Gun Rights: A Private Right and a Public Issue

I posted a Facebook status with a quote from a Huffington Post article regarding the travesty that occurred in Connecticut yesterday and immediately received some flack for it in the comments.  I took it down, because I know how much arguing politics on Facebook comments pisses people off.  But I still stand by the quote that I posted, which stated that the right to bear arms is not more important than the right of a child to grow up.

Why do these two rights cross paths?  Because of Congress' right to "police powers" and the difference between private rights and public rights.  For two centuries now, the Supreme Court has granted Congress the right to regulate actions or products that affect the public welfare.  Some of these examples range from the size of a pier in the Boston harbor (Commonwealth v. Alger), the right to regulate alcohol (Mulger v. Kansas), all the way up to present day and the right to regulate environmental concerns.  The argument holds that anything that can affect the public welfare negatively is considered a "nuisance" and it is constitutional to regulate them.

Many people have problems with what is and is not regulated.  Seat belts, for example, are regulated because death via car accident greatly affects the public welfare.  Speed limits follow that same logical reasoning.  Marijuana will also fall into this argument now that we see legislation begin to legalize it.  Guns, however, are still considered a private right.  This needs to be altered.

The private right to bear arms is not a belief that holds much historical clout.  CNN legal contributor, Jeffrey Toobin, examines the history of the Second Amendment in his tremendous book, The Oath.  In essence, this right did not reach national debate until the 80's, when Republicans reformed their party platform in regards to abortion, states rights, guns, etc.  The Reagan Revolution saw a tremendous increase in funding to politicians from the National Rifle Association, mainly to Republican candidates.  This caused a switch in who truly believed in the Second Amendment, because decades before, Democrats were actually larger proponents for the right to bear arms.

Now I have always had a view on the Second Amendment that is similar to President Obama's - I support it, but there needs to be parameters to guide it.  It cannot be an absolute right.  While legally owning a gun seems like a private, individual matter, like that of owning a boat or a car, makes sense on its face, the increase in mass murders across the nation calls into question: is owning a gun TRULY a private matter?

I argue it is not.  Too many people outside of the individual right to own a gun are being affected.  Mental deficiencies aside, the possession of a gun can and has affected the general public.  Therefore, Congress should be able to regulate firearms more ardently, as it passes the test as to what is a nuisance.

So yes, the constitutional right to life IS more important than the individual right to bear arms.  I am not educated enough to figure out how firearms should be more closely regulated, that responsibility falls on the powers that be, but constitutionally speaking, regulating the Second Amendment can be a constitutional act.  And it needs to happen soon.

The Supreme Court and Lying - Is it a Crime?

The Supreme Court stole the headlines for a short while today with the news that they would agree to hear a case involving Affirmative Action and the admission to public universities.  Arguments will begin in October and, due to Justice Elena Kagan choosing to sit this case out (she served as the solicitor general when the case was originally brought to appeal, thus creating a conflict of interest) it seems as though Affirmative Action as we know it in public schools will be no more.  Justice Kennedy, the always crucial swing vote in the Court, tends to side with the Conservatives in social issues, which will most likely create a 5-3 ruling, deeming race as a factor in admitting students to public universities as unconstitutional.  But that is a conversation for a few months from now, and that's also only a prediction.  What seemed to fly under the radar, though, is an interesting case that will begin oral arguments tomorrow morning.

When is lying considered a crime?  Seems like a ludicrous question, I know, but can a lie be so severe that it can trigger legal action?  What if that lie sullies our prestigious armed forces?  That will surely stir up some emotions.

That is exactly what Xavier Alvarez did.  While running for public office in California, Alvarez's campaign was strongly based on the fact that, not only did he serve valiantly for our military, but he also received the highest military award one can - the Congressional Medal of Honor.  Alvarez won the election.  But years later, come to find out, Alvarez lied about the whole thing.  He never served, let alone won the medal.  According to the Stolen Valor Act of 2006, Alvarez broke the law by, "falsely represent[ing] himself or herself, verbally or in writing," as a recipient of a military award.  Alvarez, however, claims this violates the First Amendment and his right to free speech.

That damned First Amendment and all the trouble it causes!  I speak facetiously, of course, because free speech is something that Americans have prided themselves on for hundreds of years.  It separates us from totalitarian governments that do not allow citizens to express themselves.  It's part of our liberty as an American.  But with the good, comes the bad.

No matter how vile, or evil, or inappropriate one speaks at times, the right to free speech has repeatedly been protected over the years.  Roth v. United States (1957) was one case in which the Supreme Court decided that 'obscene' speech is not protected by the First Amendment, however, the definition of 'obscene' has morphed entirely since then.  Other than Roth, free speech has been protected for the Ku Klux Klan (Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)), anti-war and anti-government rhetoric (Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) & United States v. O'Brien (1968)), and even homophobic protesting on a sidewalk (Snyder v. Phelps (2011)).

This is the first time, I believe, that 'lying' has specifically been the topic of debate in the Supreme Court regarding the First Amendment, so it's difficult to look at the case from a point of precedent.  However, I just can't see how the Supreme Court can rule that the act of lying is deemed illegal.  It would alter the entire way Americans view free speech.  This is different than lying under oath or writing fraudulent information on a government document.  Alvarez's actions, as grossly fabricated as they were - he lied about being in three helicopter crashes and being shot by 'the same guy' in battle multiple times - still seem to be protected by free speech.

If the Supreme Court were to set a precedent, claiming that lying is no longer protected, then the First Amendment would surely crumble under itself.  The only way Alvarez could probably lose this case, would be if the Court ruled that only when speaking about the military may one not be able to lie.  But still, this is WAY too broad of a statute to rule on.  The First Amendment is one that has been heralded as our Constitution's greatest achievement, but sometimes people mistreat it, despite it's positive intentions.  Alvarez is one of those people.  Despite his despicable actions, I just can't imagine the Supreme Court ruling against his claim.

Two Parties, and Neither of Them Appealing

This post isn't like the ones that precede it.  There's no news topic to write about, or some strong opinion on a current event to argue - this is just a rhetorical stream of consciousness.  I enjoy following politics - foreign policy, economics, law, etc.  But I'm new to it all and I really don't know much about it compared to many other people.  And as my political beliefs continue to mold, one thing I can't seem to figure out, unfortunately, is what party do I belong to?  Or should it even matter?  In the United States... it usually does.

I am continuously baffled by the two-party system.  It seems to cause more problems in politics than solutions.  It closes off people's minds to possible centrist, pragmatic beliefs that cater to both ends of the political spectrum.  Furthermore, for someone like myself, it leaves people lost in purgatory, with no place to call home, and no support from any party.  It shouldn't be a problem for someone to appreciate Obama's stand on gay rights, while also supporting Bush's education legislation, while believing in Romney when he says that we need to focus on the private sector, all while agreeing with Ron Paul when he says he wants to shrink the military.  But if I ran on a campaign platform that supported all these, I'd be scrutinized as a flip-flopper, just trying to serve both parties all while being hypocritical.

Why?  Because I appreciate aspects of both Democrats AND Republicans?  What's so bad about that?  If that's what I truly believe in then why can't I run on those policies?  Having only two parties that, despite not admitting it, pride themselves on purposely disagreeing with their political opponents causes politicians to not run on what they believe in.  Look at someone like Romney for example - priding his time spent as the governor of Massachusetts on passing universal health care, and previously was somewhat accepting to abortion and gay rights.  Once he's seen as a possible representative of the Republican party, those go right out the window, because that's not what Republicans want.  Busch league... that's what that is.  I have written in support of Romney in past posts but this type of conforming to "establishment GOP" is annoying.

The two party system is set in stone; we'll never see it leave American politics.  It's unique in it's nature and is not duplicated in any other representative government anywhere else in the world.  Perhaps that's why other republics don't have as high disapproval ratings as the United States,  Politicians like Ron Paul, who don't toe party lines, are few and far between.  Independents don't find that same success as Dems or Reps because they don't have the support.  It's unfortunate.  But get used to it, because it's here to stay.

Santorum's Surge

Flipping back and forth between the Allstate Sugar Bowl and the Iowa Caucus coverage on CNN isn't appealing to most people.  It'd be like rushing home from the toy store to go to the dentist.  But it interests me, so it's all good.  Both were very intriguing to watch unfold, and I must say, the Sugar Bowl was between two teams that didn't belong there and Virginia Tech should have won the game.  It was embarrassing.  Now let me get off one soap box and step up onto another.

I have been stupefied throughout this entire Republican Presidential race considering I did not see anyone as a clear cut favorite.  Each week a different person was ahead in the polls.  But I've been sitting on this hunch that America, despite all it's negative rhetoric aimed at President Obama, simply isn't ready to become conservative.  I find Americans to be too scared, yes I said it, "scared" of what the outcome will be.  They claim they want all these changes away from the crazy black guy in office but, in reality, Americans would be petrified of what an Evangelical conservative would change in their social lives.

And my hunch seemed almost correct last night, where I assumed Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann would bomb and have to leave the race early.  Ron Paul even further proved my hunch correct by finishing in a strong third and capturing almost HALF the vote of 19-27 year old voters.  I felt like an expert for a slight moment, but then Rick Santorum had to come in and spoil all the fun.  With a tremendous effort by the Pennsylvania Senator, visiting all 99 counties in Iowa, and hosting 381 town meetings, all while not spending ridiculous amounts of money (it cost Romney $156 per vote and Santorum only $21 for almost the same amount), he became the resurgent candidate, just being beaten out by Mitt Romney in the end, which by all accounts, is a still a victory.

Santorum is becoming popular because he appeals to the American public emotionally, much like President Obama did in 2008.  He moves you when he speaks, inspires even, and people like that out of their leader.  But are his policies and ideologies too conservative for America?  According to my hunch, they are.  For Pete's sake the guy is against birth control!  These are the types of policies I don't think America is ready for, despite wanting to become more conservative.  Santorum brings a lot of positivity to the race, and he seems like a great guy, but is he really what the American people want?  I think they just want someone who's a little more vanilla than Obama.  Someone who can appeal to both sides of the political spectrum.  Someone with a business sense.  Okay, you get it, and I've said it a hundred times, Romney is still the safe pick and he is still the favorite in this race.  South Carolina will be interesting, where Romney is running a double digit deficit in the polls and Santorum may be able to pick up more Evangelical voters but for now, it's on to New Hampshire for a guaranteed win for Mitt, and two states down in his run for the Republican candidacy.

To Legalize or Not to Legalize?

As is the case with any front runner in the presidential race, Newt Gingrich's revived campaign has caused critics to come to the forefront to discredit his policies and beliefs.  One unique argument against having Gingrich as the GOP candidate came this past week from former New Mexico governor and failed presidential candidate, Gary Johnson.  In an interview on MSNBC, Johnson claimed that in 1996, Gingrich admitted to smoking marijuana but then proposed legislation for possibly sentencing drug offenders to the Death Penalty.  It is an obscure claim, one that has not been talked about much if at all throughout the GOP primaries but Johnson's campaign was centered around legalizing marijuana before he dropped out of the race.  The legislation Gingrich proposed was not totally based on simply killing drug dealers, but Johnson of course neglected that fact for the sake of discrediting the former Speaker's stance on drugs.


The Death Penalty is, of course, a drastic reaction to a drug offense and would never pass in Congress but it brings up the consistently more intriguing question about legalizing drugs such as marijuana.  I'm torn on the issue, just like the rest of the nation.  About 50% of Americans are for legalizing marijuana, depending on what poll you are looking at.  And the list of pros and cons go on forever.

There's no doubt that marijuana, when used in moderation, is probably less harmful to humans than alcohol or tobacco, and we've seen that it can be therapeutic with cancer patients and others that are terminally ill .  But then there's the plausible claim that it is a gateway drug to harder and much more harmful drugs.  Not so sure if this is testable, and if it is, if the results are credible, but alcohol or tobacco could arguably be seen as gateway substances as well.  Furthermore, critics against legalization are worried that if it was made legal, children could get their hands on it easier.

Frankly, it seems as though the argument between legalizing marijuana and outlawing it really lies in the crime rate and tax collection - you know, the boring stuff that don't pay attention to as much.  Marijuana, at a time like this in the United States, perhaps could be a relief to the money that is hemorrhaging out of Washington.  Millions upon millions of citizens in prison are convicted of drug crimes and costing the nation obscene amounts of money to remain incarcerated.  Legalization of marijuana could slash prison costs by the millions by freeing those who are convicted of drug crimes.  And if legalized, it could be sold at a taxable price like alcohol and tobacco, which are big moneymakers for the Federal government.  Our financial situation goes much deeper than throwing a tax on a dime bag or letting the neighborhood pot dealer out of county jail but, hey, any little bit can help.  And I don't even want to get into the tension that it would relieve on our border to the south.  Drug money fuels nations in South America and Mexico and it also keeps their citizens flocking across the border in order to make a sale.  There would probably be a lot less immigration issues if the frat bros next door to me could run to a convenience store down the street instead of depending on Mexicans strapped to the bottom of a freight train.

But who knows if marijuana will ever be legalized?  I sure as hell don't, and I think it's because of the bad stigma the drug has received.  There's a big difference in the eyes of Americans between the big-wig business executive fixing himself a whiskey sour at 10am in his office compared to the stoned grocery clerk who attends Phish concerts on the weekends and wants to "fight the machine".  But are these two scenarios really all that different?  Is marijuana that much worse than alcohol?  No, it's not.  I have always stood against it but policy issues and health risks don't lie - maybe it's time to think about legalizing pot.

Besides, it's about time we find something to help make Ashton Kutcher on Two and a Half Men actually funny.

Barack's Chicken Salad

In a recent conversation with a friend of mine, Chris Celi, we were talking about the travelling clown car that is the GOP presidential primary race and then about the eventual candidate's competition, Barack Obama.  In a PG-13 reference, I claimed that Obama was expected to come into office and, "make chicken salad out of chicken (excrement)."  Chris' response was simple, yet very intuitive: "that's some chicken salad."

And he's right.  I have been critical of the president for some time now, and as I watch the primaries roll along, and look at Obama's presidency in retrospect, perhaps I've been too hard on the guy.  He truly was given a terrible economic situation, two wars that we arguably should not be involved in, and an angry populace.  Now, almost three years into his presidency, we are seeing slight economic growth despite an ailing situation across the Atlantic Ocean, a shrinking unemployment gap, and a concrete exit strategy for our brave troops in the Middle East.  Sounds pretty damn good to me.

It makes me think that maybe our government's problems are not coming from the Oval Office, although the buck does stop there.  Our Congress is inactive - so much so that Barney Frank delivered a nice punch to the gut to his colleagues upon announcing his retirement.  The Supercommittee assigned to balancing the budget embarrassed themselves so badly that Congress has worked towards a whopping 9% approval rating from the American public.  The nation's debt is increasing, and there is no end in sight because nothing is agreed upon between Republicans and Democrats.

So although Obama's reelection hopes ride almost entirely on the economy, as POLITICO claims in the linked article above, and Americans are not entirely happy with his time in office, maybe he still is the best candidate in 2012.  I'm not sure yet, a lot depends on who falls out of the GOP clown car last and winds up with the nomination.  But seriously, the guy finally found Bin Laden, he has curbed torturous practices in military prisons such as Guanatanamo Bay, and he's BRINGING TROOPS HOME.  All this, along with some social reforms that benefit the nation as well.  So despite being a little too 'anti-business' as my friend Chris has claimed, and his questionable Obamacare plan still may be worked into our nation's economy pending Supreme Court decisions, the president has kept us afloat and maybe four more years of Obama is the best option for Americans.

Not bad for a guy who wasn't even born here...

Joe Amendola's Actions - Stupid at Best

The much talked about interview between NBC's Bob Costas and alleged child abuser and former Penn State football coach, Jerry Sandusky, has brought much attention to the already popular news story across news sources and social networks.  Bob Costas, apparently not knowing he would be speaking to Sandusky himself until fifteen minutes before the interview, was sharp and succinct in his questioning and in no way made the interview about him.  He left the viewers to have their own opinions on Sandusky's response.  It was a shining moment for journalists everywhere, but not so much for defense attornies.

What the hell is Joe Amendola doing allowing his client to speak out on national television?  Now all accused citizens in this country are innocent until proven guilty, and the same holds true for Sandusky, despite the grueling 23-page grand jury indictment, but in high profile cases such as this, the court of public opinion more often than not creates the demise of the defendant.  So how does this brilliant defense attorney hide his client from the court of public opinion?  Well by having him conduct a phone interview on primetime television, of course!

Do I feel as though Jerry Sandusky is innocent? Not exactly.  I've been all too close to sexual abuse scandals like this and the allegations in the indictment are eerily similar to what I've seen in the past.  But what Amendola did by letting his client speak out is not only poor counsel, it's a ludicrous move in Sandusky's defense case that holds no merit whatsoever and just further allowed for negative opinions on the man to be reinforced.  When a man immediately repeats the question, word for word, after he is asked it, he doesn't look like a man too confident in his response.  Sandusky did this more than once.  Joe Amendola, just hide your client, please.  You've already disgraced your character enough by representing him, now just be a good defense lawyer and stop trying to celebratize yourself and your client by appearing on NBC.