Want A Gun Join A State Militia

Democrats are often viewed by Republicans as lacking in respect for the flag, weak on patriotism, and desiring to rewrite the constitution. I’ll cop to the first one as I’ve never been big on worshipping symbols, be it my high school football mascot or the stars and stripes. Patriotism is another matter as I believe patriots are those who recognize their nation’s failings and struggle to hold it accountable in order to make it better, count me in. Regarding rewriting the constitution, while it could use an amendment or two like equal rights for women and replacing the dangerous electoral college with the popular vote, I’m largely satisfied with simply enforcing it as is.

As an example the Second Amendment states: “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.” Many on the right and a significant fraction of those on the left interpret that as if the first two phrases don’t exist. The Supreme Court only recently started viewing it the same way. Prior to their 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court had not held that just anyone had the right to have any weapon they chose. In fact in a 1939 case the United States v. Miller, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home, while also including that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing upon this right. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion in the Heller case.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia claimed to be an originalist, meaning that you have to interpret the constitution with an eye toward what words and phrases meant at the time it was written and nothing else. That notion is at odds with the views of many scholars and judges who believe one must look at legislative intent, ordinarily a judge or scholar will review the debate over the legislation, including any amendments made during the process to interpret those meanings. In the case of the constitution there are the Federalist Papers many of which were written by the primary author of the constitution, James Madison, others by Alexander Hamilton.  Both wrote about militia’s and their purpose in the new country. Their intent was for them to be organized and regulated by the individual states and beholden to them unlike a national army under orders from the chief executive. It is clear that weapons owing citizens were expected to be members of such a militia and to be held accountable by the states.

While Scalia turned the Second Amendment on its head even he made it clear that states and the federal government had both the right and the duty to restrict "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

There is no question that an automatic weapon with a high capacity, interchangeable magazine is a very dangerous weapon so it would appear that even Antonio Scalia would support restricting private ownership of weapons like those used in El Paso, Odessa and Sutherland Springs.

Published in the Seguin Gazette - September 20, 2019

Trump Delivering on Promises is Double Edged Sword

Trump is delivering on or at least signing documents that appear to deliver on many of his campaign promises. He made promises to the evangelical Christians and ultra-conservatives which he’s delivering on with his nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to be a justice on the Supreme Court. Not only is Gorsuch a man in the mold of Antonin Scalia which Trump promised his nominee would be, he’s also the mind behind the Hobby Lobby v. Burwell decision with gave corporations the right to be exempt from laws that offend their shareholders. Frankly I’ll believe that a corporation has religious rights when I meet one in church.

One of the defining reasons to incorporate your business is to protect yourself from legal responsibility for actions and liabilities of the business. If you incorporate your business you have created a legal entity with the rights and responsibilities to engage in business and if the entity is sued the owners are not a party to the lawsuit in most cases. Gorsuch’s decision bridges the gap between the owner and the corporation enabling the owner to claim that the business shares their religious convictions and therefore should be exempt from providing insurance coverage the provides contraception. In my view bridging that gap pierces the “corporate veil” which protects shareholders and may one day come back to haunt businesses due to the loss of protection offered by it.

Trump also recently announced that his administration would “totally destroy” the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits churches from engaging in political activity at the risk of losing their tax-exempt status. Such a repeal of the law would require approval by Congress. Currently certain tax-exempt organizations — in this case, churches — are not allowed to openly endorse or campaign for political candidates. If they do, under existing law, they risk losing the benefits of their tax-exempt status. Should Trump get his way he’ll be able to honestly say he’s delivered on another campaign promise to evangelicals who have chafed under this restriction for quite some time. There are even organizations of lawyers who among other issues have repeatedly attempted to get this restriction overturned so his success would be met with great joy in some circles. I have to wonder though if it isn’t a double edged sword in the sense that it will also embolden and empower churches which take opposing views on many issues dear to the hearts of the evangelicals Trump seeks to reward for their support during the election. How will they feel when an Imam at a nearby mosque calls for followers to vote for a candidate opposed by their church?

Nominating Betsy DeVos to be Secretary of Education is an indirect reward to the evangelicals who supported Trump in that she’s a strong supporter of school vouchers which she and others want to allow parents to use in order to fund their child’s tuition to private religious schools. This is a very contentious issue since having the government directly fund religious education seems to violate the First Amendment by favoring religion with our tax dollars. I know a lot of very religious folks feel strongly in favor of this because it would either save them a lot of money they’re currently spending or would enable them to send their children to such a school. I have to wonder if even more voters won’t be up in arms when they learn that those funds must also be provided to members of other faiths and they see a news story about a taxpayer funded madrassa right here in the United States just like in Afghanistan.