Heller v. D.C., the upcoming Supreme Court case regarding the gun ban in Washington D.C., is another of those cases that comes up periodically in history that will dramatically change the landscape of politics for the future. Like Chief Justice John Marshall did in Marbury v. Madison and providing judicial review, or in Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee with the Supreme Court’s power over state matters, or even in McCulloch v. Maryland in the expansion of Congressional powers, Heller v. D.C. will result in another Earth-shattering decision that will rock the political landscape in several different ways. The first and most obvious effect will be in regards to the second amendment, which will be addressed once again by the Supreme Court and due to the nature of the D.C. ban, will have to finally address in specific, the right to bear arms and whether it is an individual right or not. Furthermore, it will again address the states rights. Many state constitutions provide similar measures to the second amendment providing for a right to bear arms and thus in the Supreme Court deciding, would again overthrow the States. This was not brought into light until Montana politicians presented a joint resolution stating that a ruling against the individual right would violate the compact between the state and the Union when Montana entered the union. This, in theory, if violates such a compact, would leave Montana will within their rights to secede from the Union. Although extreme and arguably unlikely, it leaves the door dramatically wide open. The Compact with the United States was approved in 1889 without argument of the second amendment concerning the States as opposed to the individual, therefore providing a conflict. Instead, it was approved and the state entered the Union. As lawmakers have observed and emphasized, a violation of such a contract could lead to dangerous consequences.
One valuable point: If the states begin jumping into the fight, it could and will get very ugly. The first point, the second amendment, is another focal point, and to understand it, it is important to understand the history of it. The roots of America concerned a rebellion against the tyranny of a leader and government that had continuously abused its power and its people, aside from neglecting various civil requests and petitions and imposing unnecessary taxes. A war, of bloodshed and violence, the American Revolution is the positive effect of revolution that European countries would struggle for (and often fail at) for the coming century. But would this insurrection against the British have been possible without the possession of firearms? More than likely, not so, as the British armies themselves had been in possession of such weapons, as well as more advanced and dangerous weapons. There’s a certain level of credit that has to be given to weapons in the founding of our country, as it enabled the revolutionaries to match the strength of their overseas government and the armies from which that occupied the colonies. Furthermore, there is also a credit given to the citizen-driven militias that were not drafted by the State, but were created and run by normal people who were aware of the presence of tyranny and oppression. This is the birth of the second amendment.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The text of the second amendment, incorporating the two very principles discussed prior, stands as one of the major results of the revolution itself. It is not meant to be read as a whole, with implications affecting each other, but rather two separate rights featured in the identical amendment due to their source being identical: The American Revolution. There is a stunning violation of the rights at hand because of misinterpretation, intentional in a majority of the cases, regarding the true nature of the amendment. Some perceptions claim that due to the rights being featured together, the ownership of the right to bear arms is only a right of the militia, which is further described as being drafted by the State, because that is what it is meant to be serving in defense.
This is not the case. If one were to view amendments as a whole, single right with everything on relating to each other, the Constitution would be a worse entanglement of legal and political proportions than it already is. Suppose this is the case, that if rights are listed in the same amendment, that they only relate to each other. This school of thought involving interpretation would result in the reshaping of your rights to this effect:
1st Amendment: Your right to speech, press, petition, or peaceably assemble is only acceptable in religious matters, as the rights are mentioned only after Congress is denied the right to recognize an established religion as an official national religion or establish such.
The first amendment, the most guarded amendment among many members of the left and Americans in general. But as described above, the interpretation of all portions of an amendment being interrelated would also have negative effects for the person delivering such an argument, because then in theory, they would not have the right to argue against the second amendment, because it is not a religious matter.
The militia concept itself, despite certain significant legal clarifications, is still argued. The earliest of which, came on the pair of Militia Acts issued just six days apart in 1792 by the Second United States Congress. The first of the two, passed on May 2, basically gave certain rights to the President. These rights include calling militias during situations such as invasions by foreign nations and violent civil disobedience. This, in theory, designates the militia as a military body, given the call by the Commander-In-Chief, the President of the United States. Six days later, the citizen eligibility for an organized militia would be defined in the second Militia Act, as any able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of eighteen and forty-five. The Untied States Code, ratified in 1926, would later eliminate the racial aspect to include all males and lower the minimum enlistment age by a year, to seventeen. These provisions, featured in Section 311 under Title 10, would later be modified to include women. Furthermore, the United States Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution compiled a report in 1982, known as Senate Document 2807, regarding the subject of militias. It concluded that Congress had given the right to “raise and support armies” to the National Guard, but not “Provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia.” This concludes the argument over militias by defining a militia as a body separate from the National Guard, therefore designating it as its own entity.
Despite Madison’s deliberate exclusion of legalities, the second amendment still comes under fire. This brings forth one of the major debates of the second amendment that is critical to both itself and the entire Constitution. It is the debate over the implications of the phrase “of the people”. Some say that it relates to the State, and specifically refers to the rights described in the second amendment as rights of the State, and not of the individual citizens. Now, if this is to be held true, then it is to be assumed that application of the first and fourth amendments as citizen rights is false, as both declare the rights described as rights “of the people”. This belief would revoke our rights, in theory, to free speech, free press, assembly, petition, and protecting from unlawful searches and seizures. But the Supreme Court itself has even specifically cited the Bill Of Rights as referring to individual rights, such as in the case of Adamson v. California. Although this case relates to the Fifth Amendment and the right to not incriminate one’s self, it is a landmark case in the Bill Of Rights and its implications. The court says this, “The reasoning that leads to those conclusions starts with the unquestioned premise that the Bill of Rights, when adopted, was for the protection of the individual against the federal government.” The dissent then goes on to agree, with reference to the anti-federalist movement, by stating, “The first ten amendments were proposed and adopted largely because of fear that Government might unduly interfere with prized individual liberties.”
Prized INDIVIDUAL liberties. Read that and read it again; twice and three times over. Photocopy it and send it to the American Civil Liberties Union and any other extreme left wing body with a grudge against the law-abiding American citizen.
Firearms itself however, are a critical debate. Where is the line between self-defense and reckless violence? Or even suppression of dangerous oppression and elimination of opposition without justification? Either way, it is a belief, that the right to keep and bear arms is a right of the individual citizens. But one question still remains. It was a question that vexed Thomas Jefferson during the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, as well as Chief Justice John Marshall in the case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803, and was a centerpiece in the debate between ex-federalist Daniel Webster and Robert Hayne of South Carolina in 1830. The question is this: With who or where did the final authority in interpretation of the Constitution lie?
Despite any controversy involving any of these aspects of the rights described within the second amendment, there is an obligation to defend them. The second amendment is apart of certain provisions made as result of the American Revolution, the very beginning of this country. This amendment is the result of its success, to ensure we will not fail as a united force against opposition. Captain Daniel Shays, a Revolutionary War veteran, even proved the significance of the militia. When he believed the government was out of line and to some extent, tyrannical for the ignoring of his pleas following disagreements between the farmers and the government on immediate property foreclosures and tax delinquencies, he banned with local farmers from Western Massachusetts to challenge authority. Despite his failure to overpower, the objective of effect was achieved, as it struck a cord. It displayed civil power. The integrity of the firearms was sought to be defended by Ambrose Burnside, a Union Civil War General, as well as a three-time governor and a two-time senator. He took his experience and belief, with already creating one of the most significant Civil War weapons, the Burnside Carbine, to create the National Rifle Association. This organization he and several others formed was aimed at defending the right to own firearms as well as training people to proper usage.
Now given all these various provisions, the Montana argument must be reintroduced. Along with a ruling against individual rights being negligent of all the factors listed above, there is a significant risk involving the states and Montana itself. Could Montana leave the Union? Yes. Would Montana leave the Union? Possibly. It has been suggested that it could occur, although extreme, it is not impossible and it is not unforeseeable. Such an action however, would send a ripple effect throughout the country that could lead states to question the ruling in a similar manner.
The point? The Supreme Court has more on its plate then most realize. And its time for the Court to stop being like Congress and being negligent, and to come through in the clutch for the United States Constitution, which is the very foundation of this free nation.
No comments:
Post a Comment