Applying the Fourteenth Amendment to gun rights may be a difficult victory

The US Supreme Court ruled that rights guaranteed by the constitution apply to not only the federal government but also to state and local governments. The court’s 5-4 decision struck down a City of Chicago law that banned hand gun ownership by private citizens in the city for any reason.

This is a setback to liberals’ misunderstood position in favor of gun control as a way to fight gun violence. The court said that the constitution under the 14th Amendment applies to everyone despite where they may live. As is clearly stated in the Fourteenth amendment the United States can’t “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This includes the right of gun ownership [but not necessarily the possession and use] as granted in the Second Amendment.

Conservatives, a long time supporter of gun ownership rights, are calling this a victory. But, this opens a much wider door for many other things that conservatives will find difficult to tolerate. This decision, because it uses the Fourteenth amendment to apply the Constitution to all levels of government, further supports many of the rights we all agree on. The right of free speech, assembly, protection against self incrimination and the protection of property rights are just a few. All of these freedoms can’t be limited by state laws, because the court has ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment’s intent was to assure that all citizens of the Untied States have equal protection.

This decision could, in the long run, be used to support more controversial issues. Gay rights, marriage, Miranda warning and much more. If this support for the Fourteenth Amendment continues, as it should, states will lose a substantive voice in all of them. States will lose the ability to limit an individual’s rights when those rights come from the Constitution as defined in the Ninth Amendment. This further erodes, as it should, the idea of “States Rights” as a basic understanding of the constitution. It may have been before the Fourteenth Amendment, but not after.

Consider this quote from Legal Information Institute, part of the Cornell School of Law. “If the Court sides with Petitioners Otis McDonald, et al. [as it did], it may reverse the Slaughterhouse line of cases and incorporate the Second Amendment—and possibly the entire Bill of Rights—against the States.” It is clear from the decision of the court and from the view of legal scholars that this case is a good decision for gun rights. But it can also be applied to both the many rights we all accept and those that are being passionately being argued in the community today.

To community members in good standing, this decision fully supports the individual’s right to live in a manner that is consistent with their own beliefs without fear of limits from the community. Unless the individual is engaged in activity that will harm someone or has the clear danger of harm, he or she can do what is best for them.

The community still has a heavy agenda to find a way to curtail gun violence and not limit the rights of individuals in good standing. While this decision may not fully help in that search, the support of the rights of any individual is the support of everyone’s rights.

Many of those rights that are preserved by this decision will help solve the community’s most pressing problems.

-----

Keep government open Supreme Court decides

A ruling from the Supreme Court on the keeping the names on a petition open to the public is one that the Responsible Community supported.

The United States Supreme Court supported the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco and will allow the names of petition signers to be released to the public. “Protect Marriage Washington”, which organized a petition drive for a public vote to repeal the state’s “everything-but-marriage” gay rights law, asked the state of Washington to protect the privacy of signers of the petition. Petitions signers were concerned that they would be the target of a backlash from those that oppose the petition.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for 8 of the justices. Judge Roberts found, and the Responsible Community agrees, that it is “vitally important that states be able to ensure that signatures on referendum petitions” are authentic.

Excerpts from the Responsible Community post on May 3, 2010:

“The names should not be kept secret because people must be able to trust a citizen’s initiative. They are started by people that would like to ask the voters of a state if they think something should be changed. If enough people think the same way, the issue gets on the ballot. The people that sign the petition must be real and registered voters along with various other requirements depending on the state. If those names on the petition can’t be challenged how does anyone know they are real people?

“A similar issue to this came up in the last national election. An organization was registering people to vote. It was found, by people making challenges to the names on the list, that some were not eligible. Now the organization that did that, as well as other things, no longer exists. ACORN has closed its doors, partly because of the challenge.

“Responsible communities must operate in the open so that everyone can trust the process. Keeping names on a petition drive private only builds mistrust.”

The supreme court made the correct ruling with an 8-1 decision. This demonstrates a strong and very clear view on this issue. Open government is alive and very healthy in the United States.

-----

It is good to be rid of General McCyrstal

General Stanley McChrystal, Commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and Commander of U.S. Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A), made incredibly disrespectful comments in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine. He, and others in his staff, mocked the vice president and the president’s staff. The general’s comments demonstrated a tragic disrespect for the constitution and the office of the president. For this, President Obama was right to fire the general. But, perhaps more importantly, it was right to fire the general to maintain a total, unquestioned, control of the military by the civilian government of the country.


The founding fathers wanted nothing to do with a standing army. All of the kings of England had used them as their personal enforcer. The armies of England had invaded other countries, put down justifiable rebellions and enforced otherwise unenforceable edicts of the kings. Of course, the armies were sent to the New World to keep the colonist in line.

It is clear from the original wording of the constitution that there was not to be an army that might be used against the citizen’s will. In the constitution, it clearly states that armies should only be raised to repel invasion and other such events. Then, only for two years at a time. The constitution also states that the President of the United States, a civil politician, should be the commander in chief of the army. All of this to maintain control of a military that could became threatening if it gained too much power.

From the time of the early republic, generals have been fired. Although, it is not a common event in the country. All of them because they had challenged the President’s policy at the time. None of them, at anytime – at least in public – actually suggested in any form that the government should be over turned, just policy. A general’s job is to carry out the policy of the United States. While it is natural to want as much power as possible to complete any task, the level of power can never be greater than the president.

It isn’t just the generals that we need be concerned about. When the people at the top are mocking those that are in control, the chain of command will be compromised. As orders come down from the president, those that are assigned to carry out the directives are to respond with total commitment. Disrespectful attitudes from superiors about those that are issuing the orders may mean someone will second guess a command. That could be deadly to themselves, their fellow soldiers and to the republic.

It is good to be rid of General McCyrstal.

-----

Drug wars in Mexico is our responsibility

It is an old cliché that is attributed to Einstein that goes, “if you keep doing the same thing over and over and expect different results, you are ignorant of reality”. Well, yes, I did add the ignorant part because sometimes reality is right in front of us and we fritter away at treating symptoms.


The University of Michigan issued an order banning all travel to Mexico on University paid trips. The university, like many other organizations, have banned travel because of the extreme drug violence all across Mexico but especially in the border towns with the United States.

Drug violence in Mexico is getting out of hand, or in this case, out of country. The violence in Juarez is so bad, that up to 20 people a day are murdered. Sometimes four or five are killed at once, in the middle of town in clear daylight. Two cartels have decided that Juarez is to be their battle ground for control of drugs moving into the United States.

This is our responsibility. No, not that we should go storming into Mexico like we did in the early 1800’s. But drug consumption in the United States is causing this problem in Mexico. Our inability to deal with the consumption of drugs is hurting not only us, but also Mexico and every other country that produces the drugs.

The law enforcement approach is failing. Arrests, jail time, court ordered probation and other authority based approaches have not stopped drug use in America. Will drug use ever go away completely? No, it will not. But we could set realistic goals and develop plans to get there.

Communities should come together and hold discussions on the problem. Families, schools, local police and businesses need all work with each other. This may sound idealistic and a set up for failure but unless this happens, drug use will be here to stay and violence will become a long term part of life along the border with Mexico.

-----

Forgive Virginia

You can’t Separate the Confederacy from Slavery


"We went to war on account of the thing we quarreled with the North about. I never heard of any other cause of quarrel than slavery. Men fight from sentiment. After the fight is over they invent some fanciful theory on which they imagine that they fought."

-- Confederate Col. John S. Mosby (1)

Now that the dust has cleared about the governor of Virginia declaring a new marketing campaign, we should all jump in the car and vacation in the state. The campaign asks people to come to the state to see Civil War sites and honor the brave men who served in the Confederate Army.

But, the tourist sites we may not be able to visit are the plantation living quarters for the slaves. Or the auction sites where people were bought and sold like cattle. The docks on the sea posts most likely don’t have the slave ships that would come and drop their “chattel” off, the term applied to the slaves on board in the Dred Scott Supreme Court ruling. (A trip to Detroit’s own African-American museum has a replica of the hold of one of those ships, it is something worth seeing – dreadful).

Why should we preserve those you may ask? Ask the Jewish Community in southeast Michigan why they have opened a museum about the Holocaust. They have spent millions to remind us that, no matter how cliche-ish (forgive me for making up a word) it sounds, the old statement is true: If we forget the past we will repeat it.

Forgive Virginia though, that is why I suggest we all take a vacation in the fine state. The governor was just trying to come up with a marketing plan that would get tourist in the state and boost the economy not make a political statement. The idyllic vision of the southern plantation and all that hospitably stuff must have been too much to ignore when they were brainstorming about ideas to lure tourist dollars.

But, to brush away the past like it didn’t happen is to forgive all that happen. None of the people that supported the slave economy during the civil war are alive anymore. So, there is no one to blame directly. But, if we glorify that past, we risk it happening again.

If you don’t think it could, talk with a White Supremacist. They would just love for you to forget about the past.

(1) John Singleton Mosby (December 6, 1833 – May 30, 1916), also known as the "Gray Ghost," was a Confederate cavalry battalion commander in the American Civil War. His command, the 43rd Battalion, 1st Virginia Cavalry, known as Mosby's Raiders, was noted for its lightning quick raids, partisan or ranger-like tactics and his ability to successfully elude his Union Army pursuers and disappear with his men, blending in with local farmers and townspeople.

-----

There Arizona goes again

There Arizona goes again…


In Arizona, they are proposing a law that would deny birth certificates to children born of parents that are in the country illegally. This is an indirect assault on the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States. It doesn’t specifically deny citizenship, but does prevent a birth certificate from being issued that would be needed to prove that someone was born in the country.

When Arizona passed the last illegal immigration law, directing law enforcement to determine the citizenship of people that are in custody (as it was amended), it brought plenty of attention to the state from both sides of the argument. This one is sure to make things much more complicated for everyone from the hospital that births the child to the federal government.

But, it should still not change anything as far as a child being granted citizenship.

Right now, there are two ways to gain citizenship; you are born here or you are granted citizenship through application. Many feel that just because a child is born in the United States while the mother is in the country illegally, the child should not be given automatic citizenship. But, the Fourteenth Amendment states that children born in the United States are citizens. It states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Because a birth certificate will not be issued doesn’t mean the child is not born here. (for more details about why the Fourteenth Amendment was created see blog post, “Citizenship as Birth Right”)

As was the position of the Responsible Community when the previously law was enacted, so it is with this one. The responsibility of citizenship and immigration rest with the federal government. It was given to the national government by the Fourteenth amendment. The lawmakers in Arizona are either making a cheap political statement on the backs of children or are attempting to force the country to address the immigration issue in America. Seems that it is a little of both.

As a country, we may decide to make some changes in the way citizenship is granted. That would take a change in the Fourteenth amendment, or, perhaps a challenge to the interpretation of the amendment by the Supreme Court But, until then, birthright citizenship is there for everyone born in the country.

As a nation of immigrants, we should not change what has made us strong.

-----

Health care for autistic children is needed now!

In Michigan, families with autistic children are considering suing health insurance companies to force them to provide care for their children. Insurance companies give many reasons why they do not cover these deserving children, but it is really about costs. In this market economy, if a company can offer less expensive premiums by excluding coverage of individuals with rare disorders, the company will gain an advantage in the market. Even though it will cost everyone a few more dollars, insurance companies should be forced to cover them.


It is reported that families lose their homes, retirement funds, declare bankruptcy and even have to give up jobs to take care of their children. All of those homes that are lost lowers the value of other homes. The lose of the retirement funds means there is less money for investment, savings and people have to work longer into their lives, keeping jobs from the young. Each dollar that is lost in bankruptcy by companies must be made up by raising the cost of everything. This raises the cost of living for all of us. It could be more than the few dollars more in premiums that insurance companies would need to charge to cover their cost for the additional coverage.

But it is more than money that we lose. It is a bit of our own humanity and community. We didn’t gather in communities at the beginning so that we could continue on just as we still lived as individuals in the wild. Communities were formed so that everyone could share in many of the responsibilities that individuals have in common. As the community expects each individual to live up to their own responsibility so each individual expects the community to do its part. To intentionally leaving out even one individual from the full benefits of the community is a violation of that pact.

Insurance is part of the market’s answer to help the community work. It is a way of sharing the responsibility for many of the dangers and risks that all of us will come across. For the community to continue to allow insurance companies to exclude families with children that have autism is to keep them from receiving the full benefit of the community. This violation of the pact between the individual and the community needs to be corrected.

This should not be fought out in the courts. It will be time consuming and cost even more money that could be used for the benefit of the families that are in need. It will take many years to work through a solution. In the mean time, the community will prevent many more children from receiving the care and treatment they need.

The state legislature needs to mandate that insurance companies provide the coverage that these children need – now.

-----