Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-02-01/friday-news-roundup-domestic
The U.S. economy shrinks slightly in the fourth quarter. A bipartisan group of senators and the White House propose immigration reform. And a Senate committee holds hearings on gun violence. A panel of journalists joins Diane for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
Ron Elving
senior Washington editor for NPR.
David Leonhardt
Washington bureau chief for The New York Times.
Molly Ball
staff writer for The Atlantic.
Friday News Roundup Video
Ed Koch, former mayor of New York City, died Feb. 1 at age 88. New York Times reporter David Leonhardt, who grew up in New York, recounted a dinner party he attended at Koch's house in which the mayor cooked a roast chicken. "For me, for many New Yorkers, you can't separate your own childhood and the city of New York from Ed Koch," Leonhardt said.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
ECG:
I am well aware of Madison and others in debates at Convention. I am also aware of the sentiment of a lot of American citizens at the time, having just kicked Brits butt, wishing to not set up ANOTHER tyrannical Gov.
BUT in their WISDOM (or in your opinion apparently lack of it), there was nothing written specifically in Constitution referring to “protection from tyranny”.
Drew Kelly wrote:
"BUT in their WISDOM ... there was nothing written specifically in Constitution referring to “protection from tyranny”."
Correct. THAT'S WHY THE BILL OF RIGHTS EXISTS!!!
Not just with respect to guns! But with respect to speech and press and due process and criminal charges, etc.
I read a lot of rhetoric in your post, Drew Kelly, but I still do not read an answer to this simple question:
"...why is such an amendment (the second), which, under your interpretation in fact guarantees that the government has a mechanism to act, potentially, against its citizens, mixed in with a bunch of other amendments specifically provided to afford protection of the citizens against tyranny?"
"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."
To me, the interpretation is simple - because the militia will be armed (to provide for the security of a free State), the people shall have the right to keep and bear arms as well and that right shall not be infringed.
That is a much more straightforward reading of the amendment IN ITS CONTEXT, than some tortured reading that ensures that the government is armed against its own citizens.
how could you argue with that.
ECG:
"...why is such an amendment... mixed in with a bunch of other amendments specifically provided to afford protection of the citizens against tyranny?"
Your question is a hypothetical one, seeing as no where in B of R is the word "tyranny".
You are making stuff up.
Just as relevant might be why does each "right" contain the word the.
Perhaps more pertinent a question might be, why does each have to do with establishing citizens' rights?
Why ECG?
Why?
Why?
No, try again.
Why? Use your head.
Think hard, why?
Give up yet?
(Here's a clue. It may have something to do with FF wishing to establish citizen's RIGHTS.)
Drew Kelly wrote:
"ECG:
"...why is such an amendment... mixed in with a bunch of other amendments specifically provided to afford protection of the citizens against tyranny?"
Your question is a hypothetical one, seeing as no where in B of R is the word "tyranny".
You are making stuff up...."
Ah, I see. Because the word "tyranny" is not in the document itself, it must be the case that the Founders were not concerned about tyranny?
Brilliant reasoning, Drew Kelly. OK, forget the word "tyranny". How about "inconsistent and oppressive rule". Those words aren't in there either so that must not have been a concern of the Founders either. Thomas Jefferson, who did not attend the Constitutional Convention, in a December 1787 letter to Madison called the omission of a Bill of Rights a major mistake: "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth." "against every government"? Why "against", Drew Kelly? A writer for the Ludwig Von Mises Institute offers this, "Since [the debate of the necessity for a Bill of Rights] still provides the basis for upholding our rights against federal assault, it remains as relevant today as two centuries ago."
Making stuff up, Drew Kelly? Really? Interpreting the Bill of Rights in the context of history is "making stuff up"? Dude, just because you are ignorant of the history of the Bill of Rights and why and how it came to be, does not mean that someone who isn't is "making stuff up". Call it tyranny, call it oppression, call it what you will, the concept, the possibility of a government's over arching power against its people is the raison d'etre of our Bill of Rights. That's all that matters in properly interpreting the Second Amendment - as well as the other nine. The words matter. But the words in their proper context matter more if you really want to understand what the document says and what the Founders intended. Somehow, I don't think you really do.
ECG wrote:
“OK, forget the word ‘tyranny‘. How about ‘inconsistent and oppressive rule‘. Those words aren't in there either so that must not have been a concern of the Founders either.”
Can you find some more words in the B of R or Constitution & B of R THAT AREN’T IN THERE to make your case? I can find a lot of words THAT AREN’T IN THERE too, and make a good case to. BUT I think that when discussing meaning of a document it’s best to stick to the words that ARE IN THERE.
“Jefferson who wasn’t at Constitutional Convention, wrote Madison…”- you’re really reaching.
Another time when I’m not half-asleep I’d be happy to talk of FF contrary opinions.
Hey, let me ask you?
You think that the South was exercising it’s “legal rights” when it attempted to secede from “tyranny” and “inconsistent and oppressive rule” as espoused in Constitution and Bill of Rights?
Drew Kelly wrote:
"Can you find some more words in the B of R or Constitution & B of R THAT AREN’T IN THERE to make your case? I can find a lot of words THAT AREN’T IN THERE too, and make a good case to. BUT I think that when discussing meaning of a document it’s best to stick to the words that ARE IN THERE."
Yes, I can find some more. How about "Air Force". No mention of that. The Constitution only mentions the Army and the Navy. Yet we have an Air Force and the DOD controls it and in the CONTEXT of Article 1, Section 8, that makes perfect sense. But, never mind. I'm not talking about the narrow path of interpretation of the words that are or are not in the the Second Amendment. You're doing that. I'm talking about CONTEXT. When you take the "text" out of "context" you're left with a ... well, you know. I have only amplified the text to try to get you to understand what it means and what was intended by the Framers. That was for your benefit, not for the benefit of my argument. But I certainly don't have to do that. Let's stick to the words that are printed there. The text may be readily interpreted two different ways - one to staff a militia, one to provide a defense against it. I said that from the beginning and no modification or amplification of the text is necessary. But in the CONTEXT of the Bill of Rights, only the latter interpretation makes sense.
"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."
Part duex:
I'm going to try this again ... mull it over and let's see if it seeps in this time, "The concept, the possibility of a government's over arching power against its people is the raison d'etre (that means "reason for existing", literally, "reason to be") of our Bill of Rights. That's all that matters in properly interpreting the Second Amendment - as well as the other nine. The words matter. But the words in their proper context matter more if you really want to understand what the document says and what the Founders intended".
You said, "Jefferson who wasn’t at Constitutional Convention, wrote Madison…”- you’re really reaching."
Reaching? The opinion of the author of the Declaration on a Bill of Rights is "reaching"?! By the way, Adams also agreed, and in writing to Jefferson asked “What think you of a Declaration of Rights? Should not such a Thing have preceded the Model?” Madison at first dissented, but eventually agreed and drafted the Amendments. You claim "contrary opinions" of some of the Founders, and there were some. But the principle contrary opinion was that the rights need not be express, because they were inferred! That is, "why is it necessary to write down what everybody knows"? “Why,” asked Alexander Hamilton in “Federalist 84,” “declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?” In fact the dissenters were LESS FG-centric than the proponents. In other words they thought the Bill of Rights was unnecessary and to include one might LIMIT the rights of the people vis-a-vis their government, not the other way around! Well, considering the history of the various forays of the FG into the private lives of its citizens, do you think Hamilton was right?! How do you think that would have worked out?!
Concl:
No. The Second Amendment is provided, as are all the others, to LIMIT the power of the FG with respect to its citizens - in specific terms. And even the ninth and tenth amendments reinforce that the powers of the FG were to be limited to those enumerated and delegated to it. The answer to Hamilton's question is, "because the central government will always try to TAKE more power and never give it up" and that has been borne out by history. And because keeping the state free required the arming of a milita, the Amendment states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". In fact the more I think about the concept of Madison inserting the Second Amendment to ensure that the government has the arms it needs to put down insurrection, the funnier it becomes.
I'll answer your question about the "War of Northern Agression" here (this thread) one of these days too. But, as I've said before, in a different war, it sounds to me like you would have been on the side of Loyalists.