since St. Patrick. But now there’s a coming referendum for abortion on demand, on May 25.
The complete Irish ban or abortion was modified only 5 years ago to allow abortion “if the mother’s life is in danger” (a leftist doc’s signature will suffice). In fact, mother’s life is never in sufficient danger during pregnancy to medically objectively justify abortion. Mothers have successfully delayed chemotherapy for lymphoma (rare at that age) until an early delivery, with mom and baby both fine.
The assertion of maternal survival danger in pregnancy is a huge lie.
The unborn child is at greater and greater danger.
You can’t make this stuff up – headline says it all, but go look at the picture anyway.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/03/robert-farago/anti-nra-protestor-wearing-molon-labe-sweatshirt-what-else-do-you-need-to-know/
Artfldgr Says:
March 28th, 2018 at 12:26 pm
Six Israeli citizens have reportedly been fined in Moscow for lighting a menorah on the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah in December 2017.
* * *
Why in the world did they want to AVOID deportation ?!?
I would get out of Russia as fast as I could.
Artfldgr Says:
March 28th, 2018 at 11:31 am
Carter’s outburst (as to justice stevens) now leaves the hapless Democrat Party with the current roster of prominent spokesmen:
* * *
ROFL
huxley Says:
March 28th, 2018 at 6:21 am
Charles Cooke wrote a great I double-dog-dare you to try and repeal editorial in “National Review”:
“An Open Rant Aimed at Those Who Would Repeal the Second Amendment”
https://www.nation
* * *
Looking at the list of Cooke’s “action items” for repealing the Second Amendment, it appears that the Left used his article as a how-to manual.
We really shouldn’t be giving them ideas.
Of course, they want the 2A repealed. But lots of leftists are denouncing the former SC justice for saying it.
Somebody should be arguing against this civil war (as being a deluded delusion by certain crackpots in the world) instead of jumping on the band wagon at this late day.
Why in the world did they want to AVOID deportation ?!?
I would get out of Russia as fast as I could.
The Russian Orthodox, the state religion, is going the same way as the Vatican did against Albigensia and other Christians they called heretics.
Not sure what’s going to happen now given the prophecies.
Curiously, Putin and the Russians are also now going around the world collecting ancient artifacts and sealing down ancient ruins such as in Latin America. Very similar to German Ahnerbe and how the Vatican likes to building on other people’s holy sites (Mount Gram).
Another reason I didn’t jump on the Alt Right pro Russia band wagon centered around anti Americanism.
I wonder if Justice Stevens might be throwing out a red herring here.
Given his background, it’s reasonable to assume that he knows exactly how difficult it is to repeal an amendment, especially one of the original ten.
Granted, amendments have been repealed in the past – the repeal of prohibition is an obvious example – and the Bill of Rights has been interpreted in different ways at different times in history.
But NOT repealed.
Therefore, it’s reasonable to assume that he knows that his advice will be almost impossible to implement. He’s recommending, or at least apparently recommending, something which no one has actually ever managed to do.
richf:
Which is precisely why I wondered if the Stephens piece had not been ghost-written by/for someone at the NYTimes who could get the old geezer’s signature, or authorization for use of his name.
We assume too much honesty. From our enemy? Are we nuts? We must grasp the fact the Left is and pretty much always has been laced with evil, and means us harm, eternal harm if possible.