I often complain about the right-wing leanings of the current United States Supreme Court, but I have to admit that I think most of their decisions this term have been right on target. That has not changed with their latest two decisions.
The first of those two decisions regards the Second Amendment rights of American citizens. A few months ago they ruled in a case involving Washington D.C. that the banning of gun ownership for all citizens was unconstitutional. But that ruling only covered bans by the federal government.
The new case regarded a ban imposed by the city of Chicago. In a 5 to 4 vote, the court used this case to extend the unconstitutionality of gun bans to include laws imposed by states and cities. The court decision does not remove all restrictions on gun ownership -- only across-the-board bans on ownership. Although the court did not specify which restrictions they might consider constitutional, it probably includes reasonable restrictions like banning ownership by felons and restricting guns in such public places as bars, schools, churches and courthouses.
I am not a big fan of gun ownership. I have never owned a gun, and I was the shot by a criminal during a carjacking in 2005. It would make me happy if all guns were dumped in the deepest part of the ocean. However, I can read and the Second Amendment to the Constitution gives the right of gun ownership to American citizens.
I know many of my fellow liberals think the Constitution gives the right of gun ownership only to state militias, but I'm convinced that is just wishful thinking. The amendment clearly gives the right to individual citizens and the phrase about militias is just a justification for granting the right of ownership. The need for militias is no longer a compelling reason for gun ownership, but was at the time the amendment was written.
Even though militias are no longer viable or needed, the right to ownership remains valid. Nothing short of another constitutional amendment can take this right away, and the odds of that happening anytime soon are very slim indeed.
The second case involved the University of California's Hastings College of the Law and a campus christian group called the Christian Legal Society (CLS). The CLS wanted recognition as a college-approved campus group which would also allow it to receive funds from the school for their activities. But Hastings denied them this official recognition.
Hastings has a rule that applies to all campus organizations. All school-approved organizations must be open to all students of the school -- a rule that makes imminent sense because any funds given to one of the approved groups would come from funds paid by all students. The CLS did not meet this requirement because they required members (and especially officers) to sign a pledge that they would not engage in immoral behavior and believed in marriage between only a man and a woman.
In other words, homosexuals would not be accepted as members. Because the CLS was not open to all students, they were denied the status of a school-approved organization and the funds that came with that designation. The CLS sued the school and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court (since lower courts decided in favor of the San Francisco-based school).
The Supreme Court also sided with the school in another 5 to 4 decision. They did not accept the CLS's argument that their First Amendment rights were violated by the school's action (they had claimed they were denied free association, free exercise of religion and free speech rights).
Speaking for the majority Justice Ginsberg said, "In requiring CLS -- in common with all other student organizations -- to choose between welcoming all students and forgoing the benefits of official recognition, we hold, Hastings did not transgress constitutional limitations. CLS, it bears emphasis, seeks not parity with other organizations, but a preferential exemption from Hastings' policy."
The head of CLS said it was not fair that they were banned. That's both a silly and untrue statement. They were not "banned" and have been in fact meeting. They were just denied official recognition because they would not follow the school's rules as all organizations are required to do.
I believe both of these close decisions are constitutionally correct.
Your liberal friends (I am neither a conservative nor a liberal mind you) are completely wrong that the constitution only guarantees the militia the right to bear arms. And I quote, from the fourth amendment of the U.S. constitution - "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"
ReplyDeleteCrystal clear - the people. A well regulated militia is only part of the 4th amendment, the people are also included. In fact, the first 10 amendments are commonly known as the Bill or Rights, which extend to ALL citizens.
But this fight isn't over yet. The government wants and will try to take the guns of the peasants away. They do it at every opportunity they can. You can't control the peasants if you don't take their weapons away. Every kingdom throughout history that has tried to control the peasants and serfs have done this. America is no different. Gun control is not about controlling crime. Crime will still happen. People will strangle each other if they don't have guns. Gun control is purely a big government control mechanism. Every other reason given is propaganda and lies. Mind you, I am not a gun owner, nor would I ever harm another human being. But, as a student of history, I know that the right to bear arms is a basic human right afforded by the constitution, and that the elite wish nothing more than to take all our rights away, to make us total slaves.