From: dadams@cray.com (David Adams)
Subject: Strong reason to vote for Bush  (was: Atlanta Journal and Constitution: an e)
Reply-To: dadams@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 31 Aug 92 13:24:12 CDT

In article 17ppkbINNo1j@agate.berkeley.edu, fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary) writes:
|[Posted excerpts from an Atlanta Journal article:]
|
|>	Broad-scale domestic disarmament is not prohibited by the Second
|>Amendment. The Supreme Court has dealt with this constitutional claim
|>four times, in 1875, 1886, 1894, and 1939. Consistently, it has ruled
|>that the Second Amendment deals with the right of states to maintain
|>a militia free from interference from the federal government. 
|
|In all those cases (US v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, Miller v. Texas
|and US v. Miller {different Miller}) the Court made no mention of
|state controled militias. The entire issue of militia control was not
|discussed, but the rulings (either explicitly or implicitly) assumed
|the "militia" to mean an armed public (e.g. including all able-bodied
|citizens.)
|
|>The Second
|>Amendment never was meant to create an individual right to possess
|>firearms.
|

In other words the article in the Atlanta Journal was an outright lie!
They tried to claim the court supported one position when infact it 
supported exactly the opposite!


|Essays by the framers of the Constitution certainly imply otherwise.
|The only debate over the Amendment, when first proposed to Congress, 
|started with an objection by Rep. Elbridge Gerry (anti-fed. Mass.)
|He was concerned that a third clause, later deleted, could by used to
|justify the sort of "domestic disarmament" suggested above.
|
|Further, the Supreme Court rulings mentioned, as well as Scott v. Sanford,
|Patsonne v. Pennsylvania and US v. Verdungo-Urquidez (where the Second
|Amendment is mentioned tangentially) all treat the right as an individual
|right (though not an unlimited one.)
|

The best reason I can think of for voting for Bush (inspite his 
broken prommises) is that he has consistently sought for and nominated
Supreme Court Justices which would interpret the Constitution according
to the philosophy of Judicial Restraint, and not try to rewrite it in
order to push some social agenda.  This certainly has not been an easy
thing to do, especially given the current mindset of congress.  This 
congress has coined the phrase, "We're going to 'Bork' him".  Bush has 
pushed vigorously for his nominees, sometimes perhaps at the cost of getting 
along with his congressional opponents.  

If Clinton is elected, I think that we can be sure that he will be only
too likely to nominate justices which will "balance the court" by seeking
to rewrite the constitution.  Of course with the Democratic congress
these nominees will be ratified only too quickly!

The choice of who fills the seats of Justices of the Supreme Court has
to be at least as important as the choice of who is going to be the
President of the United States.  In fact I would think it would be more
important, since the justices are apointed for life and will affect much
more than the next four years.

There will likely be at least one vacancy on the court durring the next
four years.

What foes of 2nd Amendment rights are not able to accomplish by legislation,
they are likely to seek to accomplish by judicial fiat.  This November
is, perhaps, one of our only chances to counter that threat.

---
--David C. Adams  Statistician  Cray Research Inc.  dadams@cray.com
___________________________________________________________________
       member--Minnesotans for Global Warming.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns