Richard Nixon a liberal?

What is the US becoming? Somehow the topic of US health care came up at dinner last night. It seems that Richard Nixon proposed a comprehensive health care plan in 1974!:

Now it is time that we move forward again in still another critical area: health care.

Without adequate health care, no one can make full use of his or her talents and opportunities. It is thus just as important that economic, racial and social barriers not stand in the way of good health care as it is to eliminate those barriers to a good education and a good job.

Three years ago, I proposed a major health insurance program to the Congress, seeking to guarantee adequate financing of health care on a nationwide basis. That proposal generated widespread discussion and useful debate. But no legislation reached my desk.
--Richard Nixon

I found it worrying when I watched a documentary and saw some of the programs Nixon brought about, such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, which would now be decried as socialist!

What is going on with United States Politics?

Born to run things

I had to admit that there were a few possible titles to this post, such as "Sure I am an elitist", "Define Sheeple", "critical thinking on the internet", and so forth. But if you have actually read this blog, you have figured out that I am from the "ruling class". You know, the elite, the people who run your life.

I find it interesting to see how people are described as "sheeple", especially in the context of the "Second Amendment debate". Even more so when I look at the wikipedia entry:

Sheeple is a term of disparagement, in which people are likened to sheep.

It is often used to denote persons who voluntarily acquiesce to a perceived authority, or suggestion without sufficient research to understand fully the scope of the ramifications involved in that decision, and thus undermine their own human individuality or in other cases give up certain rights. The implication of sheeple is that as a collective, people believe whatever they are told, especially if told so by a perceived authority figure believed to be trustworthy, without processing it or doing adequate research to be sure that it is an accurate representation of the real world around them.

Sorry, I don't fit the picture of "sheeple" in any way. Maybe "sheeple herder", but not "sheeple".

Nevermind that I am a believer in the "collective right" and will always be as it is the historically accurate interpretation. The "individual right" camp has done a wonderful job of twisting the truth, yet I am amazed at who is willing to believe it. Yes, there are lawyers who actually believe that the Second Amendment includes self-defence: despite the fact that they would rip holes if it were the opposite opinion claiming that there was a right that didn't exist (e.g. abortion).

No, this is not because I was told this was the correct interpretation, but because I actually looked at the source material, which I frequently cite for you to examine as well. It is the only interpretation that makes sense as well.

Unless you truly believe criminals have the right to firearms ownership.

Additionally, I am amazed that there is such blatant running of the Heller by the Special Interest think tank, the Cato Institute. And guess what, the Cato Institute has ties to Rupert Murdoch. In case you missed it, Murdoch owns quite a large media conglomerate: News Group. News Corp owns the Wall Street Journal.

As the bumper sticker says: "the media are as liberal as the large, conservative companies that own them."

And there is a reason that "conservatives" dislike National Public Radio and want to cut funding: they would have no control over a publicly funded organisation. But fortunately, nearly 30 years of "conservative" governments in the US have left public broadcasting with almost no funding.

What is left? You find that the media, and even the internet, are filled with right wing posts and a predominance of right wing information. You have to sift to find anything useful.

You are told that Heller "finds" an individual right, but guess what? That right seems more and more nebulous if you scrutinise it.

For example:

Although we do not undertake an
exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the
Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be
taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the
possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or
laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing
conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Heller p. 54

This has a footnote, 26, which states:

We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only
as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

Don't forget footnote 23 as well!

23 With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation,
a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also
said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did
not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by
our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252,
265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed
that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.

What does that leave you with? Nothing?

But it is an "individual" right!

As Justice Stvens said:

The question presented by this case is not whether the
Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an
“individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be
enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second
Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us
anything about the scope of that right.

The Civic right, Collective right, or whatever you want to call it means that the Second Amendment only protects the "right to keep and bear arms" as part of the militia, that is the body organised under article I, section 8. All the quotes from the adoption deal with partition of power between the two governments:

To Congress is given the power of "arming, organizing, and disciplining the militia, and governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States." To the state legislatures is given the power of "appointing the officers, and training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." I observed before, that, if the power be concurrent as to arming them, it is concurrent in other respects. If the states have the right of arming them, while concurrently, Congress has power of appointing the officers, and training the militia. If Congress have that power, it is absurd. To admit this mutual concurrence of powers will carry you into endless absurdity— that Congress has nothing exclusive on the one hand, nor the states on the other. The rational explanation is, that Congress shall have exclusive power of arming them, and so on, and that the state governments shall have exclusive power of appointing the officers, &c. Let me put it in another light.

May we not discipline and arm them, as well as Congress, if the power be concurrent? so that our militia shall have two sets of arms, double sets of regimentals, and so forth and thus, at a very great cost, we shall be doubly armed. The great object is, that every man be armed. But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms? Every one who is able may have a gun. But we have learned, by experience, that necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed?

See my How will your militia be armed? Post.

Funny, but Patrick Henry doesn't mention self defence in that piece I just quoted. But, you can stop being sheeple and actually do some cite and fact checking for yourself. I mean, did you catch that was a quote famous quote from Patrick Henry?

So, I find it amazing that people think that the Bilderbergers work in secret. See how many people have missed that they have been played by the DC v. Heller nonsense.

The Bilderbergers could post their agenda on the front page of the New York Times and most people would miss it.

Who you calling "sheeple"?

Bilderbergers and Cato--think tanks take action in Norwegian election.

As seen in Endgame, the leader of the Norwegian “Progress party” (Fremskrittspartiet, FrP), Siv Jensen, attended the Bilderberg meeting in 2006.

This received some attention by Norwegian mainstream media.

Then in 2008 the Norwegian mainstream media reported that Cato Institute, American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation will help FrP to win the 2009 election, making Siv Jensen the Prime Minister of Norway.

Here she called herself the new “iron lady”, the new Maggie Thatcher of Norway. And she is very confident that she will become the next Prime Minister…

And of course, one of the things her party is working for, is to sell out all the natural resources in Norway, privatizing the heritage meant for future generations.

Heller--Be very afraid!

I find it interesting that people who find conspiracies everywhere and worry about institutions such as the Council for Foreign Relations and the Bilderbergers have missed one very scary point about DC. v. Heller.

Heller was bankrollled by a conservative think tank.

Robert A. Levy is a chairman of the libertarian Cato Institute and the organizer and financier behind District of Columbia v. Heller.

In 2002, Levy began recruiting plaintiffs for a planned Second Amendment lawsuit against the District of Columbia. Although Levy has never owned a gun himself, he was interested in the issue as a constitutional scholar and believer in individual rights. He teamed up with Clark M. Neily III of the Institute for Justice and began finding and vetting District residents who had a legitimate and appealing reason for wanting a gun for self defense at home. They eventually settled on six residents: Shelly Parker, Tom Palmer, Gillian St. Lawrence, Tracey Ambeau, George Lyon and Dick Heller. They tried to select a diverse group, and ended with men and women, black and white, and a variety of income levels. Levy only knew Palmer, a colleague at Cato, and none of the six knew each other before the case.

The lawsuit was initially filed in 2003 as Parker v. District of Columbia. After several reversals and appeals, the case was heard by the Supreme Court on March 18, 2008. The court trashed the previous precedent of US. v. Miller and came out with the new theory that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to gun ownership. Levy released a statement saying "Heller is merely the opening salvo in a series of litigations that will ultimately resolve what weapons and persons can be regulated and what restrictions are permissible. But because of Thursday’s decision, the prospects for reviving the original meaning of the Second Amendment are now substantially brighter."

Levy financed the lawsuit and served as a co-counsel. As a result of his involvement in the case, Levy has been profiled by The New York Times and The Washington Post.

No big secret there, in fact Levy is incredibly boastful about his plan to litigate rather than legislate.

Now, we groups such as the Bilderbergs whose objective is to dress totalitarian corporate ideology up to appear rational and push it out, unattributable, for mass consumption under Chatham House rules. Meanwhile, outside the Bilder-bubble, 'god-is-money' globalisation is the new religon with the greedy given a pat on the back as they plunder both the earth and a large part of the human spirit.

Be very worried because the political agendy of these think tanks is far from open and is very similar to the Bilderbergs.

Concern about the rising political activity of these think tanks is accentuated not only because they adhere to an extreme right wing economic orthodoxy, but also because they have found well-heeled allies in the corporate sphere who are prepared to fund advocacy activities as part of their own corporate political strategy. As evidence presented in this report indicates, it is very difficult to obtain precise information about these corporate funding strategies, as neither the corporations, nor the think tanks are obliged to disclose comprehensive data about their financial activities. This secrecy enables corporations to play a double game of nurturing a public image of corporate social responsibility while at the same time funding think tanks that fight social, consumer protection and environmental legislation across the board. Furthermore, in principle, think tanks are not expected to engage in direct lobbying on specific legislation. However, research by Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) shows that in practice the line between their activities and lobbying is blurred.

While the perspectives of neoclassical think tanks, such as such as the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, or Fraser Institute, play a role in liberal-democratic processes as part of a rich mixture of ideas, they also contribute to the erosion of democracy if they come to dominate the public consciousness. Their domination forces the polity too far to the right side of the democratic model when inadequate ideological balance exists.

Now, everyone is talking about how 5 judges sanctioned the popular myth about the Second Amendment dealing with self-defence, which is something that does not stand scrutiny. Even more importantly, the Judges of the supreme court have changed the law without democratic process.

I mean, if you want the Second Amendment to deal with self-defence, then you go through the process of amending the constitution.

But Levy did a wonderful job of by-passing the democratic process and abusing the legal system. Strangely enough, but Scalia has warned about by-passing the political arena and going to the Court system to set political agendas.

I keep pointing out that the Second Amendment was meant to protect us against a runaway military budget, but how often does the issue of standing armies come up in relation to the Second Amendment? No, it has become a personal right and the rise of this personal right has coincided with the rise of the military-industrial establishment.

Any wonder that the Heller decision comes during an illegal war and as we are seeing governments going bankrupt?

I don't have the time to research this, but I have noticed that the talk about the institution of the militia has diminished to be replaced with talk of self-defence. Scalia wipes out the first half of the Second Amendment to make the Second Amendment all about self-defence.

Just as the military budget goes out of control.

And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see.

Joseph Story Commentary on the Second Amendment

Any right you have from DC v. Heller is illusory. It will be taken from you.

A standing army in the hands of a government placed so independent of the people, may be made a fatal instrument to overturn the public liberties; it may be employed to enforce the collection of the most oppressive taxes, and to carry into execution the most arbitrary measures. An ambitious man who may have the army at his devotion, may step up into the throne, and seize upon absolute power.

Military interference with civilian government is hardly an obsolete concern. Military coups have overthrown democratically elected governments on every continent, and within the memory of anyone alive today who bothered to notice. In many countries where the standing army doesn't flaunt its political power, the military continues to pull the strings of puppet civilian officials. But these embarrassments have received little attention in the popular media and public education, creating a complacent citizenry unaware of just how rare and fragile the freedoms they take for granted are from a historical perspective. We're told instead that the American standing army is somehow different from every other standing army down through history, and couldn't possibly pose a threat to our constitutionally limited form of government or our liberty as citizens.

But even more frightening...

Suppose you are a Republican politician with deep-seated hostility toward the Federal government. You find that certain government programs, including some very big programs, such as Social Security, politically untouchable. Nevertheless, you’d like to put an end to everything that is big government, including Social Security (though you’d never say this publicly).

What do you do?

Why not make reckless, irresponsible “tax cuts” (really tax delays) that leave a big chunk of the government funded by deficit spending? Do this year after year, building up a budget deficit so large that a big part of yearly tax collections go to merely pay interest on the debt. Publicly proclaim you have given Americans a “tax cut” as the government heads toward bankruptcy.

And what happens when the government goes so deeply in debt that it can’t function? For our right-wing friends, this is fine: there is very little that the government does of which they approve. “Crippled government is a good government” seems to be their instinctive belief.

A bankrupt government is a scary thought. What about the next time we are forced to go to war, and we have to send troops who are woefully ill equipped? We saw what happened when George Bush thought the war in Iraq could be a low budget affair; our troops died in unarmored vehicles due to attempts to keep costs down. This will happen again in future, inevitable military conflicts.

And those of us who don’t have the five million dollars that the "conservatives" believe is the dividing line between rich and middle class expect to survive in retirement partly on income from Social Security. If the government can’t uphold its promise to provide Social Security, lots of us are in serious trouble. Republicans who hate big government may bring an end to Social Security, one of the biggest government programs ever. And they’ll do it without ever winning over the electorate to their views.

The trillion dollar federal deficit is not simply some accidental happening out of politicians’ control. Republican presidents, from Ronald Reagan to George Bush, have deliberately foisted a “borrow and spend” policy knowing they are driving the government to bankruptcy, and not caring what the consequences are for the rest of us.

Maybe someone can dig deeper into this, but I find Heller very worrying in the trends that are coming from these think tanks with an agenda of destroying freedom.

In defence of Jeffrey Toobin

Some people are surprised that Jeffrey Toobin pointed out that:

“You know, it’s funny, the way that this hearing goes, you would think that Supreme Court precedent is some unchanging thing- that is just the law that is changed. But if you look at the Second Amendment, that’s something that’s changed dramatically over the last- for 50 years, including when I was in law school, which was more recently than 50 years ago- the idea that you had a Second Amendment right to a gun was considered preposterous. The text of the Second Amendment, I believe we have it- we have it in our system- you know, speaks of a well-regulated militia and the right to bear arms.”

I am not surprised. What most people who haven't attended law school don't realise about the "New Scholarship" surrounding the Second Amendment is that it is indeed very recent. You could count the scholarly legal writings about the Second Amendment when I went to law school on one hand!

The civic right was the accepted legal belief.

I asked my conlaw prof why we didn't study the Second Amendment and his response was "if you think things were bad (emotionally) when we studied Roe v. Wade. they get even more heated when discussing the Second Amendment." because the Civic right was the accepted legal precedent.

History Never repeats, or does it?

Justice James Clark McReynolds is widely considered one of the most unpleasant men to ever sit on the Court, being labeled "Scrooge" by Drew Pearson in his book The Nine Old Men.

Chief Justice Taft thought him selfish, prejudiced, "and someone who seems to delight in making others uncomfortable... He has a continual grouch, and is always offended because the court is doing something that he regards as undignified." Taft also wrote that McReynolds was the most irresponsible member of the Court due to his tendency to take holidays (go on vacations in septic terms), and that "[i]n the absence of McReynolds everything went smoothly". Taft's dislike of McReynolds was not based on the latter's views of the Constitution and the law, which usually did not differ from the Chief Justice's. Taft wrote that although he considered McReynolds an "able man", he found him to be "selfish to the last degree... fuller of prejudice than any man I have ever known,... one who delights in making others uncomfortable. He has no sense of duty... really seems to have less of a loyal spirit to the Court than anybody.

Justice McReynolds would not accept "Jews, drinkers, blacks, women, smokers, married or engaged individuals as law clerks."

McReynolds is known to have been misogynistic and anti-semitic. McReynolds refused to speak to Louis Brandeis, the first Jew on the Court, for three years following Brandeis's appointment and, when Brandeis retired in 1939, did not sign the customary dedicatory letter sent to justices on their retirement. He habitually left the conference room when Brandeis spoke. When Benjamin Cardozo's appointment was being pressed on Hoover, McReynolds joined with Justices Butler and Van Devanter in urging the White House not to "afflict the Court with another Jew." When news of Cardozo's appointment was announced, McReynolds is claimed to have said "Huh, it seems that the only way you can get on the Supreme Court these days is to be either the son of a criminal or a Jew, or both." During Cardozo's swearing-in ceremony, McReynolds pointedly read a newspaper, and would often hold a brief or record in front of his face when Cardozo delivered an opinion from the bench. According to John Frush Knox, McReynolds's law clerk in 1936-37 and the author of a memoir of his service, McReynolds never spoke to Cardozo at all. McReynolds even absented himself from the memorial ceremonies held at the Supreme Court in honor of Cardozo. He did not attend Felix Frankfurter's swearing-in, exclaiming "My God, another Jew on the Court!".

McReynolds's rudeness was not confined to colleagues on the Court. Once, when called before the chairman of the Golf Committee at the Chevy Chase club after complaints were filed against him, McReynolds said: "I've been a member of this club a good many years, and no one around here has ever shown me any courtesy, so I don't intend to show any to anyone else." The indignant chairman replied: "Mr Justice, you wouldn't be a member of this club if it wasn't for your official position. The members of this club have put up with your discourtesy for years, merely because you are a member of the Supreme Court. But I'm telling you now that the next time there is a complaint against you, you'll be suspended from the privileges of the golf course." Justices Pierce Butler and Willis Van Devanter transferred from the Chevy Chase club to Burning Tree because McReynolds "got disagreeable even beyond their endurance."

McReynolds has been called the most reactionary of Supreme Court Justices.

Yet, Justice McReynolds was the author of United States v. Miller 307 U.S. 174 (1939), which prior to DC v. Heller was the only Supreme Court decision to directly address the Second Amendment. It was a unanimous opinion which has been accepted as that the holding is:

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

To summarise yet another time, the Second Amendment must be interpreted as a whole. the declaration, that is “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", and the guarantee, the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” bit, need to be interpeted as a whole. There is loads of legal doctrine behind this. For example, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), discusses how none of the language of the Constitution can be considered "surplusage". The Constitution was written in a considered fashion and what was written must be considered essential to its interpretation.

I personally believe that Justice McReynolds would be appalled at the possibility that DC v. Heller could find that the Second Amendment would find any right outside of militia duty. It would be interesting to see what sort of comments he would be making about the so called "Right to keep and bear Arms" crowd if he were here today.

Now, Justice Alito is allegedly the most conservative of Supreme Court justices on the bench today. If US v. Rybar gives any indication of Justice Alito's opinion of the application of the Second Amendment, we can believe that Justice Alito will also find no merit in Heller's arguments as he previously found no merit in the same arguments when they were presented in Rybar.

Now, the right wing, I do not find these people "Conservative" by any means, have said that a finding of an individual right will mean that:

And Heller is just the beginning. There will be more Second Amendment cases. If the Court finds the Second Amendment guarantees to American citizens an individual right to own firearms, 20 years of major cases will follow, fleshing out the contours of this right. according to Sandy Froman

Better yet, we will have litigation on the laws regarding felon in possession of a firearm.

Robert Levy has also said that other gun laws will be brought into question, meaning that a finding of an individual right will open the floodgate of litigation to try and overturn every regulation on firearms.

Now, as I understand conservatism means one does not lightly change the status quo, especially if that status quo involves public safety. However, what is called conservatism is the United States is really reactionaryism. Although, I think even Justice McReynolds would seem liberal compared to this strain of reactionaryism. While Justice McReynolds may have been misanthropic, he certainly was no idiot.

My hope is that Justice Alito will follow the conservative strain as shown by Justice McReynolds and not this tom foolery which calls itself conservativism these days. I hope that he can pull the same sort of coup which a curmudgeon like Justice McReynolds could bring about a unanimous court to find that the second Amendment guaranteed no individual right, but was to be interpreted as guaranteeing the effectiveness of the forces organised under Article I, section 8 of the Constitution.

The priority of government should be to assure the welfare of its people, which a finding of an individual right to firearms will not. A finding of an individual right will only mean that the United States will continue to have the highest body count and a plague of injuries due to firearms.

A guarantee of security will become carte blanche for terror.

The true conservative opinion regarding the Second Amendment is that it has no bearing upon an individual right to firearms and never has. Of course, Justice McReynolds wouldn't be too surprised if the Court did something as undignified and unprecedented as finding an individual right.

Let's surprise the old fart this time.