Last week, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid stated that the war in Iraq "is lost." The backlash began immediately, with calls for Reid's resignation interspersed with depictions of Reid as a "propaganda minister for our enemies" and accusations of treason. The vitriol behind these statements makes one wonder what the role of reason is in political discourse. Do we as a nation believe that it is impossible for the United States to lose a war? If the answer to that question is yes, we must ask ourselves on what basis we have reached such an absurd conclusion. Given the fact that our leaders are not infallible and that we as a nation are not perfect, it is eminently reasonable to believe that there are going to be cases and situations in which the United States does not emerge victorious. We may debate whether Iraq is such a situation, but surely it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the United States could indeed lose a war. To believe otherwise consigns the U.S. to the nightmare of perpetual war at the hands of our commanders in chief; once the president commits us to war, the very idea that we could lose becomes a treasonous offense. Would the troops in the field truly sacrifice their lives for such a proposition?
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
The 2nd Amendment
The tragedy at Virginia Technical University has rekindled the debate over gun control in America, which in 2003 had 41 gun deaths for every 1,000,000 people (Brazil had 213, while England and Wales had .3). One obvious source of discussion is the wording of the amendment itself, which contains a number of phrases subject to interpretation.
The text of the amendment, as originally passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives, reads:
"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."
(Some versions of the amendment place commas after 'militia,' and 'arms.')
Historically, the second amendment was the product of a compromise between the Federalists, proponents of a stronger centralized government, and the Anti-Federalists, who feared a return to tyranny if the new political system gave too much power to the government. At the time, there was some debate among the framers of the Constitution about the necessity of a standing army. Those who feared the intrusions of government reasoned that a standing army would be an invitation for the president to use the army for either conquest or to rule the country with an iron fist. The thought was the second amendment would both protect people from the intrusions of the government and allow the states to maintain militias to provide for defense.
One major area of interpretation of the amendment lies in the opening clause, "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State...." It seems likely that Madison, who was a Federalist and would have opposed placing too much power in the hands of the people, wanted to indicate that the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed insofar as a 'well-regulated' militia is necessary. The word regulate means "to control by rule, or to direct"--a choice of words appropriate for a champion of a strong federal system. Furthermore, Madison was not the greatest believer in the ability of man to govern himself, so it seems consistent with his views that he would not want an armed citizenry threatening the order of the government.
The courts have consistently ruled that states may regulate guns in a variety of ways, including the use of child locks, bans on handguns, bans on assault rifles, and mandatory waiting periods. A law restricting gun ownership to members of a state directed and controlled militia would not seem to run afoul of the Constitution. A strict constructionist would be forced to acknowledge the function of the opening clause, while a jurist who attempts to interpret the Constitution in terms of the framer's intent would have to consider Madison's avowed support of a strong federal system. It would not be impossible to imagine an America in which gun ownership was a rare privilege, restricted to the few armed individuals needed to ensure the "security of a free State," not simply the security of the individual.
The text of the amendment, as originally passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives, reads:
"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."
(Some versions of the amendment place commas after 'militia,' and 'arms.')
Historically, the second amendment was the product of a compromise between the Federalists, proponents of a stronger centralized government, and the Anti-Federalists, who feared a return to tyranny if the new political system gave too much power to the government. At the time, there was some debate among the framers of the Constitution about the necessity of a standing army. Those who feared the intrusions of government reasoned that a standing army would be an invitation for the president to use the army for either conquest or to rule the country with an iron fist. The thought was the second amendment would both protect people from the intrusions of the government and allow the states to maintain militias to provide for defense.
One major area of interpretation of the amendment lies in the opening clause, "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State...." It seems likely that Madison, who was a Federalist and would have opposed placing too much power in the hands of the people, wanted to indicate that the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed insofar as a 'well-regulated' militia is necessary. The word regulate means "to control by rule, or to direct"--a choice of words appropriate for a champion of a strong federal system. Furthermore, Madison was not the greatest believer in the ability of man to govern himself, so it seems consistent with his views that he would not want an armed citizenry threatening the order of the government.
The courts have consistently ruled that states may regulate guns in a variety of ways, including the use of child locks, bans on handguns, bans on assault rifles, and mandatory waiting periods. A law restricting gun ownership to members of a state directed and controlled militia would not seem to run afoul of the Constitution. A strict constructionist would be forced to acknowledge the function of the opening clause, while a jurist who attempts to interpret the Constitution in terms of the framer's intent would have to consider Madison's avowed support of a strong federal system. It would not be impossible to imagine an America in which gun ownership was a rare privilege, restricted to the few armed individuals needed to ensure the "security of a free State," not simply the security of the individual.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
A New Constitutional Convention
There was a call today for a new constitutional convention, but only on a state level. Citizens in Pennsylvania, distraught over a growing number of political scandals, are considering a constitutional convention to radically reshape the government. Interestingly, a former delegate to a previous constitutional convention in Pennsylvania (the state has had five), Bob Butera remarked that the convention could "bring people out of the woodwork who ordinarily wouldn't get their hands dirty in politics, and they will get involved in the making of history."
The convention raises a larger and more interesting issue: why not a new constitutional convention for the United States as a whole? There is no indication that the founding fathers ever intended the original Constitution to be the be all and end all of American government. We've had two hundred and twenty years to see what works (separation of powers) and what might need some tweaking (the electoral college). Why not convene a new convention and make improvements on the system?
The most obvious objection to such a process is the fractious nature of today's political class--it would be hard to imagine ardent liberals and conservatives sitting down and hammering out compromises on issues such as the second amendment and the right to privacy. However, if there is a grain of truth in Butera's words, perhaps a call for a new convention would bring out that great proportion of citizens who don't "get their hands dirty" and allow us to see how democratic we really are.
The convention raises a larger and more interesting issue: why not a new constitutional convention for the United States as a whole? There is no indication that the founding fathers ever intended the original Constitution to be the be all and end all of American government. We've had two hundred and twenty years to see what works (separation of powers) and what might need some tweaking (the electoral college). Why not convene a new convention and make improvements on the system?
The most obvious objection to such a process is the fractious nature of today's political class--it would be hard to imagine ardent liberals and conservatives sitting down and hammering out compromises on issues such as the second amendment and the right to privacy. However, if there is a grain of truth in Butera's words, perhaps a call for a new convention would bring out that great proportion of citizens who don't "get their hands dirty" and allow us to see how democratic we really are.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)