Tag Archives: supremecourt

Weapons of War

The fourth US Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of the Massachusetts ban on so-called assault weapons. The ban is a reactionary piece of legislation designed to make people feel good about doing something in the wake of the horrific December 2012 Sandy Hook Newtown shooting. The language of the ordinance makes broad definitions of what constitutes an “assault weapon,” which has been the bone of contention between gun control proponents and second amendment supporters ever since the incident. Also included in the ordinance is limits magazine capacity.

The court, in ruling in favor of the ban, stated in the opinion that “weapons of war” are not covered by the Second Amendment. This is a gross error of thinking by a panel of liberal judges who clearly do not understand the history of the amendment nor its language.

The second amendment was created by congress to protect Americans’ right to arm themselves in the event of war. This war could come from foreign forces, or from the organized military of a tyrannical regime. The language says this in the first phrase: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” This phrase says militia. It doesn’t say Army, or even organized military. It does not call for the creation of a standing Army. It was written in such a way to state that Americans could unite into militias to defend themselves, and as such need access to arms. This presupposes that the militia would need “weapons of war.”

The Second Amendment was not written to provide Americans the right to have flint-locks, or shotguns, or even bolt-action rifles for use in hunting or even self defense. It was written so that citizens could rise up to defend themselves from the enemy in a time of war, whether that war was a world war or a civil one. This is a fundamental American right. This right is one of the things that separate America from the rest of the world, and make us the envy of other nations.

The single most popular weapon in America.

The single most popular weapon in America.

Gun control advocates claim that putting “common sense” limitations in place is reasonable. The amendment has a word that addresses this thought: infringed. To infringe is “to act so as to limit or undermine.” The language of the amendment says specifically the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED (emphasis mine), meaning shall not be limited. Our rights to possess “weapons of war” cannot be limited. To enact limitations is to violate the Second Amendment. It is plain and simple.

Do people abuse their rights? Of course they do. Do we throw out our rights because of those who abuse them? No, we don’t. In fact, we double down on defending them.

The fourth circuit is wrong in this decision. This is the result of seeding the bench with too many activist liberal judges. This case needs to move on to the Supreme Court AFTER Trump’s pick to replace justice Scalia is sworn in, so it can be reversed and our rights remain protected.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Society

Matters of Corporate Faith

The Supreme Court, in a rare and splendid example of getting it right, affirmed a principle that most people—especially liberals—overlooked in its recent decision concerning Hobby Lobby. Justice Alito even called it out in his majority opinion: corporations are people; groups of individuals. The problem with liberals is that they do not want to recognize the individual. Liberals have long tried to marginalize the accomplishments of the individual in favor of the group. This has led to the complete bastardization of youth sports where teams no longer keep score and everyone gets to play no matter the level of their athletic ability. It also leads to open enrollment where individual academic achievement is no longer a determining factor in college admissions. Liberals want a utopia wherein every citizen gets a shot at every benefit regardless of skill, talent or initiative.court-PQBG

This stems from a skewed interpretation of the old mantra “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.” This derives from the basic democratic principle of majority rules. Liberals extend this idea into the absurd by saying that individual liberties are extraneous when considering the overall good as they see it. While there exists some applications wherein the idea has merit, overall the concept is a fallacy. Mom and pop stores, big box stores, corporations and even the government itself is comprised of individual people whose rights are protected by the constitution.

Despite the cries of “war on women” and “right to choose” (all of which are blatant lies) the Court’s decision is not refusing women the ability to use birth control, not forcing them to have unwanted babies nor forcing them to convert to Christianity. It merely states that the Government cannot force employers to pay for four of the twenty means of contraception that the ACA covers, when those means are counter to their professed religious beliefs.

This country was built to protect individual freedom and specifically religious liberty. This is why the very first amendment in the Bill of Right specifies that congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof. Liberals are very quick to cite this amendment to deny religion in the public sphere crying “separation of church and state,” but hate when the faithful cite it to protect their rights to practice the tenets of their faith.

The Supreme Court, after a string of decisions that limit religion, held that publicly held for-profit corporations, just like non-profit corporations, do come under the protections of the first amendment. Liberals immediately cried out in outrage, claiming that a company is not an individual and that the owners of the corporation should not be able to “force their religious views” on their employees. They wish to treat corporations as though they had the same limitations as the federal government. This is a fallacy as the court has upheld by saying “protecting the free-exercise rights of closely held corporations thus protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control them,” and “Business practices compelled or limited by the tenets of a religious doctrine fall comfortably within the understanding of the “exercise of religion” that this Court set out in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872, 877. ”

Liberals have also used the argument that if one religion is respected by law, then all religions should be which would be unsupportable and unreasonable. Alito addressed these concerns as well by saying “It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable. ”

The most important comment in the majority view is the one defining a corporation: “A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends. An established body of law specifies the rights and obligations of the people (including shareholders, officers, and employees) who are associated with a corporation in one way or another. When rights, whether constitutional or statutory, are extended to corporations, the purpose is to protect the rights of these people.”

This does not mean only some of the people, like employees or shareholders, but all of the people in the corporation. No one should be forced to surrender their religious freedoms by mandate. “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”

So, despite George Takei’s missive in the Huffington Post denouncing religion while asserting that businesses and governments have no place for faith and Senator Reid’s announcement that Democrats will not let the decision stop them from covering all forms of birth control, the Court did the right thing on this one.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Society