Follow by Email

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Second Ammendment Liberty

The Supreme Court issued its much anticipated ruling concerning the D.C. law banning handguns. The court struck down the law! Good for them. They did so on sound Constitutional theory. The Second amendment is not ambiguous.

The short article concerning the decision can be read here.

Justice Stevens writing for the minority wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons." He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

The fact is the Framers intended to do just that, limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate the civilian use of weapons. In fact the Bill of Rights was especially intended to keep government from intruding on individual liberty.

To claim that such evidence is nowhere to be found is an alarming sentiment coming from a jurist on the highest Court in the land. He undoubtedly is counting on the ignorance of the population in expressing such views.

I am looking forward to reading both the majority opinion and dissent when they are posted.


Added at 1:15 P.M. A more detailed article is found here.

The article has the following quote from Justice Breyer.

"Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.""

It is interesting how often times the same Justices find no untouchable constitutional right in the very clear language of the Constitution and yet manage to find rights like the right to privacy, the right to engage in homosexual activity and also act upon the unfounded doctrine of substantive due process instead of simply ensuring a fair process.


Added 9:15 P.M.

You can read the Court's decision and the dissent here.

I just finished reading Scalia's majority opinion. It is 67 pages long and worth the read. This is the kind of Constitutional reasoning and philosophy we need. I hope to read the dissenting opinions tomorrow.

I was especially thankful for Scalia's closing paragraph for it sets forth the nature of judicial restraint for which we should hope. He wrote:


"We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct. (Emphasis mine)

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

It is so ordered."


Added 9:31 P.M.

It is looking like George Bush's greatest legacy may be Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. They got it right on Wednesday though on the losing side when the Court struck down a Louisiana law providing for the death penalty for child rapists. They got it right again on Thursday in the majority opinion in a decision that struck down a D.C. law that banned the ownership of handguns and required all guns in the home to be disabled rendering them useless for the defense of hearth and home.

Monday, June 02, 2008

Legendary Designer Dies

The first paragraph of the article reads:

"PARIS - Legendary designer Yves Saint Laurent, who reworked the rules of fashion by putting women into elegant pantsuits that came to define how modern women dressed, died Sunday evening, a longtime friend and associate said. He was 71."

The statement that he was responsible for putting women into pants suits caught my attention and so I read the rest of the article. It was insightful.

Pierre Berge, Lourents's business partner for four decades said, "Chanel gave women freedom" in the first half, (of the 20th century) and Saint Laurent "gave them power." Saint Laurent was a "true creator," going beyond the aesthetic to make a social statement."

His clothes were designed to make a social statement.

Berge went on to say, "In this sense he was a libertarian, an anarchist and he threw bombs at the legs of society. That's how he transformed society and that's how he transformed women."

He was a fashion anarchist. His intent was to undermine society and transform women through his fashion statements. He not only transformed fashion he transformed women through fashion.

"Bouts of depression marked his career. Berge, the designer's longtime business partner and former romantic partner, was quoted as saying that Saint Laurent was born with a nervous breakdown."

He was a sodomite.

"Also from the 60s came Beatnik chic - a black leather jacket and knit turtleneck with high boots - and sleek pantsuits that underlined Saint Laurent's statement on equality of the sexes. He showed that women could wear "men's clothes," which when tailored to the female form became an emblem of elegant femininity."

He was a sodomite that used his fashion influence to show that women could wear men's clothes. Women in pants were Laurent's way of making a statement about the equality of the sexes. Women can dress like men. Of course he tailored the men's clothes to the female form admitting that he had in mind focusing attention on the female form.

"The Independent of London wrote in an editorial after Saint Laurent's retirement. "By putting a woman in a man's tuxedo, he changed fashion forever, in a style that never dated.""

It was a sodomite that put a woman in a man's tuxedo. He changed fashion forever. It was not a better understanding of scripture that did this.

"Some of his revolutionary style was met with resistance. There are famous stories of women wearing Saint Laurent pantsuits who were turned away from hotels and restaurants in London and New York."

Interesting that the new fashion was not readily received. Gradually though the moral fiber of the culture was undermined so that women now feel comfortable wearing men's clothes.

I found the article interesting because some of the things I have been saying for years about women wearing men's apparel is admitted by one of the fashion designers most responsible for the cultural shift.

But I am sure most people still will not admit the message conveyed by women wearing pants.

The Enjoyment Of His Mercies

"And where God loses the opportunity of exercising his mercies, man must needs lose the happiness of enjoying them."

Richard Baxter, The Saint's Everlasting Rest