Right to Bear Arms Pennsylvania Constitution

Welcome Lower Merion residents!

We're glad you stopped by. Go ahead and register for a free account to get the benefits of being a member, including:
  • Access to all of our posts and comments
  • Your own profile including an avatar, buddy lists, and other social networking features
  • The ability to send private messages to other users on this site
  • The ability to chat and interact with other citizens and voters in and around Lower Merion.
Creating an account is easy. Register now!

(Don't live in Lower Merion? That's okay. We won't hold it aginst you.)
Tags:
bobguzzardi's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2006-01-13 :07
Posts:

The Pennsylvania Constitution
Right to Bear Arms
Article I Section 21

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

http://www.duq.edu/law/pa-constitution/constitutions/current.cfm

This provision predated the US Constitution and is contained in Penna. Constitution of 1776 and has been the basic law of Pennsylvania since that time.

5
Average: 5 (1 vote)
Your rating: None

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
LexoTime5's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-04-01 :31
Posts:

Thanks, Bob. This would seem to be a stronger statement than even the US constitution, which clearly weds the right to bear arms with diligent regulation.

However, it seems to be left open to interpretation what constitutes a person's "defense of themselves." In most cases we delegate this function to the police, and indeed the right of the police to bear arms is rarely questioned.

3
Average: 3 (2 votes)
Your rating: None
politeia's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 2008-07-30 :00
Posts:

Actually, "well regulated" in the U.S. Constitution had nothing to do with regulation.

"Well regulated" in those times meant orderly or disciplined and was never applied to regulating something in the modern sense. There was hardly any government regulation back then, and where there was, the term "regulation" did not exist in relation to the modern term of government regulation.

As for the meaning of the PA constitution, the PA Supreme Court ruled in Commonwealth v. Ortiz in regards to it being a constitutional right that allows citizens to carry firearms when it declared attempted assault weapons bans by Philadelphia and Pittsburgh unconstitutional. While you don't need any type of license or permit to legally buy a firearm if you are a law-abiding citizen in Pennsylvania (just an instant background check), the Court referenced the fact that you don't even need to a license or permit to openly carry a loaded pistol on your hip in Pennsylvania, with the exception of Philadelphia where you need a License to Carry a Firearm to carry openly or concealed.

The fact that the PA Supreme Court confirmed the right of citizens to openly carry firearms without a license or permit indicates the fact that citizens may bear arms in "defense of themselves" is not open to interpretation. The PA Supreme Court answered it.

As for the 2A in general, I agree with the sentiments of Nobby Hill in this Main Line Media News discussion (scroll down).

The 2nd Amendment is one of those emotional issues for many like abortion. I personally support the right to choose on both issues. Also, like abortion, the right to keep and bear arms is not a political hot button right now. Both parties prefer not to talk about the topics these days unless they are catering to specific groups in meetings or by direct mail.

So, why Bob just decided to make the above blog post with no reference to any relevant news story has me confused and is something only he can answer.

=================

Brotherhood of Thieves

~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.

5
Average: 5 (6 votes)
Your rating: None

 

 

LexoTime5's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-04-01 :31
Posts:

"Well regulated" in those times meant orderly or disciplined and was never applied to regulating something in the modern sense.

...and "arms" meant muskets and cannons and such. There were no automatic weapons back then, or armor piercers, nor grenade launchers, etc. The list goes on and on into the ridiculously destructive weaponry that we've chosen to fabricate.

So let's try not to fall in to the double standard of interpreting one portion strictly and minutely in historical context, while the other portion needs to have an updated understanding.

3
Average: 3 (8 votes)
Your rating: None
politeia's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 2008-07-30 :00
Posts:

Good point, but I think it misses the mark.

Note I said I liked Nobby Hill's interpretation in Main Line Media News.

To quote Nobby Hill:

By your logic then only the government can have computers, word processors, printers and the internet in reference to the First Amendment and modern day citizens would still be subject to using parchment paper and quill pens.

Based on the original intent of the Second Amendment, citizens had the right to the same arms the military had. The meaning of the original intent does not change over time with changes in technology. That is why they did not define the term "arms". The Second Amendment does not say citizens have a right to bear "muskets". Thus, if you take the original intent, then citizens should have automatic weapons, grenades and missile launchers today.

However, I think the laws are fine as they are in banning the most dangerous weapons today, but that makes the argument all that much more stronger that further gun control would just be a further infringement on individual rights.

As you know, Lexo, I am a strict constitutionalist regardless of the constitutional issue.

Therefore, I look at the original intent. The original intent of the U.S Constitution was to give a constitutional right for citizens to bear "arms" in an orderly (well regulated) manner.

So, using Nobby Hill's well founded logic, I can carry a modern pistol openly without a permit or license in Pennsylvania (no regulation in the modern sense) in this day and age - and that is what the PA Supreme Court dictates per the PA Constitution.

Let me add that I personally don't like open carry for the simple reason that it is too easy for a criminal to grab your pistol if you are in the grocery line or wherever. I have seen too may people carrying openly without a retention strap.

So if someone feels the need to carry, it should be concealed. I have also posted before that I see no need to carry concealed around Lower Merion even though I have been issued a license to carry concealed. It's just not that dangerous of a place.

The primary reason the majority of the half a million Pennsylvanians who have a license to carry concealed got one is for ease of transport for hunting and competitive/target shooting, and that is the only reason I personally have used it.

=================

Brotherhood of Thieves

~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.

4.555555
Average: 4.6 (9 votes)
Your rating: None

 

 

LexoTime5's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-04-01 :31
Posts:

But would the same people have had the same original intent if they could have anticipated that the meaning of the word "arms" would change? They might as well have left a ______ blank line in the constitution and declared that we all have a right to whatever that is.

Original intent is all well and good but I think it's folly to focus so much on original intent as the risk of overlooking that we live in different times. Instead of being "literalists" wrt the constitution I would suggest becoming "analogists." We need to ask ourselves what would the intentions of the constitutional authors have done given today's realities.

I can see we're probably not going to convince each other of our particular views on this subject. I always respect your well thought through positions and the depth of your reasoning.

3.285715
Average: 3.3 (7 votes)
Your rating: None
politeia's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 2008-07-30 :00
Posts:

Hey, we are all entitled to our opinions and I don't knock you for having yours.

However, why not obey the Constitution and pass a constitutional amendment if times have changed?

This is not just an issue with the Second Amendment. Just about every problem we have in Washington seems to be related to Congress, the president and judges not following the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution does it say you can take money from some to pay for the health care of others? Where in the Constitution does it say that you are required to have health care? The Constitution does have a remedy for this - but you have to pass a constitutional amendment.

And in fairness to both sides of the isle, those wars Bush started in Iraq and Afghanistan are undeclared by Congress, and thus unconstitutional and illegal. I could go on and on with examples of both parties violating the Constitution at will. And the thing with that is when one party is in power, the members of that party are perfectly happy to have the Constitution violated to get what they want, yet they scream foul when the other party gets in power and violates the Constitution to get what that party wants. I say we’d all be better off if both parties obey the Constitution. Is it any wonder why I have no respect for either party?

The problem with all this unconstitutional lawmaking is that ultimately when you look at the Constitution as a "living" document, then it means whatever the politicians want it to mean. The Constitution is supposed to be the rulebook for government, and that rulebook is supposed to protect the People from an overbearing government.

However, when government throws the rulebook out the window, and the People allow it to happen, we have the chaos that is Washington.

Look at the General Welfare clause. That has been completely morphed from the words and intent of the founders where it was a limited clause to a catch-all where the government can do whatever it wants.

It’s out of control, and I think readers of both political parties would agree. In my mind, a big part of the problem is this "living and breathing" document garbage.

If the Constitution was supposed to change with the times, why does it not say that and why does it have a specific means (that is not easy) to change it through a constitutional amendment?

While it makes no sense to me, I would listen with an open mind as to why the most important legal document in our country should change at the whims of our ever so trusted, bought and sold politicians.

=================

Brotherhood of Thieves

~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.

4.6
Average: 4.6 (10 votes)
Your rating: None

 

 

LexoTime5's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-04-01 :31
Posts:

Not to get too nit picky, but the constitution does not list the types of laws that Congress can make. That would not be possible. It generally works the other way around and restricts the types of things that Congress can do.

It would be so tidy to think that the Constitution is omnipotent and benevolent, and all we need to is strictly heed its words. However, I respectfully submit that you're kidding yourself if you think you yourself are not applying some degree of interpretation of the Constitution in order to be applicable to modern inventions, concepts, and today's understanding of society.

Do you agree that the original intent of the writers of the Constitution was that women should not be allowed to vote? Do you believe that an amendment is necessary to finally give women the vote?

0
No votes yet
Your rating: None
Wynnewoodie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 51 weeks 3 hours ago
Joined: 2009-05-11 :03
Posts:

Sorry to undermine you Lex, since I'm generally with you on the issue of strict construction, but the fact is that an amendment was necessary to give women the right to vote -- the 19th amendment, which was ratified in 1920.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me where in the Constitution it says that a corporation is the same as a person, which all of the "strict constructionists" on the current Supreme Court somehow seem to believe (see citizens v. Federal Election Commission).

5
Average: 5 (5 votes)
Your rating: None
LexoTime5's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-04-01 :31
Posts:

Oops. Color me embarrassed. I was thinking of the failure to pass the Equal Rights Amendment in the 70's and got it muddled.

0
No votes yet
Your rating: None
politeia's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 2008-07-30 :00
Posts:

Lexo,

I have my strongly held beliefs. You know I argue them strongly. I also have admitted I'm not always right (not saying I'm wrong here Eye-wink). I also agree there are different views than mine and that people view the Constitution in different ways.

Of course the Constitution is a limiting document. However, it does outline how the government is to be constructed and how laws can be written.

As a matter of fact, the federal government can only do what the federal Constitution allows it to do. That's how it limits the power and force of the federal government.

As the 10th Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now, call me crazy, but that tells me that the federal government is restricted to the enumerated powers of the Constitution, and that's what the founders always said in their writings.

Now we all know federal judges have morphed the Constitution to allow the federal government to do just about anything it wants to.

That's where you get the academics arguing - whether the federal courts made proper judgments in how they "interpreted" the Constitution.

My view is not only a simple one, but it does not leave much open for interpretation so you don't have special interests fighting over all these federal court decisions.

IMHO, Judges should not be interpreting the Constitution beyond its original intent. You want to change the original intent, you pass a constitutional amendment.

Otherwise, everything else is left for the states or the People per the 10th Amendment.

I just follow what the Constitution says (whether I like it or not), and obviously others have views that the Constitution can be re-interpreted by federal judges all the time.

My specific problem with judges interpreting the Constitution is that they can't help but have personal biases (it's only human), and they are appointed based on their political views and there is no doubt judges make decisions interpreting the Constitution right down party lines. To me, this perverts the Constitution.

Now, state constitutions are not as limiting as the federal one. That's why the federal Constitution leaves everything that is not an enumerated power for the federal government to the states and the People.

These are my deeply held views. You can disagree with them, but you can't say they are not well thought out and backed by legal and moral principles.

I'd also add that I am more of an originalist than a strict constructionist. However, I am not a fan of the SCOTUS judges associated with originalism. So I take an originalist view, but don't associate me with originalist judges - or any judges for that matter. I'm not a fan of judges in general because I think very, very few actually make decisions based strictly on facts without interjecting their own personal views or bias. That may well be a human failing that cannot be prevented, but that does mean I have to like it.

=================

Brotherhood of Thieves

~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.

5
Average: 5 (6 votes)
Your rating: None

 

 

LexoTime5's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-04-01 :31
Posts:

Well, undaunted by my error I will go on. I believe the original authors of the constitution did not intend to give women rights equal to men. This is literally supported by the exclusive use of "men" and "he", etc. throughout. And yet today we do understand that full rights of a person extend to women. How is this possible without an evolutionary understanding of the constitution?

If I resolved to follow the constitution literally whether I liked it or not I think I would find myself with some fairly odious conundrums. Obviously you've made your peace with that way of thinking, and I commend you; but it's not for me.

4
Average: 4 (4 votes)
Your rating: None
politeia's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 2008-07-30 :00
Posts:

The Constitution as written is not a perfect document. Nothing produced by humans ever is, but I have yet to run across a document that outlines a form of government that even comes close to the Constitution.

Yes, in my personal view and in the view of modern society, women are equal to men. I would not be at all opposed to a constitutional amendment that replaced the word "men" in the Constitution with "person" or "people" if you can show me where in the Constitution the word “men“ or “man“ is used.

“He” is used in the Constitution. That was not only common usage of the time, but it is not uncommon in this day and age, though you will note I always write “s/he” or “his/her”, and I would have no problem passing a constitutional amendment along those lines. However, I give the founders some credit for using the words "people" and "person" along with what could well be a generic "he" when the founders could well have used the words "men" and "man", and especially since that was a more common usage back then, yet they chose to avoid it.

I'd also not be opposed to a constitutional convention so that the citizens of this country can sort out any other changes that could be made to the Constitution due to changing times, but I personally don't see too many changes that would be necessary.

However, if the People as whole want something changed, I'll take that any day over what politicians and judges come up with.

What I don't think you get about me is that I don't look at the Constitution in a he/she or black/white or whatever way. I don't think along those lines. I view the Constitution soley from the practical purposes in how it defines government.

=================

Brotherhood of Thieves

~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.

5
Average: 5 (5 votes)
Your rating: None

 

 

Woozaleedoodle's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 40 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-04-27 :45
Posts:

The 'male' issue in the Constitution is an interesting discussion!

I think the gender neutral preamble to the Constitution sets the tone (as most preambles do):

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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.

Obviously, constitutional scholars have differing opinions as to what exactly the founders meant by 'people'.

BTW, since this discussion is about guns, I figured I'd share this clip that I saw when I was flipping through the history and military channels a few nights ago (I was up late pretending to study for a law school quiz) -

Politeia - you are very knowledgable about this stuff. Would this be considered an assualt weapon?? I've never heard of a weapon like this (aside from an Ahhh-nold movie).

4.2
Average: 4.2 (5 votes)
Your rating: None
politeia's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 2008-07-30 :00
Posts:

"Assault weapon" is actually a political term used to ban certain types of semi-automatic rifles based on appearance. That's why I always refer to it as the so-called assault weapons ban, and the interesting thing, in the PA Supreme Court case I linked above the PA Supreme Court Justice who wrote the opinion declaring so-called assault weapon bans in PA unconstitutional even used the term "so-called".

The below YouTube helps explain how so-called assault weapons bans don't really ban anything. It's a political parlor trick to appease special interests. To me, it is simple. If it is fully automatic, it is illegal. If it is semi-automatic it is legal. Having a pistol grip, flash suppressor, bayonet mount, folding stock all mean nothing in regards to the lethality of a semi-automatic rifle, but that's how certain politicians define a so-called assault weapon.


The shotgun in the YouTube you posted would be illegal for non-military/law enforcement use because it is fully automatic. I'd also say it is overkill for law enforcement. Excellent for close quarter combat military use.

=================

Brotherhood of Thieves

~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.

4.42857
Average: 4.4 (7 votes)
Your rating: None

 

 

LexoTime5's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-04-01 :31
Posts:

Delightful as this discussion has become, I'll now leave you to it.

4.2
Average: 4.2 (5 votes)
Your rating: None
politeia's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 2008-07-30 :00
Posts:

I'm just answering questions and offering facts while I have also described my views on interpreting the Constitution.

Some people may well be interested in what is legal v. illegal and constitutional v. unconstitutional.

I wrote early in this thread that this is one of those emotional issues so I have kept to factual talking points about a constitutional right.

Regardless, it is always nice chatting, Lexo. I agree this topic has been discussed enough. Any polarizing topic can get that way.

=================

Brotherhood of Thieves

~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.

5
Average: 5 (7 votes)
Your rating: None

 

 

RadnorLawyer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 37 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-04-21 :24
Posts:

This is somewhat off-topic, but as someone who has examined the laws involving firearms fairly closely, it has always amused me that legislators (and courts) are far more concerned with automatic weapons as opposed to highly accurate, long range bolt-action rifles.

I've talked to dozens of police officers and military veterans, and every one of them believes that the most dangerous (and psychologically intimidating) small arms weapon is a sniper rifle due to the fact that, unlike all other firearms, it has a solitary application: to kill.

Politeia can probably explain this better than I can, but my understanding is that a single high velocity rifle round (and the supersonic shockwave that follows it) causes catastrophic damage to a human body no matter where the impact occurs...far more so than even multiple impacts from rounds fired by lower velocity automatic weapons (such as the Uzi submachine gun and the Glock 18 machine pistol).

Accordingly, it seems to me that many self-described “gun-control” politicians place less emphasis on the true lethality of a firearm in question, and have chosen instead to focus on whether the weapon in question has a menacing appearance. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, I find that approach to be incredibly misguided.

5
Average: 5 (5 votes)
Your rating: None
politeia's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 2008-07-30 :00
Posts:

I'm going to leave this thread to others as I have made my points, but to quickly answer your question, a 30-06 deer rifle round is more than twice as powerful as a .223 round that the semi-automatic AR-15 fires, which is a rifle that looks like our military's M-16 main battle rifle that also fires .223, only it cannot fire a 3-round burst or fully automatic like the M-16. Rifles in .223 are illegal to use for deer in many states because the round is not considered powerful enough to take a deer humanely. The .223 semi-automatic AR-15 was deemed an "assault weapon" under the old federal, so-called assault weapon ban which has since expired and not been renewed.

Every year about one million Pennsylvanians enter the woods in one of the world's largest recreational events for deer season with rifles that are far more powerful than those that used to be banned when the so-called (federal) assault weapons ban was in place.

And yes, these far less powerful semi-automatic "assault weapons" were banned solely because of how they looked, and even though they are rarely used in crime.

=================

Brotherhood of Thieves

~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.

5
Average: 5 (7 votes)
Your rating: None

 

 

Woozaleedoodle's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 40 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-04-27 :45
Posts:

Good debate going on this thread.

5
Average: 5 (4 votes)
Your rating: None
deweyf's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 36 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-12-09 :04
Posts:

I am glad to see others in the community realize how rediculous the gun laws in our country are slowly becoming. I as a gun owner and target shooting enthusist am happy to live in Pa. Many states such as New Jersey have taken a stance on "so called assualt weapon". Not realizing or hiding from the public that cosmetic appearance has nothing to do with a weapons ability to kill or be used in a crime.

I am not suggesting stricter guns laws but I feel the answer lies in stricter enforcement of laws and implementation of mandatory sentencing. Instead of targeting those who buy guns and use them legally, lets spend our time and resources to educate and enforce existing laws. I not talking about "gun trade ins" where useless broken fireamrs arms are turned in only to benefit the owner. There are mandatory sentence lawson the books that somehow get brushed aside or plea bargained for those who commit crimes involving handguns. Why just handguns? Why not any gun used in a crime.

The guns themselves are not the issue people who arm going to commit violent crimes will always find away. I apologize for my somewhat disorganized rant,but this is a issue I feel strongly about and did not take time to organize thoughts ahead of time. I am glad see many supporters hear and even the ones who may not support gun owners doing so in a respectful and informed manor. Makes me beleive there is hope for 2nd amendment.

Thanks for listening.

5
Average: 5 (1 vote)
Your rating: None
ArdmoreWilley's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 22 weeks ago
Joined: 2007-04-30 :09
Posts:

Just a quick comment since it is all the time I have. Some great info. especially Poleteia's demonstrating, through his words and convictions, his view of Originalism and that he is one. There are other view points, or schools of thought on this, for instance, Modernists or Liberalists among others. Its kinda like interpreting the Bible, you can be sure to find people of every persuasion interpreting the Constitution in a multitude of ways.

What got me interested in this is:

<"I could go on and on with examples of both parties violating the Constitution at will. And the thing with that is when one party is in power, the members of that party are perfectly happy to have the Constitution violated to get what they want, yet they scream foul when the other party gets in power and violates the Constitution to get what that party wants. I say we’d all be better off if both parties obey the Constitution. Is it any wonder why I have no respect for either party?">

Bravo! Right on! This is why I'm an independent with a whole lot of disdain for both parties. I look at this statement in a broader sense, though, in its application to people and their nature, transcending politics, parties, Constitutional interpretations. Is not this happening everywhere, even right here? I seriously doubt we would be any better off if both parties followed the Constitution along the views of the Originalists. I'd refer to The Who, their lyrics, "Out with the old boss...in with the new boss." From a human perspective we are just trading one set of problems for another.

<"That may well be a human failing that cannot be prevented, but that does mean I have to like it.">

Amen brother!!! I would again extrapolate this further and more broadly beyond judges and governments to apply it to all of us. Well, we are not the first to think these thoughts, to feel morose about it. "Suffering is not only profoundly inherent in man, but it is the sole cause of the awakening of conscious thought." - Berdyaev on Dostoyevsky.

I happened across this and one other interesting thought, while I was reading last night and this morning and having what you wrote fresh in my head. "I regard the entire world as my home. I in habit the earth, not a particular portion of it labeled America, France, Germany, Russia....I owe allegiance to mankind, not to a particular country, race or people. I answer to God, not to the Chief Executive, whoever he may happen to be. I am here on earth to work out my own private destiny. My destiny is linked with that of every other living creature inhabiting this planet- perhaps with those on other planets too, who knows? I refuse to jeopardize my destiny by regarding life within the narrow rules which are laid down to circumscribe it. I dissent from the current view of things, as regards murder, as regards religion, as regards society, as regards our well-being. I will try to live my life in accordance with the vision I have of things eternal. I say "Peace to you all!" and if you don't find it, it's because you haven't looked for it." Henry Miller, Sunday After the War, New Directions, 1944.

How tragic would it be if the Constitution of the United State were an end point and not a beginning? It really makes me think of the Bible, the Torah, the Qur'an, their fundamentalist supporters, their originalists so to speak and the mess their unyielding, unbending view has made of the world for the last two thousand, last thousand, last hundred... They too, wanted our leaders to just follow the rule book, but that is not all they wanted, they wanted to be the leaders of The Book. Thank God(if it is still your belief) for Galileo and his championing of Copernicus!!! (I'll thank the triumph of human reasoning and not God on this one). We are just in our infancy here in the US and we are so very lucky to have such a profound document as The Constitution to be the foundational structure of our society. It's creation was a response to a particular economic and social injustice of it's day, but it was created from a glaring view back in time as a sum of the history of all peoples, from the positive lessons learned. Do we have our Constitution of today without first having the great civilizations of Mesopotamia, Egypt, India China, Greece, Rome, Austria, Russia, Spain, France, England? Each of these mighty civilizations has failed for one reason or another, and despite their people's beliefs that they were the best, the strongest, the richest. Was their inability to change at the core of this? Will a static Constitution save us from this precedent in world history and it's civilizations? I don't have an answer to this but I do think about it a lot.

My thinking about the future of the world and our nation leads me to think that the idea of nation states may very well be antiquated already. The idea of creating entities like the European Union follow directly from what we have been doing here in the US with our fifty autonomous states and our umbrella organization called the United State of America(if you will). On the whole, this sounds great, if your in the group, you get membership benefits. To me this is a form of protectionism(maybe isolationism would be a stretch). To my way of thinking on a world view level, one of the ideas of this(nation states) was to reduce the amount of war in the world. Has this happened? I think the opposite, that it promotes regions of instability and war. A good current example is Yemen. It borders are what they are, not likely to change, it is resource poor and likely to run out of water. They are not likely to just role over an die; they are ripe for outside forces to take them over and potentially start a war, conflict, what ever you want to call it. How about Afghanistan? I like to apply this same reasoning internally to the US. Why can't we seem to get a "no brainer" notion like national health care instituted? (it is a no brainer everywhere but here in the US) Is it because we have fifty states who say they want autonomy, that the federal gov't is interfering with this autonomy and then we all go on ad infinitum about how the Constitution makes no mention of the federal gov't being a healthcare provider? How about something closer to home. How many school districts do we have through out the country? 17,000 or so? All of them reinventing the wheel? This type of of duplication of efforts contributes directly to why our local school board budgets are so inefficient. If one wants real savings in cost, up to two thirds saving from what your paying now in LM, the way to do this is to nationalize education. But, I know, we are not going to do this because we have a state constitution, autonomy, the federal constitution does not give the gov't the ability to be a healthcare provider nor a educational provider. Despite a whole lot of other western and non-western countries doing it exactly this way, more cheaply and often with better outcomes, we are not going to do it because, we have a federal Constitution, a state constitution.... WE ARE FREE!!!! FREEDOM!!!!...in my best braveheart voice. TRADITION!!! in my best Tevye voice. Well, Tevye finally did come around to understanding the world didn't he?

The Constitution is only a first good starting point for me, in a world of endless possibilities for humans, who will go on after me to inhabit an unknown future that may stretch on for ever. Hopefully, we will move on from cell phones and Ipods, like we have done with the telegram and rotary phones and in all other aspects of our human lives. We will move forward from the Bible to Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, to String Theory and D-Branes, from Darwin's Origin of Species to Watson's Double Helix, from Beowulf to Proust, from the cave painting in aurochs, France to Monet to Dali and on, and from our Constitution to some as yet uncreated idea that will view the earth and it's peoples as one and the same, all with equal human rights and with equal access to natural resources, to live without fear, with peace of mind, liberty and happiness without distinction or national identity

"...I say "Peace to you all!" and if you don't find it, it's because you haven't looked for it."

5
Average: 5 (3 votes)
Your rating: None
Wynnewoodie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 51 weeks 3 hours ago
Joined: 2009-05-11 :03
Posts:

Quick comment? You must be one hell of a typist!

One small correction: I think the Who line you meant is "Meet the new boss...Same as the old boss." (from "Wont Get Fooled Again" off "Who's Next" for those of you wanting to refresh your memories).

I suspect we'll hear it next week at half-time of the Super Bowl.

Talk about corporate influence subverting the message!

I can't believe there's still no takers on citizens v. Federal Election Commission, particularly after Obama called out the Supremes last night (and Alito had his Joe Wilson moment).

No opinion Politeia?

5
Average: 5 (5 votes)
Your rating: None
politeia's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 2008-07-30 :00
Posts:

Let me see if I can find the time to read it tonight.

=================

Brotherhood of Thieves

~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.

5
Average: 5 (2 votes)
Your rating: None

 

 

politeia's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 2008-07-30 :00
Posts:

The first thing I noticed about Citizens United v. F.E.C. was the typical 5-4 partisan vote by SCOTUS. I can’t stand that and it demonstrates yet again that judges vote right down political lines and are completely biased.

The second thing that popped into my mind in regards to this case is that the most powerful corporations already have Congress and presidents in their back pockets and that corporate cronyism by the government is already a huge problem that should not exist under a constitutionally limited government.

In my mind, state corporatism is a form of socialism that benefits some corporations over others while inhibiting competition within the free market. This is one of the major problems in health care, for example, and one of the big reasons costs keep rising.

This case thus brought some of my personally held beliefs into mind. My belief in free market capitalism without government interference, which only destroys the benefits of free market capitalism, and my belief in government strictly adhering to the Constitution.

I do not believe in state sponsored benefits to for-profit corporations. I do not like the influence corporations already have on Washington.

So, I feel I have to guard against an initial personal bias that corporations should not even be considered “people” in relation to campaign finance and to rather look to put that bias aside and look at the facts. I also realize that this case is considered a “win” for the so-called right wing, but I also don’t fit easily into any political molds.

Another initial thought is that this ruling could wipe-out any influence small donors have and thus harm grassroots candidates who already have it tough. I am a firm believer in a fair, democratic voting process and given my originalist constitutional views we are talking about technology coupled with mega-corporations that the founders did not envision.

So, this will not be an easy case for me to come to well-reasoned conclusions on. It is also a 180 page decision, but I do want to dissect this.

Give me over the weekend to see what I can get around to.

=================

Brotherhood of Thieves

~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.

5
Average: 5 (4 votes)
Your rating: None

 

 

politeia's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 2008-07-30 :00
Posts:

Rather than get into this whole massive SCOTUS ruling, I'm going to keep it simple and say: What He Said.

=================

Brotherhood of Thieves

~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.

5
Average: 5 (3 votes)
Your rating: None

 

 

politeia's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 2008-07-30 :00
Posts:

Super post, Willey.

Gives me a lot of food for thought, and I always like that. You made some points that I have not considered from an originalist viewpoint, and I am always looking to have my deeply held beliefs challenged because it allows me to either confirm those beliefs or to adjust them (generally within my belief system as I have spent decades developing it and it ain't going to change overnight).

=================

Brotherhood of Thieves

~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.

5
Average: 5 (4 votes)
Your rating: None

 

 

Wynnewoodie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 51 weeks 3 hours ago
Joined: 2009-05-11 :03
Posts:

Is Michelle Obama from PA originally? She certainly doesn't hesitate to exercise her right to bare arms! And boy does she ever have an impressive set of guns!

5
Average: 5 (6 votes)
Your rating: None

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.