SCOTUS Clarifies that 2nd Amendment Applies to States

This is sure to make the left blow an empty gasket with an orange plastic tip: The Supreme Court of the United States has clarified that the second amendment right to bear arms applies to the states and local governments, as well as the federal government. In so ruling, the Court struck down Chicago's gun ordinance, the most restrictive gun law in the country.

Several years ago, the Supreme Court -- which had not considered the second amendment in nearly a century -- held in Heller that the right to bear arms applies to private citizens, not just "militias."(See previous posts here.) That case involved a statute in the District of Columbia. It therefore remained unclear whether the holding was limited to federal enclaves or applied, by incorporation, to the various (real) states. It seemed obvious to many of us that the second amendment applies to the states every bit as much as the first amendment.

The majority was 5-4. Note that Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, so the outcome probably would have been the same even if Elena Kagan had already replaced Stevens.

Given the liberal distaste for anything related to guns, the battle now shifts to what limits may be imposed upon the second amendment right. Just as the first amendment is not limitless --pornography is not protected, for example -- the litigation will now turn for defining the limits of the right and the standard of review of government efforts to regulate gun use and ownership.

One wrinkle in the Court's reasoning for all the con-law geeks out there. The Court used the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to incorporate the second amendment, thereby rejecting an opportunity advanced by some of the litigants to use the privileges or immunities clause of the fourteenth amendment.

Tea Partiers will like result of the case but be disappointed that its reasoning does not give them a foothold for more expansive property rights. Will Rand Paul pick up on this distinction? Moreover, will Paul note that the Court has implicitly rejected his contention that the fourteenth amendment was intended to apply only to former slaves?

R.I.P. Sen. Robert Byrd

It doesn't matter for the moment what one thinks of his politics or his past associations: Sen. Robert Byrd devoted himself to public service, and for that he deserves our respect and gratitude, and his family deserves our condolences.

Byrd's death, following the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy, changes the face of the Democratic party. There is a real void in that party that President Barack Obama has not and probably cannot fill.

Colbert "Eyes" Rand

A while back, I asked an ophthalmologist friend (about the same age as Rand Paul) what he thought of Paul's self-accreditation and the ensuing fuss.

Here's his reply, by way of Stephen Colbert. TGIF! Got to love this senate race.

More Gov't Over-reaching from the P.R.M.

The Daily Caller has canvassed ridiculous ordinances from towns in Massachusetts and has come up with some doozies.

Number one on the list: government-mandated teeth brushing. Note, however, that this ordinance applies only to children in daycare. Doesn't that create an equal protection problem for those non-daycare kids, the ones whose mothers gave up their careers to devote themselves to child-rearing? Plainly, Massachusetts should just seize those children, to save them from exposure to reactionary ideas and gingivitis.

Then there is the law against defacing a milk carton. Who thinks of this stuff? It's too bizarre even to make up.

My favorite, however, comes from Cambridge, home of Harvard and epicenter of the Nanny State. The Cambridge Climate Congress has proposed banning meat sales in Cambridge on Mondays. The ordinance did not pass, but that was before Harvard alum Al Gore found himself with no place to sleep and extra time on his hands to promote climate change. Note that the ordinance didn't set the meat-out for Fridays, like the old Catholic custom. Good to see that the old wall between church and state has not cracked in Cambridge.

McConnell Statement on McChrystal Resignation

WASHINGTON D.C.—Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following statement Wednesday regarding Afghanistan and the decision by President Obama who, as Commander in Chief, has accepted the resignation of General Stanley McChrystal as commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan and announced his intention to nominate General David Petraeus to replace him:

“In his remarks, the President restated our nation’s goal in Afghanistan and Pakistan: to break the Taliban’s momentum and to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda. Our nation is at war and all Americans should unite around this goal and provide our men and women in uniform the tools necessary to carry out this difficult mission.

“We are once again fortunate to be able to call upon the selfless service of General David Petraeus to answer the call of duty. His experience in carrying out at a counterinsurgency campaign in Iraq, when many questioned whether or not such a strategy could succeed, should provide a tremendous resource as he leads our forces in Afghanistan. Having known General Petraeus since his days serving at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, I have the utmost confidence in his leadership and I expect the Senate to quickly approve his nomination. General Stanley McChrystal has spent all of his adult life in service to our nation, carrying out some of the most important and perilous tasks that we ask of our warriors. Our country is indebted to General McChrystal and his family.

McConnell Comments on McChrystal Interview

If President Barack Obama thought Sen. Republican Leader Mitch McConnell was going to thrown him lifesline on whether to can Gen. Stanley McChrystal for insubordination, Obama must be disappointed at McConnell's relentless caginess.

Talking Points Memo has McConnell's reaction to McChrystal's Rolling Stone interview:

"It seems to me it's important to remember that we've got a conflict going on in Afghanistan, a challenging conflict, which has enjoyed bipartisan support, unlike the war in Iraq," McConnell said. "And I hope we can keep our eye on the ball here, and win in Afghanistan and not get diverted off of that on to these other issues that seem to have developed."

. . .

"The important thing here is to get the mission right and to win," McConnell added. "And rather than getting diverted off on this I think it's important for everybody around here to remember that we've got a big stake in having the Afghan conflict come out the right way. This is a war that to date has enjoyed pretty broad bipartisan support."

McConnell and Reid Defend Israel

A little late to the party but good news nonetheless: Sen. Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. Democratic Leader Harry Reid, along with 83 other senators, have signed a joint letter in support of Israel's blockade and flotilla raid.

From Politco via Hotair, the letter states:

We fully support Israel’s right to self-defense. In response to thousands of rocket attacks on Israel from Hamas terrorists in Gaza, Israel took steps to prevent items which could be used to support these attacks from reaching Gaza. Israel’s naval blockade, which is legal under international law, allows Israel to keep dangerous goods from entering Gaza by sea. The intent of the measures is to protect Israel, while allowing humanitarian aid into Gaza.

Late last month when Israel learned that groups operating in Turkey wanted to challenge its blockade of Gaza, Israel made every effort to ensure that all humanitarian aid reached Gaza without needlessly precipitating a confrontation. Israeli forces were able to safely divert five of the six ships challenging the blockade. However, video footage shows that the Israeli commandos who arrived on the sixth ship, which was owned by the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation (the IHH), were brutally attacked with iron rods, knives, and broken glass. They were forced to respond to that attack and we regret the loss of life that resulted.

Kelley Paul Defends Rand

Rand Paul's wife Kelley has made an ad to take on the media for being mean to Rand about forming his own opthamaologist board (of which Kelly is vice president).

Jake at Page One says it reminds him of a hostage video. I think it looks like one of those commercials that try to ape Desperate Housewives.

In any event, the ad suggests that the Paul campaign, despite the turnover of personnel, is still not ready for Prime Time. The video was poorly produced. The camera work was worse than amateurish (there's this new technology called the zoom in: use it). The audio contained the repetitious noise of shuffling cue cards. And the cue cards apparently were held so high above the camera that poor Mrs. Paul looked heavenward the whole time, which made a weird ad even weirder.

Even more basic, however, was the decision to run the ad in the first place. It has only prolonged a story that would quickly die otherwise. It made the Pauls look like whiners. And it didn't exactly enhance Rand Paul's looming masculine presence to send his wife out to fight for him.

Not a good showing for the GOP nominee.

Rand Paul on BP Oil Spill

Rand Paul has some harsh words for the Obama administration's reaction to the BP Gulf spill. Thankfully, it's a more thoughtful analysis than Paul's disastrous interview with Matt Lauer. Paul makes a particularly good point about the Obama administration's failure to waive the Jones Act and accept help from vessels flying under foreign flags; this reflects Obama's indebteness to Big Labor and the longshoremen.

Here's Paul's release:

"Recently, the President disturbingly noted he was studying the crisis in the Gulf in an attempt to find our “whose *ss to kick.” I’ll move past the obvious problem with the appropriateness of the comment to just say this: Look in the mirror Mr. President.

"This crisis has been a case study in failure to lead, failure to act, and using a crisis to advance your own agenda rather than solve the problem.

"Make no mistake, this is an environmental disaster of epic proportions, and should be treated as such. BP should be held responsible for whatever their negligence was. Congress and the Administration should examine how this happened, and what we can do to prevent this in the future. But it should be noted that offshore drilling of this kind has been in place for 40 years with few problems. It’s wrong for the Administration to use this crisis as a platform not for cleaning up the mess; but rather as one to threaten, bluster and seek to advance parts of their agenda.

"If the Administration were serious, they’d be leading, much like Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. Governor Jindal has had to wait weeks for federal waivers, assistance and supplies. He finally decided he’d had enough and is proceeding, in some cases without assistance or permission. He’s protecting his state while President Obama does photo ops.

"That’s why for the people closest to the disaster, over 65% of his constituents approve of Governor Jindal’s handling of the spill, while only 30% approve of President Obama’s inaction.

"But this isn’t the whole story. Part of their inaction has also been because of their special interest friends. You see, the Obama Administration could have waived something called the Jones Act, which is a party of a 1920 law that prohibits foreign ships from assisting in this type of crisis. The fact is many foreign countries have technology to clean up oil spills that exceed our own. We should be taking advantage of their offers to help. Now why would we not waive this Act, as was done just 3 days after Hurricane Katrina by President Bush? Because the single biggest proponent of the Jones Act is also the single biggest donors to President Obama and Democrats in Congress – Big Labor.

"Then to add insult to injury, the President Obama announced two actions that, instead of helping clean up the mess, will lead to bigger problems.

"First, he declared a moratorium on offshore drilling for wells more than 500 feet deep. According to a Senator from his own party, this could cost as many as 330,000 jobs and will surely cost hundreds of millions of dollars in increased costs to consumers and businesses.

"According to the Minerals Management Service, Offshore drilling on the Outercontinental Shelf accounts for 27% of our domestic oil production. And that has been shut off, with no plan in mind to deal with the job loss and increased costs that will follow.

"And now, he is using the crisis to revive his failed energy Tax/Cap and Trade scheme.

"As the White House Chief of Staff said about another crisis “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste -- and what I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before."

"So what we have here is inaction and failed leadership, coupled with political opportunism and special interest paybacks. That’s not the kind of leadership Americans need or deserve."

Sen. Wicker Gives GOP Address

This week's GOP address is by Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS). Not surprisingly, he chose to discuss the BP Gulf Spill and the Obama administration's response to "do more harm than good." Here's the video.

Wicker blasts President Obama's speech to the nation as a page out of Rahm Emanuel's manual -- never let a crisis go to waste:

In his speech Tuesday night, President Obama made it clear that he intends to exploit this crisis to push his liberal agenda for a cap-and-tax scheme. This is a disservice not only to the victims and their families but also to the millions of Gulf Coast residents who are struggling in the wake of the spill.

Americans increasingly reject the cap-and-tax proposal because it would drive up the cost of energy and force American jobs overseas.

The President spent more than a third of his address advocating this national energy tax, revealing his true priorities. Now is not the time to push a controversial, job-killing, partisan agenda through Congress.

In addition to devastating our economy, this proposal would do nothing to fix the disastrous leak or clean up our beaches, marshes, and waters.

Another idea that takes us in the wrong direction is the Democratic plan to increase oil cleanup fees and raid those funds to pay for unrelated programs. These funds are needed to clean up spills, not to satisfy Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi’s desire to raise federal spending.

In addition, the administration’s moratorium on deepwater drilling has the potential to become the third wave of this disaster. If left in place, the moratorium will permanently eliminate thousands of jobs and drive up the cost of energy for all Americans. You don’t have to take my word for it. Earlier this week democratic strategist James Carville said the moratorium was [quote] “wrecking the economy” of the Gulf Coast.

Meanwhile, in the Middle East

While the Obama administration dithers in the Gulf of Mexico, tensions grow in the Middle East. The Jerusalem Post has come to the sad conclusion that in light of the Obama administration's position at the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Committee, "Israel should rethink the value of all U.S. promises, regardless of how or where they were made."

The Obama administration is preventing Israel from maintaining the ambiguity of its nuclear policy that has kept states like Iran that want to "wipe Israel off the map" from so doing.

The Obama administration calls for Israel to become a signatory to the nonproliferation treaty; the irony is that signatories include Iran, Syria and Libya, and yet the Obama administration singles out Israel as the problem state when it comes to nuclear weapons

As with the Gulf oil spill, the administration's credibility with Israel is in shatters, because America is no longer being led, just ruled, and not very competently.

Rand Paul Opposes Kagan

Rand Paul has announced that he opposes the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. It's a reasonable position for a conservative to take, except that Kagan could be much worse. Compared to some of the potential nominees, Kagan looks downright moderate (she appointed some outstanding conservatives to the Harvard Law School faculty as Dean.) Paul has stronger issues to press than Kagan's nomination, in my view.

Paul's press release is quoted below. The only part that leave me confused is Paul's complaint that

"Elena Kagan does not believe that the Constitution is the sole legal authority for the Supreme Court, specifically stating that judges could "mold or steer the law" and that it could be based on "the Constitution or another accepted source of law".

Now if Paul's point is that the Supreme Court cannot legitimately cite international law, then I agree with him. And I agree with him that a judge has no business "molding or steering" the law; that's a cover for judicial activism.

However, Kagan is correct that the Court can apply "another accepted source of law," other than the constitution. Indeed, the U.S. constitution is not always at issue in U. S. Supreme Court cases. The Court can rule on any number of sources of law, including statutes and foreign treaties.

Here's Paul's release:

Among the views of Elena Kagan of concern to Dr. Paul are:

1. Elena Kagan does not believe that the Constitution is the sole legal authority for the Supreme Court, specifically stating that judges could "mold or steer the law" and that it could be based on "the Constitution or another accepted source of law". She will clearly be an activist judge for her liberal positions and in Dr. Paul's opinion, will legislate from the bench.

2. Elena Kagan argued against a federal partial-birth abortion ban.

3. Elena Kagan has actively worked against the 2nd amendment, and in favor of greater restrictions and licensing for guns.

4. While at Harvard, she banned military recruiting there, showing her disdain for our armed forces.

5. She has written in support of discrimination via racial quotas.

For these reasons, Dr. Paul would vote against the nomination of Elena Kagan, and calls on Jack Conway to state his position and tell Kentucky voters how he would vote on this liberal Obama nominee.

NYT Profiles Pauls

The New York Times cannot get enough of Rand Paul. Today it profiles Paul from the perspective of what it was like to grow up in the libertarian home of Ron Paul:

In keeping with their position as the First Family of Libertarianism, the Pauls of Lake Jackson, Tex., did not have many rules around their home.

“Behave yourself and be polite” is how Representative Ron Paul describes his regulatory philosophy about rearing five children. Mr. Paul, a Republican, and his wife of 53 years, Carol, never believed in assigned chores or mandates.

They did not give out allowances, which they viewed as a parental version of a government handout. They did not believe in strict curfews; Mr. Paul says that unintended consequences — like speeding home to beat the clock — can result from excessive meddling from a central authority.

"Come Clean Mr. President"

RNC Chairman Michael Steele has a good re: line in a recent fundraising letter pointing out the lack of transparency in the Obama White House: "Come Clean Mr. President". Already the BP oil spill has seeped into the public consciousness as a metaphor for even more things characteristic of the current administration than simply ineptitude.

Tipper and Al Gore Call it Quits

Tipper and Al Gore announced that they will separate, according to Politico.

And thus ends one of the most obnoxious supposed romances in political history. Remember how Al Gore claimed that he and Tipper inspired the novel and movie Love Story ? It was a little disturbing that he chose to misappropriate a story-line in which the wife dies, but whatever.

Then there was that dramatic make-out scene on stage at the Democratic National Convention. Yick. It was one of the most gruesome public displays of affection ever, worse than when Pamela Anderson made out with Kid Rock in the Derby paddock.

It was altogether fitting, given that Al Gore invented the Internet, that the Gores announced their break-up via email.

Welcome Back, Carter

It has been obvious for months that the the Obama administration is just a slightly hipper version of the Carter administration. This point is underscored by Obama's non-response to the BP oil spill. Unlike George W. Bush's reaction to Hurricane Katrina, Obama didn't even bother to do a cursory fly-over; it took him five weeks to actually show up.

Obama has lost "progressives" like James Carville and Maureen Dowd as well as RINOs like Peggy Noonan for his seeming indifference and incompetence. Now he is on the verge of losing the Mainstream Media, too.

Like Jimmy Carter and the Iranian hostage crisis, the daily headline has become how many days have elapsed since the BP oil spill began -- how many days has the administration failed to fix the problem at issue or manifest any leadership to to try to improve the situation. The show Nightline was formed after the hostage crisis and originally had the name "America Held Hostage: Day (fill in the blank). All that remains to complete the analogy is a news series dedicated to the oil spill, starring dead pelicans and sobbing fishermen.

We passed day 40 this weekend. That is, the oil spill has now lasted longer than Lent.

Today is the 42nd day since the oil rig exploded, but the Obama administration still does not know what hit it.

Santigold Gets It

While driving, the lyrics of my teenager's songs usually send me diving for the "off" button, but a recent one caught my attention. They are in a song written and sung by an artist named Santigold. The song's title is "Shove It" and this is the chorus:

"We think you're a joke, shove your hope where it don't shine."

It is a rare thing in pop culture when an artist figures out our President, but Santigold remarkably has. She understands what he is up to. Her simple chorus eloquently articulates what most Americans now feel.

Interestingly, Santigold graduated from Wesleyan College, an elite Northeastern liberal arts college. People that go to Wesleyan are very smart, but few escape the brainwashing of its Lefty professors. Santigold is a refreshing example of one who evidently did.

Rand Paul Resurfaces . . . On Russian TV

Rand Paul has been boycotting interviews with the national media since they were so mean to him, but not the international media. He gave an interview to a Russian television network in which he says that he supports legislation to prevent citizenship to babies born in the U.S. -- the so-called anchor babies.

Of course, there's the problem of the plain text of the constitution. (Wait, I thought Paul venerated the constitution?) Take the fourteenth amendment's guarantee that anyone born in America is an American citizen ("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.")

The genius of giving interviews to Russian television is that those journalists don't ask you about the little details, like the fourteenth amendment.

h/t: Townhall

It Could Be Worse

We Grayson supporters continue to cry in our beer, while Republicans in Nevada worry that the Tea Party candidate will take their beer away.

The Nevada Republican primary for the U.S. Senate seat -- Harry Reid's seat -- features Sharron Angle. According to National Review Online, Angle went from 5 to 25 points in the polls once the Tea Party threw its support her way.

NRO now speculates on whether Angle will be the next Rand Paul; will she win the primary and then be revealed to espouse all sorts of weird positions on issues nobody thought to ask her about?

Libertarians, including Rand Paul, get criticized for their hostility to federal drug laws. For some libertarians, the issue is that the government has no right to interfere with recreational drug use; it is government overreach into individual conduct. For others, including Paul if you believe him, the issue is one of federalism: leave drug enforcement to the states.

Then there is Nevada's Sharron Angle, who not only supports criminalizing narcotics, but has suggested that alcohol should also be prohibited (Yes! That's how Prohibition got its name.)

In an interview in 2005 on the legalization of marijuana, Anglegrudgingly tolerates the legality of alcohol: “I would tell you that I have the same feelings about legalizing marijuana, not medical marijuana, but just legalizing marijuana. I feel the same about legalizing alcohol. . . . The effect on society is so great that I’m just not a real proponent of legalizing any drug or encouraging any drug . I’m elected by the people to protect, and I think that law should protect.” Her spokesman vehemently denies that Angle is a prohibitionist, but one can imagine how that comment could get construed by Nevada restaurant,casino and bar workers in a heated Senate campaign.

It would be like Rand Paul coming out against the thoroughbred industry. Oh, wait, Kentucky Senate President David Williams already did that.

More Rand!

Not in recent memory has a Kentuckian's comments generated so much controversy as Rand Paul's recent one regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The fact that the last seven (now eight!) comments on this blog address this subject is evidence of this.

Paul's mistake was in making a statement that was nuanced and requires a little bit of thought to understand. He was not impugning the intent of the Civil Rights Act, but its efficacy and constitutionality. There is a big difference between these two things and unfortunately much of the American press, and public, is unable to deal with such distinctions.

A parallel to this situation for Paul would be the person who strongly supports a woman's right to have an abortion but believes that Roe V. Wade was unconstitutional. This is not intellectually inconsistent, but it is subtle and takes a bit of thought to understand.

Paul's mistake was in making his statements in a public venue. Such ideas should only be discussed amongst individuals that are capable of understanding the philosophy and intellectual reasoning behind them. Very few members of the mainstream media qualify here. Rand Paul is not racist or a bigot, but the mainstream media would like him to be and they have taken this opportunity to twist the intent of his remarks to paint him as one.