Discussion | 3 comments

The Daily Republic does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy

• G-ManJanuary 29, 2013 - 1:29 pm

  Exactly..obama's playing w/fire...the little community organizer..is in WAAAAAY over his little head...

  Reply | Report abusive comment

• rlw895January 29, 2013 - 7:53 pm

  Murray: Good to see you still writing letters as well as your columns, even if I disagree. We learn more from pro-con than one perspective only. I took issue with Mr. Davis too, but in a different direction. My comments can be found under his letter. Determining the Constitution’s intent is difficult for many reasons, not the least of which is every amendment has the potential to update that intent. For the original intent, one need look no further than the Preamble. The Constitution’s intent is “to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” (Thank you, Gouverneur Morris and the Committee on Style.) The Bill of Rights came later, but not really. It became clear during the ratification process that without a Bill of Rights, there would be no ratification. Massachusetts went so far as to ratify the Constitution amended with a Bill of Rights. Virginia ratified conditioned on there being a Bill of Rights. Madison promised to push a Bill of Rights through the first Congress, and he did. If anyone objected to the odd process, it wasn’t enough to stop it. But I don’t think you can say the Bill of Rights “provided definition to the Constitution’s intent.” That was already established. At best, the Bill of Rights fleshed out or added to that intent, but it also added some confusion: Why are some rights enumerated and some not? If unalienable rights existed prior to a constitution, how can a mere constitution change that? What need then is there to enumerate rights at all? Nevertheless, we have what we have. I believe your “standing army” theory is about right. But it was not personal protection that was the issue; it was the ability of the states to have militias not in control of the federal government. Naturally, if the federal government disarmed people, it would effectively render moot the ability of the states to have militias. After the Civil War, the issue of state’s rights and the importance of state militias faded. The Second Amendment more-or-less lay legally dormant until the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) that the Second Amendment does, in fact, refer to an individual’s right to own and keep firearms for personal protection. Was that the original intent? I don’t think so, but it is the law now, because the Constitution is, in practice if not fact, a “living document.” And when it comes to the Supreme Court, it’s practice that counts.

  Reply | Report abusive comment

• rlw895January 29, 2013 - 8:04 pm

  Murray: On a different topic, this paragraph begs some fact-checking, I hope you don’t mind: “President Barack Obama has authorized legislation (in the Affordable Care Act) to create a million-person armed nonmilitary organization. He has authorized arming of ‘regulators,’ he has used the threat of terrorism to take due process rights away from the American people. The federal government has purchased huge amounts of 40-caliber hollow point bullets for federal nonmilitary employees.” Where do you get this stuff? We know for certain that it was Bush/Cheney who took due process rights away from the American people and didn’t give them back when fear over the threat of terrorism subsided. Obama hasn’t given them back, enough, either. That’s a fair knock on Obama. But you know what would happen if he tried. He would be hammered by his detractors (who REALLY wanted him to be a one-term president) for being “weak” or “irresolute.” So he took the easy course and stuck with the status quo Bush/Cheney handed him. This armed nonmilitary organization has been debunked numerous times, but this is the first time I’ve seen it linked to the ACA. Where in the ACA does it creat a million-person armed nonmilitary organization? Arming regulators is nothing new, just check out our Fish & Game wardens. I don’t think that’s alarming.

  Reply | Report abusive comment