I too find it baffling - it's the drug war that started this. The Supreme Court let us all down when it ruled in the National Treasury Union v Von Raab that warrantless searches are permissible if it's in the wider interest of the government. This has opened the Pandora's box of intrusion on our rights. The public seems to be fine with it - I have never heard of ballot proposals outlawing drug testing in the work place because of 4th amendment concerns. We just take it.
However, Professor - I find your argument that the 2nd amendment has been interpreted in an absolute manner to be lacking. To review, the amendment reads:
"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."
None of the rulings or any of the debate in this country is absolute about this amendment - we never talk about the militia. There is never any discussion about membership in a militia and what that entails. You can purchase and bear arms without being a member of a militia - and therein lies the lack of an absolute interpretation of this amendment. A well regulated militia would know where its members are and what arms they have and are proficient on. It would drill regularly and train on safety regularly. It would insist that its members lock their guns away until they are called upon to fight. It would screen its members for mental health and other suitability issues.
One final word about internet privacy - the minute I type this and hit send, I know it is going to bounce off several servers before it reaches you - those servers are maintained by people I do not know and there is nothing to keep them from reading my post....that's the way the internet works. So, I have a hard time with people who expect privacy on the internet - they obviously do not know how the internet works.
I long for an informed discussion about our drone program. One that at least acknowledges that the US is at war the al-Qaida and that al-Qaida leadership and membership is prevalent in the FATA. One that understands that we never were going to win the hearts and minds of the FATA residents because al-Qaida and the Taliban have already won their hearts and minds. One that will at least admit that Pakistan does not have sovereignity in the FATA - maybe on paper, but not in fact. And one that can read through the loony leftist agenda easily found in the often cited academic "study" Living Under Drones.
You do go on and on. And, as usual, you have a true gift for putting things out of context. Lumping the world wars in with the Crusades? You need to get out more.
What the country needs is a well regulated militia. We let people buy guns under the premise that we need a well regulated militia - we don't even have a militia, let alone a well regulated one. Certainly a well regulated militia would require its members to secure their weapons. It may also require its members to undergo yearly psychological testing to ensure their access to firearms. What we have now is out of control idiocy that lets anyone buy weapons and keep them in any state they want to in their homes - hardly well-regulated. It's a national disgrace and embarrassment.
Dr. Cole, you really should check your anti-Israeli bias. This rant contains too many bias views to even start to counter. The Palestinians want land back that they lost in war. Most losers of war want that.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Professor - The elephant in the corner of this piece is the lack of Congressional approval for this action. It is all well and good that the Arab League and the UN passed resolutions. I don't care. If Presidents want to use US force, they should have to get Congressional approval first.
Professor - Are you so influenced by your own denial that TTP was a serious international threat a few months back that you don't believe John Brennan, Eric Holder and others when they say he is cooperating and he is TTP? Then, wait for the indictment....it will all come out. You believe they trash "The Nation" is peddling? Get real.
I too find it baffling - it's the drug war that started this. The Supreme Court let us all down when it ruled in the National Treasury Union v Von Raab that warrantless searches are permissible if it's in the wider interest of the government. This has opened the Pandora's box of intrusion on our rights. The public seems to be fine with it - I have never heard of ballot proposals outlawing drug testing in the work place because of 4th amendment concerns. We just take it.
However, Professor - I find your argument that the 2nd amendment has been interpreted in an absolute manner to be lacking. To review, the amendment reads:
"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."
None of the rulings or any of the debate in this country is absolute about this amendment - we never talk about the militia. There is never any discussion about membership in a militia and what that entails. You can purchase and bear arms without being a member of a militia - and therein lies the lack of an absolute interpretation of this amendment. A well regulated militia would know where its members are and what arms they have and are proficient on. It would drill regularly and train on safety regularly. It would insist that its members lock their guns away until they are called upon to fight. It would screen its members for mental health and other suitability issues.
One final word about internet privacy - the minute I type this and hit send, I know it is going to bounce off several servers before it reaches you - those servers are maintained by people I do not know and there is nothing to keep them from reading my post....that's the way the internet works. So, I have a hard time with people who expect privacy on the internet - they obviously do not know how the internet works.
I long for an informed discussion about our drone program. One that at least acknowledges that the US is at war the al-Qaida and that al-Qaida leadership and membership is prevalent in the FATA. One that understands that we never were going to win the hearts and minds of the FATA residents because al-Qaida and the Taliban have already won their hearts and minds. One that will at least admit that Pakistan does not have sovereignity in the FATA - maybe on paper, but not in fact. And one that can read through the loony leftist agenda easily found in the often cited academic "study" Living Under Drones.
Professor,
You do go on and on. And, as usual, you have a true gift for putting things out of context. Lumping the world wars in with the Crusades? You need to get out more.
You should read the supplemental factual appendix in the Abdulmutallab sentencing memo here: link to washingtonpost.com
And then should should re-think your position.
What the country needs is a well regulated militia. We let people buy guns under the premise that we need a well regulated militia - we don't even have a militia, let alone a well regulated one. Certainly a well regulated militia would require its members to secure their weapons. It may also require its members to undergo yearly psychological testing to ensure their access to firearms. What we have now is out of control idiocy that lets anyone buy weapons and keep them in any state they want to in their homes - hardly well-regulated. It's a national disgrace and embarrassment.
Dr. Cole, you really should check your anti-Israeli bias. This rant contains too many bias views to even start to counter. The Palestinians want land back that they lost in war. Most losers of war want that.
The GOP is having an unconstitutional discussion.
Article 6 pertains:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Professor - The elephant in the corner of this piece is the lack of Congressional approval for this action. It is all well and good that the Arab League and the UN passed resolutions. I don't care. If Presidents want to use US force, they should have to get Congressional approval first.
Professor, What a screed.
Professor - Are you so influenced by your own denial that TTP was a serious international threat a few months back that you don't believe John Brennan, Eric Holder and others when they say he is cooperating and he is TTP? Then, wait for the indictment....it will all come out. You believe they trash "The Nation" is peddling? Get real.