As a plaintiff in a lawsuit to vindicate our Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia, I’m pleased to present the hard work our lawyer has done in this rather slow moving case, in the form of our latest legal brief.
As a plaintiff in a lawsuit to vindicate our Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia, I’m pleased to present the hard work our lawyer has done in this rather slow moving case, in the form of our latest legal brief.
A very well written document.
But you are reasoning with an irrational creature whose strongest instinct is to dominate and control. Reason is not the beast’s essence but rather it’s facade.
“an irrational creature whose strongest instinct is to dominate and control…”
The court? That’s nonsense. Obviously courts make decisions that restrict liberty, and they make decisions that expand it. To say that it is a “creature” with “instincts” is rubbish.
Yes, the court.
You know, the courts that tell us that criticizing Senators before an election is a speech crime not protected by the 1st Amendment.
The courts that tell us items need not cross state lines or be trade interstate in order to constitute interstate commerce.
The courts that tell us the purpose of private land is to generate revenue for the government.
The legislature, courts, and executive branches are all on the same team. There are occasional turf wars, but its highly unusual for the courts to act contrary to interests of the State. Most recent improvements in liberty have been instances of liberality rather than freedom.
Pete,
Citing three of the most egregious “decisions that restrict liberty” after I’d already conceded the principle that yes, sometimes they do that, doesn’t really move the ball or help prove your case.
Further, to take just one of your examples, interstate commerce, the jurisprudence has gone back and forth throughout our country’s jurisprudence. Recall that until the New Deal era, interstate commerce WAS defined in a way consistent with a libertarian reading. How could that be??? After all, it was “THE STATE” that made the decision. And let’s not forget Lopez and Morrison. Sure there’s Raich as well, but that just proves my point, viz., sometimes they get it right; often they get it wrong. But since they do, in fact, get it right sometimes, it’s nonsense to argue that since the court is a creature of “THE STATE,” it can never respect the rights of citizens.
And since when does “THE STATE” have any single interest? Oh, yes, what was I thinking? It does have one and only interest, that it works toward every second of every day: TO ROB YOU OF YOUR FREEDOMS!!!
Cue the ghoulish laugh…
If you really want to protect liberty, you should start by becoming an adult and at least trying to employ even the most modest sophistication in your political “analysis.”
It’s easy to say, “‘THE STATE’ BAD, LIBERTY GOOD.” I’m pretty sure I could train my cat to utter such phrases. It’s far more difficult to get into the nuances of how politics and courts, how should I pput this, actually work, and try to influence that process for the common good.
Greg is correct. Citing bad decisions doesn’t prove that good ones are impossible. In the U.S. and much of the western world, you at least have a chance of getting a fair hearing and decision. And even in countries not known for independent judiciaries, courts occasionally surprise the rulers and rule on the basis of real justice.
It’s also a mistake to think of “the courts” or “the Congress” or “the state” or even “the IMF/World Bank/etc.” as monolithic entities with a single purpose — they are complex organizations — groups of people with differing beliefs, objectives, etc. If we simply say they are all statists trying to destroy liberty and dismiss them, we have a factually incorrect picture of the world and are less effective in promoting liberty as a result.
I never said good decisions are impossible but I do think they are improbable. In fact, they are more probable when the issue in question does not threaten the state’s interests as in the case of Lawrence, a good a decision, but more an instance of liberality than liberty.
Given the 2nd is not one the fashionable darlings of the court system, I bet you dollars to donuts the results of this case will be a ruling that both tortures reason as well as language.
Further, to take just one of your examples, interstate commerce, the jurisprudence has gone back and forth throughout our country’s jurisprudence.
—
You make it sound as if there have been large fluctuations in the number powers claimed under the ICC clause. The reality is the number of powers claimed has been steadily increasing.
And let’s not forget Lopez and Morrison.
—-
Yes, let’s not forget Lopez. Congress immediately reestablished the law that was stricken by Lopez as an amendment to the Treasury, Postal Appropriations bill.
Further, to take just one of your examples, interstate commerce, the jurisprudence has gone back and forth throughout our country’s jurisprudence.
—
You make it sound as if there have been large fluctuations in the number powers claimed under the ICC clause. The reality is the number of powers claimed has been steadily increasing.
And let’s not forget Lopez and Morrison.
—-
Yes, let’s not forget Lopez. Congress immediately reestablished the law that was stricken by Lopez as an amendment to the Treasury, Postal Appropriations bill.
Perhaps you should try one of the oldest rules of adulthood and look things in the face and know them for what they are. I suspect even your cat can manage as much.
So Pete, are you suggesting then that it is a mistake to struggle for good outcomes (in courts, elections, or whatever) because the probability of a bad outcome is greater than that of a good outcome? And hence we should just accept bad outcomes?
And if not, then what are you saying?
I’m going to shamelessly promote myself here — on my own blog I have a little essay on how libertarians commit the Nirvana fallacy.
It would be nice if more libertarians would look their own viewpoints in the face and see them for what they are.
So Pete, are you suggesting then that it is a mistake to struggle for good outcomes (in courts, elections, or whatever) because the probability of a bad outcome is greater than that of a good outcome? And hence we should just accept bad outcomes?
————————
No, I am not. I am saying given the past history of 2nd Amendment cases and the current composition of the courts, this effort is unlikely to yield positive results.
Furthermore, we’re talking about D.C. here the last place on Earth the Lords are going to want their serfs running about with legally possessed firearms. If you dig you will find Congress never really gave up its powers to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever in this District.
Pete, you aren’t making sense here. You keep talking in terms of some monolithic entity with a single set of interests with which it is futile to try and reason. This is perhaps a nice metaphor for some rhetorical purposes, but its also a mischaracterization of the situation with the lawsuit, and a poor guide to strategy.
Incidentally, clicking on my name below should take anyone who wishes to my blog… or you can click the Unforeseen Contingencies link on Tom’s blogroll.
Pete, I’d be particularly interested in your comments on my essay.
Pete, you aren’t making sense here. You keep talking in terms of some monolithic entity with a single set of interests
——-
No, I talking about the 2nd Amendment and D.C.
Best wishes, and they are wishes, to Tom’s lawsuit but the court’s response will be a steaming pile of gibberish probably arguing DC courts don’t even have jurisdiction in D.C. or some other evasion far far too nuanced and rarified for monolithic thinkers such as myself.
The end result will a tremendous amount of effort for very little advancement of liberty.
A losing game.
Incidentally, clicking on my name below should take anyone who wishes to my blog… or you can click the Unforeseen Contingencies link on Tom’s blogroll.
Pete, I’d be particularly interested in your comments on my essay.
————————
Whoa boy…talk about a target rich environment.
Where to start.
Lemme see, an article on oil prices with no mention of money supply.
Maybe I’ll drop in.
Yes, go for that one too. No one ever posts anything interesting (like “you’re wrong, Steele, because…”) on my blog.
BTW, I think I finally fixed it so clicking on my name works. It took me a while to figure out how to spell the name of my blog.
(I should be easy game, no?)
What I’m having a hard time losing sight of here is the fact Tom is petitioning the court to exercise an explicitly enumerated constitutional right.
The courts have in the past actively and knowingly enabled the violation of 2nd Amendment. I don’t view this as a matter of ignorance or miseducation on their part but as an exercise of naked unabashed power hiding behind a mask of reasonable sounding language.
If you were to listen to one of Saddam Hussein’s speeches you might get the impression you were speaking to a theologian but it would be a grave error to pursue interaction with the man on the basis of theology.
Since the explicitly enumerated constitutional right is being violated, it is perfectly sensible to go to court to try to overturn the violation. Pete proposesno better alternative, so I guess he thinks we’d be better off surrendering and accepting the violation.