I feel the need to discuss this subject due to the nomination of Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, of which Sotomayor is a part, recently decided on a case involving firearm bans in Chicago and one of its suburbs. The basic argument was that in light of the Heller decision, these bans were no longer legal.
The conclusion reached was that the bans were legal because the Heller decision was done at a federal level, and federal law doesn't apply to the states. In other words, the Bill of Rights only applies to things the federal government can regulate; those right don't apply in the states.
I have to say, I really don't understand this decision. I am not a scholar, I am not a judge, I've never been to law school, but I understand the nature of rights and this decision was ludicrous. So, time for an explanation:
Natural Rights
Natural rights were discussed a huge amount in the 1780s. The basic idea of a natural right is that it has existed since the beginning of time, every human has it, and no government should have the ability to restrict it. The first and second amendments fall into this category. The rights to say what you feel, write what you feel, defend yourself and loved ones, choose to follow your own God, these are basic, essential needs of every human. Placing a guarantee of these rights into a government document does not mean the government is allowing you these rights. It just means your government is good enough to recognize it's own limits. Living in a country where you do not have freedom of religion does not mean you don't have that basic right as a human. You still have that right, but your government is corrupt enough that it tries to control your ability to act on that right. Natural rights do not go away, and do not change under regulation.
Procedural Rights
These are usually rights established by a government to ensure that it acts properly. They restrict how the government interacts with the people. While not universal, natural rights, they are seen as being good principles to govern with. Examples of this would be trial by jury, no warrantless searches, no self-incrimination, etc. These rights can change from place to place, if the basic principles behind them stay the same, ensuring that the people are well treated by government.
According to the founding fathers, and common sense, the right to defend yourself falls solidly under natural rights, which exist outside of government. It is ridiculous that a court, who is supposed to understand rights, has put out a ruling saying that citizens' natural rights don't exist to state governments. While I'm all for state soverignty, this is absurd. Natural rights are above law. They should not be regulated or declared non applicable. That Sotomayor was a part of this decision worries me, and damages my opinion of her ability to be a part of the Supreme Court, who's responsibility it is to ensure that these natural rights are never restricted.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Federalists vs. Antifederalists
Let us hail back in time to an interesting period of history we rarely think about. This is the time after 1776. Nine years after, in fact. This is the time period in which the Constitution was being written and debated. Contrary to popular belief, this was not a quick process, and there were arguments on almost every aspect of the document. None of the fights seemed so belabored as the one discussing whether or not to include a Bill of Rights. I may have several posts on this subject in the future, so here's a brief rundown of the teams:
1. The Federalists.
The federalists believed that the Constitution, as written, gave an appropriate amount of power to the federal government (President, Congress, Supreme Court), and also limited their power to a reasonable degree. They thought a Bill of Rights was not necessary, because the Constitution was written to tell the government only what it could do. For instance - since the Constitution doesn't say the government can regulate free speech, it can't, so why do we need a right saying that it can't? Further, they were afraid that if we enumerated SOME of our rights, the government would assume they could control every right not written down. The federalists felt, in this way, a Bill of Rights could actually be dangerous to liberty, instead of insuring it.
2. The Anti federalists.
This group believed that the Constitution, as written, gave too much power to the federal government, and didn't regulate their exact powers enough. They wanted more specific limits put on governmental power, and the vague generalized statements in the Constitution replaced with longer clarifying segments. The anti federalists were worried over the potential of the federal government to grow, and expand its power to include everything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution (as it has). They wanted a Bill of Rights, to ensure that the government had lines it could not cross, and rights that would always be protected for the citizens of America.
The end result of this was that the Federalists won, and the Constitution was ratified without a Bill of Rights. It didn't last long in that form, however. Public outcry lead to the first 10 amendments being written to the Constitution, and published as a Bill of Rights.
Did this Bill prove to be essential to liberty? It certainly did, but the worries of the Federalists were valid. The government has attempted to control every right not written down in the Constitution and its amendments. The government also has taken upon itself all privileges not specifically forbidden to them, so the worries of the anti federalists have also come to pass. For all their work, neither group was able to prevent the problems they foresaw, though their efforts certainly helped slow this process. I am in awe of their ability to foresee the directions government would naturally take over a 230 year period.
Believe it or not, the government we currently have is only vaguely similar to the one the founding fathers wanted. Now knowing the teams, and the issues involved in this debate, you'll have a better understanding of the arguments I'll be presenting. Hopefully in future posts I'll be able to continue to explain the differences, and how far the federal government wandered from its original intentions.
1. The Federalists.
The federalists believed that the Constitution, as written, gave an appropriate amount of power to the federal government (President, Congress, Supreme Court), and also limited their power to a reasonable degree. They thought a Bill of Rights was not necessary, because the Constitution was written to tell the government only what it could do. For instance - since the Constitution doesn't say the government can regulate free speech, it can't, so why do we need a right saying that it can't? Further, they were afraid that if we enumerated SOME of our rights, the government would assume they could control every right not written down. The federalists felt, in this way, a Bill of Rights could actually be dangerous to liberty, instead of insuring it.
2. The Anti federalists.
This group believed that the Constitution, as written, gave too much power to the federal government, and didn't regulate their exact powers enough. They wanted more specific limits put on governmental power, and the vague generalized statements in the Constitution replaced with longer clarifying segments. The anti federalists were worried over the potential of the federal government to grow, and expand its power to include everything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution (as it has). They wanted a Bill of Rights, to ensure that the government had lines it could not cross, and rights that would always be protected for the citizens of America.
The end result of this was that the Federalists won, and the Constitution was ratified without a Bill of Rights. It didn't last long in that form, however. Public outcry lead to the first 10 amendments being written to the Constitution, and published as a Bill of Rights.
Did this Bill prove to be essential to liberty? It certainly did, but the worries of the Federalists were valid. The government has attempted to control every right not written down in the Constitution and its amendments. The government also has taken upon itself all privileges not specifically forbidden to them, so the worries of the anti federalists have also come to pass. For all their work, neither group was able to prevent the problems they foresaw, though their efforts certainly helped slow this process. I am in awe of their ability to foresee the directions government would naturally take over a 230 year period.
Believe it or not, the government we currently have is only vaguely similar to the one the founding fathers wanted. Now knowing the teams, and the issues involved in this debate, you'll have a better understanding of the arguments I'll be presenting. Hopefully in future posts I'll be able to continue to explain the differences, and how far the federal government wandered from its original intentions.
Introduction
I'm going to be using this blog to discuss things I find relevant. It will probably be fairly political in nature, but you won't find much political party preference here... at least not a preference for either of the two major parties. I'm against big government, and I'm for individual freedom. I'm a 28 year old male living in Virginia, and I have some things to say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
