By far, the most important document adopted in the United States is its constitution.  It is the founding document of the country, the crafter of the fundamental structure of the government and its institutions, and the designator of the powers allotted to that government.  The restriction of governmental powers upon the lives of citizens is the primary impetus on which the U.S. constitution was founded.  The founding fathers knew all too well the consequences of government run amuck, but at the same time recognized the failures of a weak central government embodied in the Articles of Confederation.  The constitution was therefore created to allow for a strong central government, but to limit its powers and the Bill Of Rights were subsequently included in the constitution as special recognized rights that individuals are entitled to.

Among overall attacks on the principles enumerated in the constitution, is the assertion that an activist interpretation should be realized in any legal reading of the constitution.  Those who encourage this type of interpretation reason that as times necessarily change, the founding document should shift with the times because it is impractical to rely on a document written in the 18th century as the primary law of our government in the 21st.  This assumes either that the writers of the constitution did not intend for a literal meaning to be applied through posterity, or perhaps that they simply were not smart enough to take future changes into mind when setting down the principles and organization of the country and the government.  Either of these possibilities seem equally unlikely when you consider that the framers themselves devised a way for the constitution to be changed.  The constitution has, in fact, morphed with the times, from the expansion of suffrage to the abolition of slavery, and other available examples.  This has been done via literal changes to the text of the constitution, not by subverting or implicitly talking above the authority of the document, as activists pontificate when they describe the constitution as a "living document. 

It is exactly this "living document" interpretation of the constitution that leads to the perversion of basic constitutional principles by diminishing the authoritative nature of the founding document, and instead places greater authority on the shoulders of judicial interpreters (judges and justices).  This can result in a break down of the system by increasing the arbitrariness of law and if adopted as a perpetual trend, could erode meaning until the official constitution is to be viewed in theory and in practice as little more than a historical and political symbol of the nation from ages past with no bearing on actual policies. 

The Second Amendment

The Second Amendment is one that has been the subject of debate, especially recently because of the case before the Supreme Court concerning the Washington D.C. gun ban.  The court is first interpreting to what entity the 2nd amendment provides protection and then whether the D.C. gun ban is constitutional under that interpretation.  The Second Amendment reads: "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."  Some interpret the reading of this amendment as providing protection for the general right of individual citizens to bear arms.  Others say that it does not provide an individual right, but instead is a protection for the existence of state Militias. 

As implied above, it is necessary to focus on the actual literal writing of the law, especially the constitution.  This is conducive to a nation that respects its institutions, particularly the founding document of an entire nation and which also provides the guidelines for the existence of the government and its powers.  I assert that in the event that there is insoluble discrepancy on what the law actually means based on a literal reading, then context should be invoked only to the extent that the original intent of the law becomes clear.  In this particular case, I believe this context can be achieved by considering a time and place context and a textual context.

A time and place context refers to what the situation was at the time of constitutional ratification and how the amendment applied at the time.  Clearly gun ownership by private individuals was ubiquitous and there are many quotes by the founding fathers that clearly identify ownership of guns as a fundamental right to be used in the practice of self defense.  Whether it be James Madison in the Federalist papers declaring that only governments who fear their citizens deprive them of carrying arms, or Thomas Jefferson declaring that "no freemen shall ever be debarred the use of arms", or in later years toward the opening of and into the 19th century when he made similar remarks regarding the freedom of individual citizens to carry arms.  This context further provides trouble to those relying on the concept of "militia" within the Second Amendment considering the evolution of not only the structures, but indeed the very meaning of militia from 1789 to 2008.

A textual context refers to juxtaposing the issue with the surrounding context of the document.  In this case, the point of comparison would be the other Amendments in the Bill Of Rights.  One constant that can easily be understood by reading the Bill Of Rights is that they are safeguarding individual rights, and not the rights of states.  The First Amendment- freedom of speech, press, religion, peaceable assembly, petition are not referring to the rights exclusive to states to practice such rights, but rather to individual citizens.  The Third Amendment protection against quartering soldiers is clearly protecting the homes of individuals, the Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unwarranted searches and seizures.  The Fifth Amendment protection from self-incrimination and due process and the Sixth Amendment speedy trial and assistance of counsel are individual protections against government excesses.  The Seventh Amendment preservation of a trial by jury and the Eighth Amendment protections against unreasonable bail and cruel and unusual punishments don't seem to apply to the rights of state governments, but rather to the rights of individuals.  Or even the Ninth Amendment that specifically states that the enumeration should not be construed as to deny people rights, which oddly enough is the hope of the state militia crowd.  The Tenth Amendment simply delegates powers not explicitly allotted to the federal government to be reserved to the states or people.  So how can it possibly be that the Second Amendment, ranked just below the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech and religion in this obvious list of individual rights be the only one not really meant for individuals, but for state governments? it simply is not in the context, the Bill Of Rights are primarily individual rights, not the rights for the various governments under federalism, and the Second Amendment is not an exception.

After taking this into account, those who still insist that the Second Amendment provides protection only for the existence of a state militia are not taking the original intent of the Amendment into consideration and are instead favoring the imposition of some sort of modern context, or obscure "social justice" above the actual meaning of the founding document.  As such, they are complicit, at least in this respect, with the idea of the constitution as a "living document" where both the law as written and original intent may be legitimately overruled in the name of unrecognized changes or what they perceive as "the greater good."

The Washington D.C. Gun Ban

It follows from the above that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals, not to subject governments under federalism.  The D.C. gun ban in question is a culmination of four laws that outright assault this conception of the second amendment meaning.  The first, D.C. Code 7-2502.01(a), makes it unlawful for a person to possess any unregistered firearm.  The second, D.C. Code 7-2502.02(a)(4), bars the registration of pistols.  These two taken together are the most egregious due to the fact that they effectively ban the private ownership of pistols, even for use in self defense.  The third disallows carrying a pistol without a license and the fourth holds that all legally owned guns must be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by trigger lock. 

The first two laws blatantly violate the Second Amendment, while the latter two hinder the practical meaning of the Amendment by making it more difficult for people to defend themselves.  For example, if a citizen is burglarized or attacked but is unable to come to the defense of himself, his family or his property forthwith due to his observance of the law requiring his firearms to remain disassembled, it can be concluded that the operational meaning of the Second Amendment has been violated and this government infringement on his right may cost him dearly.  In matters of licensing, it should be noted that while many states have similar licensing requirements to carry weapons, such restrictions if carried to excess may pose significant inconveniences on ordinary citizens to the point where the case can be made that their Second Amendment rights are being assaulted. 

The Supreme Court should rule that the Second Amendment right applies to individuals and not state governments.  In addition, with this as their framework, the Supreme Court should subsequently find the D.C. laws unconstitutional.  Even if the Court identifies the Second Amendment as applying to individual rights, it will be meaningless if they do not then immediately rule that these laws violate those rights.  Doing otherwise will serve as a precedent to lead the entire nation down the path of government infringement on gun rights, and the Second Amendment will serve as another casualty in the ongoing war between the discretion of activists and our founding principles.  And it won't be the last.

-Jason J. Odell

There are competing explanations concerning the statement made by Presidential candidate Barack Obama, referring to his grandmother as a "typical white person."  Some see it as an adverse gesture toward whites, citing that a reciprocal comment made by a white referencing a "typical black person" would certainly be seen as such.  This observation is most likely true.  Others, however, claim that Obama was simply trying to bring light to the generational factor by juxtaposing the sentiments harbored by Reverend Wright with those also held by his grandmother.  I believe this was actually the official justification provided by the Obama campaign.  There are several problems with this assessment. 

For starters, on the one hand you have Wright, who made public incendiary rants, and who claimed, among other things, that the government assumed a campaign of genocide and hopelessness upon an entire race of their own citizens by afflicting them with HIV and introducing drugs into the black community, and on the other hand you have the private feelings of an old woman who may, as Obama assures us, feel slightly intimidated by black people she passes on the street.  The former scenario is hands down, infinitely more serious than the latter and it would be foolish to somehow lump the two as products of one cause.  Secondly, the comments made by Reverend Wright were not just racial,they were a deliberate hateful excoriation of the United States.  He depicted America as a historical menace and a modern menace and energetically proclaimed that 9/11 was no less than our "chickens coming home to roost."  These comments are not primarily the product of racial generational influence, they are the product of a frame of mind that continuously presents America as morally inferior, regardless of the circumstance.  Thirdly, I think it's unfair to consider generation as the only or even the primary attributer to racism as it stands.  To do that, perhaps we should look inward at the situation as it is, and address whether our own policies  are helping or perpetuating the suffer of certain groups within our society. 

I've also heard some posit that Obama's statement was a slip of the tongue that would not have happened if he wasn't expected to respond so quickly.  I can buy that, but in order to give the benefit of the doubt to Senator Obama, we would also have to assess whether the same niceties are enjoyed by the other two presidential candidates.  Senator McCain has recently been attacked relentlessly on statements he made about Iran and Al Qaeda, and Senator Clinton has been nothing short of lambasted by the media since she stepped into this thing.  I have not heard outcries on their behalf as woeful as the ones coming in defense of Obama.  Senator Obama should not be countenanced any more than any of the other candidates, especially concerning the seriousness of the issue and the power of the office he is running for.  He's running with the big leagues now, he has a middle name that we should not be afraid of and the only way we're going to get past race in this country is if we have leaders that are not so eager to exploit racial tensions for their own gain.

In this blog I will comment on and confront issues that I deem to be important at the time, though they will not maintain a solid theme.  They may range from domestic politics, to international issues or questions of law that are at the advent of interpretation by U.S. courts.  Regardless of the issue, however, one dependable tenet of this blog is that every single one of the various themes covered are done so with the best interests of not only the country as a whole in mind, but the unique freedoms and principles that have made this country great.