THE DAILY BLADE: Are Our Second Amendment Rights Hanging On A Comma?
Washington, D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty made good on his vow (third item) to contest the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruling that the city’s 1976 handgun ban is unconstitutional, because the Second Amendment applies to individuals as well as to militias - and today the Supreme Court meets to decide whether to take up the issue of what the Founding Fathers meant by these words:
"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."
Should the high court decide to grant review, Legal Times reports that its ruling may not hinge on the actual words comprising the Second Amendment, but to the commas that separate those words into clauses:
Another suddenly intense debate is enveloping the case - this one over what all those commas in the Second Amendment meant in late 18th-century America.
It may sound way beyond trivial, but it's not: The grammar war is under way.
You can blame the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for igniting this esoteric debate. It ruled on March 9 that because of the Second Amendment's second comma, the first half of the amendment - the militia half - is basically a throat-clearing preface that does not qualify the individual right to bear arms that the second half protects.
Judge Laurence Silberman, who wrote the 2-1 decision, went on to conclude that the district's handgun ban violates that individual right.
Some grammarians believe that commas were often used to signal a breath pause for orators – which means there would be more of them than would be used today, and that they may not necessarily mean anything. Others argue that the commas divide the sentence into dependent and independent clauses – the trouble is there is sharp disagreement over which clause is dependent and which is independent.
Complicating matters even further the Second Amendment is a comma chameleon: The version that Congress approved in 1789 had three commas, while several states ratified a two-comma version.
The Stiletto shudders to think that her Second Amendment rights are dependent on the placement of a comma – especially considering what’s going on in Venezuela these days.
Religious Voters Are As Diverse As Any Others
Remember the warm reception that Rudy got when he spoke at Regent University back in July? Conservative televangelist Pat Robertson all-but-endorsed him then, and just made it official the other day at the National Press Club in Washington.The announcement came on the heels of Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney (MA) snagging endorsements from Moral Majority co-founder Paul Weyrich, and Bob Jones III; Sen. Sam Brownback (KS) throwing his support to erstwhile presidential rival Sen. John McCain (AZ); Christian activist Gary Bauer becoming a Fred Head; and Rick Scarborough giving his nod to fellow Baptist, Fmr. Gov Mike Huckabee (AR) – along with American Family Association founder Donald Wildmon.
Aside from needing a scorecard to keep all these endorsements by conservative Christian leaders straight, what does this all mean? Here’s the MSM take:
† "Despite efforts by some conservative Christian leaders to unify behind a candidate -- including threats from a few to create a third party if Giuliani becomes the nominee -- no single Republican appears to be winning the lion's share of support in that community." (The Washington Post)
† "It was the latest manifestation of the deep divide in the Christian conservative movement over how to balance politics and principle in the coming era after President Bush, who once so deftly brought it all together." (The New York Times)
† "In the latest evidence that evangelical Christians are as split as the rest of the Republican voters, Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy Giuliani … This election is forcing the evangelical community to decide whether it is more important to choose a candidate who shares their views or someone who can beat Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York." (The Wall Street Journal; subscription required).
† "[I]t … underscored the splintering in the Christian conservative community and raises questions about whether evangelicals - who played a key role in electing President Bush in 2000 and 2004 - will be an important force in the presidential election." (The Boston Globe)
† "The division among Christian conservatives reflects a schism between purists motivated primarily by social issues and pragmatists looking to beat Hillary Rodham Clinton." (The Dallas Morning News)
But maybe something else is going on here. Instead of being fractured, deeply divided – or flailing about like headless chickens – a new market research report suggests that a better way to think of one significant segment of religious voters - Evangelicals – is "diverse."
In an article detailing the findings of a report by Marketresearch.com, Marketing Daily notes that Christian Evangelicals now comprise a third of all American adults (69.5 million) - and that Evangelicals have "a complex and sometimes contradictory profile." This diversity is likely present amongst other groups of religious voters as well.
A top-line summary of key demographic and psychographic findings (refer to the Marketing Daily article for all the relevant stats):
† Likelihood of being Evangelical increases with age.
† Women are somewhat more likely to be Evangelicals than men.
† Roughly one third each of white, black and Hispanic adults are Evangelicals.
† Evangelicals are most likely to live in the South (38.6 percent), and least likely to live in the Northeast (23.1 percent).
† Evangelicals are fairly evenly distributed in terms of personal and household incomes.
† Evangelicals comprise a variety of denominations, with Baptists and Catholics being the most predominant (22.3 percent and 18.7 percent, respectively). The balance comprises small percentages of Protestant denominations and Pentacostals or Charismatics.
† Fewer than half of Evangelicals (43 percent) are Republican. Of these, 50 percent are conservatives and 35 percent are moderates.
† Evangelical adults are 55 percent less likely to be "somewhat liberal" politically and 75 percent less likely to endorse left-leaning politicians. Just 1.3 percent describe themselves as "very liberal."
Based on this data, one of Marketresearch.com’s recommendations to marketers is that "it's particularly critical to research the demographics and psychographics of the segments being targeted. Knowing where they fall along the continuum of moderate to conservative is most critical of all."
It’s sound advice for pundits, too.
Knuckling Under To Turkey Will Have Ongoing Repercussions In The Middle East
In an op-ed published by The New York Times Wednesday, former Pakistan prime minister Benazir Bhutto (1988 to 1990; 1993 to 1996) and head of the Pakistan People’s Party, writes:
Pakistan is a military dictatorship. Last Saturday, Gen. Pervez Musharraf removed all pretense of a transition to democracy by conducting what was in effect yet another extraconstitutional coup.
In doing so he endangered the viability of Pakistan as an independent state. He presented the country’s democratic forces with a tough decision - acquiesce to the brutality of the dictatorship or take over the streets and show the world where the people of Pakistan really stand.
General Musharraf also presented the democratic world - and especially the countries of the West - with a question. Will they back up their democratic rhetoric with concrete action, or will they once again back down in the face of his bluff? …
It is dangerous to stand up to a military dictatorship, but more dangerous not to. The moment has come for the Western democracies to show us in their actions, and not just in their rhetoric, which side they are on.
The Stiletto hates to break it to Bhutto, but the Bush Administration favors cynical pragmatism over principle to hold together the iffy coalition of Muslim countries helping the effort in Iraq - no matter what.
For instance, Turkish and Saudi operatives have been caught red-handed funneling insurgents or funds for their upkeep into Iraq, but the U.S. looks the other way and provides massive economic and military aid packages to both countries. Despite ritualistic hand-wringing by various members of Congress, the U.S. will look the other way and continue to pour money into Pakistan to support various military and foreign policy objectives.
Here’s WaPo columnist David Broder’s description of what India – Pakistan’s next door neighbor geographically, but a world apart politically – thinks of the tepid U.S. response to Musharraf declaring martial law:
During a visit to New Delhi that happened to coincide with the crisis, I found that Indians were both puzzled and dismayed that the U.S. government seemed so ambivalent about Musharraf's actions. The Indian press reported, along with U.S. journals, that the Bush administration had sent urgent messages to Musharraf counseling him against the crackdown.
But when he ignored their advice and declared martial law, President Bush and the State Department offered only the mildest reprimands and immediately signaled a willingness to continue to support Musharraf and his regime.
To many here, that made it appear as if democracy was less important to the U.S. government than whatever help Musharraf might supply in fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
And consider how the Bush administration chose pragmatism over principle by sending a parade of cabinet members to the House of Representatives to parrot Turkey’s Armenian Genocide denial and derail a symbolic resolution acknowledging Ottoman Turkey’s crime against humanity.
If the Turks were able to bully Bush on the Armenian Genocide Resolution – an internal U.S. matter - Musharraf can be assured that the U.S. will do nothing to force him to hold parliamentary elections by February 15th, should he decide to renege on his promise to do so.
And you can be sure that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, too, understands that the Turks have unmanned Bush. No amount of Viagra can counteract U.S. impotence in the Middle East now.
Guess I'm in the minority then. Midwest (in a Democrat-controlled state), Lutheran (technically, though, we're the "Evangelical Lutheran Church" -- courtesy of the German name for it), and only 76% Republican (see my post: http://therenaissancebiologist.blogspot.com/2007/11/not-quite-100-d.html).
Oh well.
Reply to this
While I do think that defenses against radical Islam is very important, protecting the right of Americans to possess and own firearms is of paramount importance. The 2nd Amendment, though poorly written protects all other amendments and the Constitution itself.
Reply to this
Just found a post on The Freedom Fighter's Journal about gun control (read and enjoy!): http://ronbosoldier.blogspot.com/2007/11/are-you-democrat-republican-or.html
Reply to this