Letters to the Editor
Xanthro
Published Letters: 522 Editor's Choice: 47
-
WeikuBoy keeps misquoting.
[Read the article: Repeal the Second Amendment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]He keeps taking parts of court cases out of context then listing citations when the cases in question do not support his claim.
I could simply take PRESSER v. ILLINOIS. and write
"in view of the fact that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force of the national
government as well as in view of its general powers, the
States cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing
arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful
resource for maintaining the public security."
While that is absolutely the wording in Presser, it's dishonest to present it without context, as Presser afirmed that States can keep private militias from forming, and the above wording is from the Plantiff in Error and not the conclusion of the Court.
WeikuBoy keeps taking passages out of context in the hope that others will not be familiar with the law in question.
Presser does conclude.
"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing
arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government."
This is the closest a Supreme Court decision comes at affirming whether or not States can or cannot regulate the right to keep and bear arms. The court ruled
"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which
only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military
organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in citiesand towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of
the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in
question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States."
Note, that the above referenced "even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view" refers to the immediately quoted passage. When Presser was decided, the Constitution was still affirmed to only apply to the Federal Government and not limit the ability of States, yet even here the Court ruled that States cannot "prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security"
Notice that Presser himself was not in the State Militia, yet the Court found it important enough to include its decision the statement that States cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms.
You may find the full text of Presser at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/presser.txt
Assuming that UNITED STATES V. CRUIKSHANK hasn't been misquoted while I wrote this reply, I'll head off that often misquoted case.
"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution;"
Is what you'll often read, and it's why I am no longer a member of the ACLU, as they sent me a fund raiser with the above quote, neglecting the full text of
"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution;
neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
That is because Constitutional rights are those that couldn't exist without the Consitution, such as voting for Federal Office, natural rights such as speech, religion and the right to keep and bear arms are not dependent upon the Consitution and exist without such a document ever being written. That's why they are referred to as natural rights.
-
What it means.
[Read the article: Danger: Pregnant women thinking]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Does anyone know what this ruling actually means, practically speaking, for women who choose to terminate a pregnancy that has produced an unviable fetus and/or fetus with birth defects?
--------------------------------
The vast majority of women who have this procedure do so because it was learned that the fetus is not viable. Most commonly the fetus lack a brain, and while the term may be completed, there is no chance of a viable child. This isn't down syndrom or a handicaped child, this is a child that has zero chance of survival.
What this ruling does is cause doctor's to revert to the previous common practice which is fetal dismemberment. The fetus is actually cut up inside and removed piece by piece. The other two options are a C section, or induced labor, both of which at this stage present additional complications for future child bearing.
The so called partial birth abortion was invented in order for there to be a method by which the women is not subject to surgery or induced labor, yet the fetus is presevered whole so that the parents can greive.
The vast majority of women who undergo this precedure wanted a child, and still want a child. But people would rather have fetal dismemberment in order to gain political points.
I've never understood the reluctance of the Pro-Choice crowd to defend this proceedure since nearly everyone when informed about the facts comes to understand that it is the most family friendly alternative.
Pro-Choice voices should have simply called the Federal Law what it is, mandated fetal dismemberment.