Christopher Hitchens' latest column in Slate states: "In April 2004, Barack Obama told a reporter from the Chicago Sun-Times that he had three spiritual mentors or counselors: Jeremiah Wright, James Meeks, and Father Michael Pfleger--for a change of pace, a white Catholic preacher who has a close personal feeling for the man he calls (as does Obama) Minister Farrakhan."
Pfleger is the Pastor at St. Sabina's Catholic Church, on the South Side of Chicago. So I searched Westlaw's ALLNEWS database for "Obama and Pfleger."
According to the April 5, 2004 Chicago Sun-Times article cited by Hitchens:
Friends and advisers, such as the Rev. Michael Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina Roman Catholic Church in the Auburn--Gresham community on the South Side, who has known Obama for the better part of 20 years, help him keep that compass set, he says.As Hitchens wrote, Rev. Pfleger is indeed an admirer of "Minister Farrakhan." Ambushed by a Bill O'Reilly camera crew, Pfleger stated: "He has--first of all, he has not called Judaism a gutter religion of blood suckers. That is not what he has said because I have heard that talk. I stick up for Louis Farrakhan because he is another person that the media has chosen to define how they want to do it. And they demonize how they want to demonize somebody. I know the man, Louis Farrakhan. He is a great man. I have great respect for him, ho has done an awful lot for people and this country, black, white, and brown. He's a friend of mine." (The O'Reilly Factor, Apr. 3, 2008.) Farrakhan spoke at St. Sabina's on May 25, 2007. (Chicago Sun Times, May 10, 2007.)
"I always have felt in him this consciousness that, at the end of the day, with all of us, you've got to face God," Pfleger says of Obama. "Faith is key to his life, no question about it. [It is] central to who he is, and not just in his work in the political field, but as a man, as a black man, as a husband, as a father.... I don't think he could easily divorce his faith from who he is."
Like Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who was recently an invited speaker at Rev. Pfleger's church, Rev. Pfleger believes that "racism is still America's greatest addiction." (Chicago Sun Times, Jan. 17, 2004.)
In September 2007 in Iowa, Plfeger participated in forums on the role of spirituality in politics, which the Obama campaign had organized. (US Federal News, Oct. 1 & 14, 2007; Chicago Sun Times, Sept. 12, 2007). The Obama campaign touted Pfleger's endorsement, listing him as one of about a dozen prominent ministers who supported Obama. (Daily Herald (Arlington Heights, IL), May 8, 2007.)
As a state legislator, Obama obtained $225,000 in grants for St. Sabina. (Chicago Tribune, May 2, 2007.)
Rev. Pfleger was a prominent early endorser of Obama's successful 2004 Senate campaign, as well as his unsuccessful 2000 challenge to U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush.
Rev. Pfleger's church has taken some admirable stands against the degradation of American culture, such as speaking out against abusive rap music, and hosting a speaker who exposed the anti-Catholic compilation of lies in "The DaVinci Code." (Chicago Defender, May 15, 2006.) St. Sabina also organized a rally against the genocide in Darfur. (Chicago Sun Times, May 19, 2005.) Rev. Pfleger appeared at a press conference to support state legislator Obama's bill requiring the police to keep statistics on the race of motorists who were stopped by the police, so as to deter racial profiling. (Chicago Defender, Feb. 20, 2001.)
Rev. Pfleger also appeared at a press conference announcing State Senator Obama's proposal to outlaw the sale of bidi cigarettes--a type of high-nicotine hand-rolled cigarette which is made in India. (Chicago Defender, Feb. 5, 2000.)
Rev. Pfleger does not respect the property rights of persons who sell products he does not like. He "is known for climbing ladders to deface liquor billboards." (Crain's Chicago Business, Dec. 20, 2004.)
The Westlaw database does not indicate that Sen. Obama has participated in the project which has gained Rev. Pfleger notoriety among Bill of Rights advocates: his persecution of Chuck's Gun Shop. Since all firearms stores have been driven out of Chicago, the closest firearms store to Chicago is Chuck's Gun Shop, in Riverdale, a short distance south of Chicago. Pursuant to Illinois law, Chuck's only sells guns to customers who have already obtained a Firearms Owner's Identification Card (FOID) issued by the Illinois State Police after a background check. The employees of Chuck's Gun Shop have also voluntarily undertaken the "Don't lie for the other guy" training program sponsored by the National Shooting Sports Foundation and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, to help gun store employees detect straw purchases (purchases by legal buyers conducted on behalf of prohibited persons).
Yet the Reverends Michael Pfleger and Jesse Jackson have been organized large crowds to repeatedly picket Chuck's Gun Shop. On June 23, 2007, Revs. Jackson and Pfleger were arrested for criminally obstructing the entrance to the store. The charges were eventually dropped, just as Governor George Wallace never was criminally punished for standing in a doorway to obstruct the exercise of constitutional rights. (The comparison is a little unfair, since Wallace eventually stood aside, whereas Jackson and Pfleger had to be physically removed by the police.)
In another demonstration at Chuck's Gun Shop, owned by John Riggio, Rev. Pfleger told the crowd: "We're going to find you and snuff you out....Like a rat you're going to hide. But like a rat, we're going to catch you and pull you out....We're going to snuff out John Riggio." Rev. Pfleger also promised: "We're going to snuff out legislators that are voting against our gun laws. We're coming for you because we're not going to sit idly."
Rev. Pfleger later denied that his words had been meant to invoke violence, or that he had known that "snuff out" means to "kill." Rather, the determination to "snuff out" Riggio was a determination to find out his home address, which was not publically available.
According to Roget's Thesaurus, "snuff out" means "kill" and is similar to the following words: "blow away, bump off, chill, dispatch, dispose of, do away with, do in, dust, grease, hit, ice, knock off, murder, off, rub out, stretch out, waste, wax, whack, zap." In response to Rev. Pfleger's words, Cardinal Francis George, of the Archdiocese of Chicago, stated: "Publicly delivering a threat against anyone's life betrays the civil order and is morally outrageous, especially if this threat came from a priest." (Chicago Sun Times, June 8, 2007.)
Rev. Pfleger proclaimed that the protests would continue (and that he would refuse to pay a fee imposed by a city ordinance to pay for the police services necessitated by the picketing) until the Riverdale city council decides to eliminate all gun stores, and "vote Riverdale gun-free." Or as Rev. Pfleger's picketers chanted, "Vote Riverdale gun dry." (Chicago Defender, Oct. 29, 2007).
Every American voter will have to decide how much importance, if any, to give to Sen. Obama's association with Rev. Pfleger. In my own view, I give greater attention to a religious figure who is a long-standing personal advisor to a candidate than to a religious figure who is merely one of thousands of political allies whom the candidate seeks out during a campaign. In deciding how to vote, I ignore purely theological issues (e.g., whether the Mitt Romney's LDS view of the afterlife is more plausible or less plausible than John Kerry's Roman Catholic view), but I consider the extent to which the candidate's religious philosophy may (like any other part of the candidate's worldview) influence his or her public policy decisions. In my view, it is relevant that a candidate has chosen spiritual mentors who are bigots or who are hostile to constitutional rights. Senator Obama's close relationship with Rev. Pfleger makes me less confident that a President Obama would be a strong defender of the entire Bill of Rights and of civic tolerance.
[David Kopel, March 31, 2008 at 11:33pm] Trackbacks
On March 18, I joined the lawyers for Dick Heller at the counsel table for oral argument in District of Columbia v. Heller. The counsel table has four seats, and there were three lawyers representing Mr. Heller, so Alan Gura, the lead lawyer in the case, invited me to sit with them at the counsel table.
The practical function of the lawyers who are not presenting the oral argument is to write notes for the arguing lawyer, in case a tangential issue comes up. During the presentations by Walter Dellinger (for D.C.) and Paul Clement (for the Solicitor General) Justice Stevens asked questions which pointed out that of the Founding Era state constitutions, only two (Pennsylvania and Vermont) specifically mentioned self-defense as one of the purposes for the right to arms. So I gave Gura a note pointing out that courts in Massachusetts and North Carolina had interpreted their state constitution "for the common defence" language as an encompassing a right to arms for legitimate purposes, including defense against criminals. During Gura's presentation, Justice Stevens raised the point again, and Gura began to detail the case law, but Justice Stevens waved him off, stating that he was interested only in the constitutional texts.
After oral argument in any case, it's always possible to think about how a particular answer could have been given better; but I think that Alan Gura did an excellent job. He was solid, well-informed, and persuasive.
Some observations from a first-timer in the Supreme Court:
The counsel table is quite near the bench. It's an interesting experience to see the Justices up close and personal, after having spent so many months trying to discern their modes of thought.
It is indeed awe-inspiring to hear the Marshal of the Court announce: "Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God save the United States and this Honorable Court!"
Before the argument, Walter Dellinger, a true Southern gentleman, came over to shake our hands. He graciously told Gura that Gura would do "great," and said that his own very first oral argument had been his best.
Also awe-inspiring are the Court's chambers, with a beautiful high ceiling, and friezes on all four walls depicting great law-givers, as well as mythical characters personifying law-related virtues such as wisdom.
Based on the oral argument, it is possible to identify a few of the amicus briefs that were particularly influential. As Respondent, Gura would have been foolhardy to argue that the Court's leading precedent, United States v. Miller needed to be altered in any respect. That argument was instead in Nelson Lund's excellent brief for the Second Amendment Foundation, and was apparently adopted by Justice Kennedy.
Justice Kennedy's view that the militia clause of the Second Amendment emphasizes the importance of the militia, but does not limit the rights clause was supported not only by Gura's brief, but also by a careful textual analysis in the Lund brief, and by a strong historical presentation in the Academics for the Second Amendment brief, written by David Hardy and Joseph Olson.
Gura was asked at one point if there was any contemporaneous evidence indicating that self-defense was a purpose of the Second Amendment. He began by pointing to the 1787 Dissent from the Pennsylvania ratifying convention, which had urged that the proposed U.S. Constitution be amended to state: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers."
Justice Souter retorted that the Pennsylvania Dissent was only concerned about the militia. Given the text of what the Pennsylvanians said, I find this view implausible; the better argument on D.C.'s side (made by, among others, Dennis Henigan of the Brady Center) seemed to be that if James Madison wanted to protect more than militia-only uses of firearms, he could have copied Pennsylvania's language, but he chose not to.
Nevertheless, Justice Souter seemed to have been persuaded by arguments in a historians' brief by Carl Bogus, which cited the law review scholarship about Pennsylvania by Nathan Kozuskanich. Kozuskanich was also cited in D.C.'s briefs, and in several of D.C.'s amicus briefs.
Michael Bane's Down Range TV has a collection of various lawyers, academics, and other Second Amendment advocates, discussing the oral argument. He also has a link to the oral argument audio. C-Span's Real Video coverage of the press conference after the brief (about 21 minutes, equally divided between the two sides) is here. A 15 minute iVoices.org podcast in which I'm interviewed about the oral argument is here.
For over a quarter-century, pro-Second Amendment lawyers such as Stephen Halbrook, Bob Dowlut, Don Kates, and David Hardy had dedicated their careers to making March 18, 2008, possible. Moreover, without the work of millions of pro-Second Amendment activists over the years, there would have been no chance of victory, however persuasive the evidence of original meaning might be. If the gun prohibition lobby had succeeded in its plans to use the 1976 D.C. ban to pass handgun bans in many cities and several states, it is doubtful that the Supreme Court would have the institutional will to strike down so many laws. And it also seems unlikely that most of the Justices who might have been appointed by a President Kerry, Dukakis, Mondale, or Carter would have been willing to declare even the D.C. ban unconstitutional.
Yet while the work of millions of citizens made March 18 possible, it was Alan Gura who had to finish the job alone. Our young Skywalker performed magnificently, and I hope that by the Fourth of July, the law-abiding citizens of our nation's capital will once again enjoy their rights to own handguns, and to use firearms in defense of their homes and families.
[David Kopel, March 22, 2008 at 10:04am] Trackbacks
1. Election Results. The Nationalist Party (Kuomintang, KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-Jeou won a landslide victory today, defeating the Democratic Progressive Party candidate Frank Hsieh by 17% (58.5% to 41.5%). Ma won about 7.6 million votes, compared to 5.4 million for Hsieh. The results exceed even the election-eve expectations of the KMT, which was hoping that its internal polls showing a victory margin of about 11-13% would hold up.
Compared to the 2004 election (in which the DPP's margin of victory was only 0.22%), the KMT improved its performance in every Taiwan county by 7-10%, and won 20 of the 25 counties. (The only county where the KMT did not improve dramatically was Kinmen County, which consists of some small islands very near to China; a large percentage of the population of Kinmen County is military and their families, and the military has historically favored the KMT. The KMT got about 95% in Kinmen in both 2008 and 2008.) The only counties with the DPP won were a cluster in southwest Taiwan, the party's heartland.
The KMT and DPP positions on domestic policy were not greatly different, but the DPP nevertheless suffered from voter unrest about lower economic growth rates in recent years, in comparison to the rapid economic growth of not long ago. The parties have significant differences on international relations, particularly on how to deal with China, but both Ma and Hsieh are moderates within their parties. For further analysis of the policy implications of the election results, tune in next to a webcast of a TV program in which I interviewed a pair of Taiwanese political scientists. (Details later.)
The DPP also performed very poorly in the January elections for the legislature (Legislative Yuan), in part because a group of 11 DPP incumbents were defeated in primaries by hard-liners who could not carry swing districts. Nevertheless, because Hsieh is a moderate, there is a significant possibility that DPP's remaining moderates may be driven from leadership roles.
President-elect Ma will take office on May 20.
A pair of initiatives were also on the ballot, regarding Taiwan's membership in the UN. A DPP referendum asked if Taiwan should apply to join the UN under the name of "Taiwan." A KMT counter-initiative asked if Taiwan should apply to "rejoin" the UN under the name of "Republic of China" or "any other convenient name." Both initiatives received an overwhelming majority of votes cast, but neither passed, because the law states that no initiative will be valid unless 50% of eligible voters (not actual voters) vote on the initiative.
2. Election Process. The voting and vote-counting were a model of integrity, transparency, and efficiency. I observed voting at three north-central Taipei precincts: at St. John Bosco Catholic Church, and at a pair of precincts voting at National Taipei University.
Throughout Taiwan, voting was by paper ballot, with marked ballots placed into sealed ballot boxes. Photography during the voting process is forbidden, but is allowed while the ballot are being counted.
When the ballot box is opened, and vote-counting begins, each ballot is held up one-by-one, and the vote is announced. The vote-counting is open to the public, and is observed by party representatives, as well as other interested citizens.
Each vote is recorded on a tally sheet which is also visible. Each small box on the tally sheet holds a total of five votes, which are recorded one at time with hashmarks. The completed five-strokes of the hashmark form a Mandarin character which means "correct" or "upright."
After the last ballot is tallied, the empty ballot box is displayed for all to see.
The results are transmitted to a district election office, and then the district results are sent to the Central Election Commission, where results are displayed as fast as they are recorded.
The Central Election Commission's work (which was conducted in an auditorium at the National Police Academy) is open for everyone to watch, with the data processors located at the front of the room.
Between the time when we left our precinct after the votes were counted, and when we arrived at the Central Election Commission, about half an hour had elapsed. By then, the CEC was already displaying over half of the votes cast nationwide.
In a typical American general election, which may have dozens of races and issue votes, it would be very difficult to achieve such speedy results with hand-counting. Even so, the transparency of the Taiwan process inspires confidence and helps assure legitimacy.
As in any election, there are plenty of people who are disappointed with the result, and no one should minimize the difficulty of the challenge that President Ma will face in ensuring that when he leaves office in 2012 or 2016, Taiwan's freedom and sovereignty have not been eroded by its aggressive neighbor. But for now, all the people of Taiwan should be proud of their beautiful island of freedom, and their successful exercise of the inherent right of the sovereign people to chose their government.
In about seven hours, the polls will open for Taiwan's presidential election. Incumbent President Chen Shui-Bian is term-limited, so the race is between Frank Hsieh, of the Democratic Progressive Party (the same party as Chen), and Ma Ying-Jeou, of the Kuomintang (Nationalist Party). The public release of polling information is forbidden in the days before the election, but many observers believe that Hsieh is rapidly closing a large gap in the polls.
An important factor working in Hsieh's favor is the rioting in Tibet, a reminder of China's brutal suppression of a formerly independent nation; although the Chinese government has renamed Tibet as the "Tibet Autonomous Region," Chinese treatment of the Tibetans ever since the Chinese conquest half a century ago serves as a reminder that the Chinese government's promises of autonomy are sometimes worthless.
Mr. Ma, the former mayor of Taiwan's capital city, Taipei, has proposed forming a common market with China, and his party, the KMT, is generally seen as more conciliatory to China than is the DPP. (However, DPP candidate Hsieh is seen as much less inclined than President Chen to push the envelope on China issues.)
As a result, Ma has made a point of taking a tough line on the Tibet issue. He contrasted Taiwan and Tibet by stating that unlike Tibet, Taiwan is "sovereign"--an indisputably accurate fact, although one with many appeasement-minded KMT members have been reluctant to say out loud. Further, he said that if Chinese government violence in Tibet continues, Taiwan might boycott the Beijing Olympics.
Over 200,000 Taiwan citizens living overseas have come home to vote in the election. The majority of these traveling voters are Taiwanese entrepreneurs and their families who live in China. One elderly man traveled 20 hours from Brazil to be able to vote.
The Taiwanese are very enthusiastic participants in their democracy, and, happily, the electorate seems less polarized than in the bitterly-contested 2004 election.
By Taiwanese law, all public rallies must end by 10 p.m. on the night before the election. A little bit ago, I attended the KMT's final pre-election rally in Taipei. Neither presidential candidate Ma Ying-Jeou nor his running mate Vincent Siew were at the rally, since both spent the day in campaigning in southern Taiwan. Below are some pictures from the rally. I didn't arrive in Taipei in time to attend the DPP's big rally there two nights ago; I wish I had, so that I could also post DPP photos.
VC readers will be pleased to know that both Hsieh and Ma have law degrees, and that Ma earned a LLM from Harvard.
These photos are taken from near the front of the rally; they don't convey the size of the crowd, which was huge, or the sounds of the loud and enthusiastic crowd.
The woman in the middle of the above picture (to the left of the man in the lavender shirt) had flown in from Los Angeles to vote.
The KMT is the leading party of the pan-blue coalition; while the DPP leads the pan-green coalition. Hence the DPP's campaign symbol of a bluebird. The flags, of course, are those of Republic of China, which is Taiwan's formal name.
Siew is on the left, Ma on the right.
The Sunday Washington Post has an interesting collection of articles previewing Tuesday's oral argument in District of Columbia v. Heller, regarding whether DC's handgun ban and ban on home self-defense with any gun violate the Second Amendment. Among the articles is a poll on American attitudes towards gun ownership and the Second Amendment.
In the WaPo poll, 72% of respondents said that they considered the Second Amendment to be an individual right, not just for militia only. The is essentially identical to the most recent Gallup Poll (conducted Feb. 8-10, 2008) in which 73% of respondents said that the Second Amendment was an individual right, not limited only to militia.
The WaPo poll also asked "Would you support or oppose a law in your state that bans private handgun ownership and requires that rifles and shotguns kept in private homes be unloaded or have a trigger lock?" 59% said yes.
This is a surprising result, since it is strongly contrary other polling results. In the Gallup Poll, for example, you have to go back to 1965 to get plurality support for a handgun ban, and back to 1959 to find support comparable to the level report by WaPo.
Here's the Gallup question, and the results. "Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons?"
2007. Oct 4-7. 30% should. 68% should not. 2% undecided.
2006. 32/66/2.
2005. 35/64/1.
2004. 36/63/1.
2003. 32/67/1.
2002. 32/65/3.
2000. 36/62/2.
1999. April. 38/59/3.
1999. Feb. 34/64/2.
1993. Dec. 39/60/1.
1993. March. 42/54/4.
1991. 43/53/4.
1990. 41/55/4.
1988. 37/59/4.
1987. 42/50/8.
1981. June. 41/54/5.
1981. April. 39/58/3.
1980. Dec. 38/51/11.
1980. Jan. 31/65/4.
1975. 41/55/4.
1965. 49/44/7.
1959. 60/36/4.
CBS/New York Times polls have asked "Would you favor or oppose a ban on the sale of all handguns, except those that are issued to law enforcement officers?" The CBS/NYT results are:
April 2007. 33% in favor. 64% opposed.
2000. 34/63.
1999. 43/53.
1994. 46/50.
1989. 40/55.
1981. 43/51.
I don't know why the WaPo results are so different from the others. Perhaps there was some effect from WaPo asking a compound question.
BTW, the issue in Heller is not the trigger lock requirement per se. It's that the there is no exception allowing the gun to be unlocked in a self-defense emergency; in the 1977 case of McIntosh v. Washington, the D.C. Court of Appeals upheld the home self-defense ban against challenges that it violated equal protection and the common law right of self-defense. The McIntosh court agreed with D.C's lawyers and recognized the statute as an absolute ban on home self-defense with any firearm; this was held to be rational because of the number of fatal gun accidents was (according to the McIntosh court) larger than the number justiable self-defense homicides with guns.
UPDATE: A reader has supplied some graphs of the trends in the NY Times and Gallup polls. If they're too small for you to read comfortably, click on the graph, and you'll get a bigger version.
Moderated by Dahlia Lithwick of Slate, the panel features a discussion with John Payne (formerly of the D.C. Corporation Counsel's office; attorney of record on the Brady amicus brief, and currently head of the NAACP LDF), Carl Bogus (Prof. of Law at Roger Williams, and lead author on a pro-DC amicus brief of some historians) and me. The debate was held at the National Press Club, in Washington, D.C.; the video and audio are available here.
[David Kopel, March 9, 2008 at 5:18pm] Trackbacks
In
the
Supreme
Court's
Second
Amendment
case
District
of
Columbia
v.
Heller,
DC
and
its
amici
frequently
cited
a
then-forthcoming
Rutgers
L.
Rev.
article
by
Nipissing
University
assistant
history
professor
Nathan
Kozuskanich,
a
protégé
of
Saul
Cornell.
DC's
reply
brief,
filed
last
Wednesday,
cites
another
unpublished
Kozuskanich
article,
this
one
in
the
U.
Penn.
Journal
of
Constitutional
Law.
A
pair
of
new
postings
by
Clayton
Cramer
analyze
the
J.
Constl.
L.
article,
and
the
Rutgers
article.
To
call
the
articles
"law
office
history"
might
be
unfair
to
law
offices.
Regarding
the
J.
Const.
L.
article,
Cramer
explains
how
Kozuskanich's
theory
(that
the
right
to
arms
in
early
Pennsylvania
was
only
for
collective
defense
of
the
state)
depends
on
ignoring
other
evidence,
and
on
strained,
implausible
readings
of
the
evidence
that
Kozuskanich
does
present.
For
example,
Kozuskanich
points
to
the
prosecution
of
Dr.
James
Reynolds
for
"assault
with
intent
to
commit
murder."
Kozuskanich
claims
that
the
prosecution
proves
that
Pennsylvania's
constitutional
right
to
arms
did
not
apply
to
individual
self-defense.
But
as
Cramer
notes,
Dr.
Reynolds
was
never
charged
with
a
crime
for
his
mere
carrying
of
the
pistol;
he
was
charged
with
a
crime
because
he
pointed
the
pistol
and
threatened
to
shoot
someone.
The
book
American
State
Trials
observes
that
Reynolds
"contented
himself
with
carrying
a
pistol.
And
in
this
he
was
justified
by
every
law,
human
and
divine."
Certainly
no-one
at
the
trial
contended
otherwise;
so
Kozuskanich's
claim
that
the
prosecution
for
attempted
homicide
proves
that
there
was
no
individual
right
to
own
and
carry
guns
is
implausible.
The
prosecution's
theory
of
the
case
was
that
Dr.
Reynolds,
who
was
in a
public
place,
could
have
safely
retreated
from
threatening
mob,
and
that
Blackstone's
standards
for
self-defense
require
such
retreat.
The
jury,
however,
acquitted
Dr.
Reynolds.
The
Reynolds
case
is a
good
example
of
the
beginning
of
the
split
between
the
more
restrictive
British
standards
of
self-defense,
and
the
new,
more
liberal
American
standards.
That
conflict
on
self-defense
standards
continues
to
the
present
day.
But
arguments
about
the
boundaries
of
self-defense
(such
as
whether
there
is a
duty
to
retreat
if
possible)
certainly
do
not
disprove
the
existence
of a
constitutional
right
of
individuals
to
have
guns
for
personal
self-defense.
Joseph
Olson
and
Clayton
Cramer,
in
an
article
in
the
Georgetown
Journal
of
Law
and
Public
Policy
offer
numerous
examples
of
Founding
Era
usage
of
"bear
arms"
to
mean
carrying
guns
in a
non-military
setting.
Tellingly,
Kozuskanich
simply
ignores
the
Olson/Cramer
evidence,
for
that
evidence
demolishes
Kozuskanich's
theory.
Cramer's
critique
of
the
Rutgers
article
observes
that
Kozuskanich
actually
cites
Michael
Bellesiles,
who
was
forced
to
resign
from
Emory
after
the
proof
(brought
forward
by
Clayton
Cramer,
James
Lindgren,
and
others)
that
Bellesiles
had
falsified
his
data,
including
his
data
on
the
very
point
for
which
Kozuskanich
cites
him
(the
supposed
scarcity
of
guns
in
early
America).
Article
XIII
of
the
Pennsylvania
Constitution
of
1776
guaranteed
"That
the
people
have
a
right
to
bear
arms
for
the
defence
of
themselves
and
the
state."
The
opening
language,
"That
the
people
have
a
right",
was
identical
to
Articles
X,
XII,
and
XVI,
which
guaranteed
the
individual
rights
to
freedom
from
unreasonable
search,
free
speech/press,
and
petition/assembly.
Kozuskanich
quotes
extensively
from
the
Pennsylvania
Convention's
debates
on
Article
VIII
of
the
Constitution--affirming
that
everyone
is
bound
to
serve
in
the
militia,
or
pay
"an
equivalent
thereto"
(that
is,
a
fee
whereby
conscientious
objectors
could
be
excused
from
serving
personally).
Kozuskanich
claims
that
the
Article
VIII
debates
prove
that
there
was
no
individual
right
to
arms
for
self-defense.
As
Cramer
notes,
this
is
silly.
The
Article
VIII
debates
were
not,
of
course,
about
an
individual
right,
which
was
the
subject
of a
separate
article;
the
Article
VIII
debates
involved
the
scope
of a
duty.
Kozuskanich's
approach
to
Pennsylvania
is
similar
to
the
approach
that
his
mentor,
Prof.
Cornell,
uses
for
St.
George
Tucker
(the
leading
constitutional
scholar
of
the
Early
Republic):
quote
Tucker's
words
about
congressional
militia
powers
arising
from
Article
I of
the
federal
Constitution,
and
claim
that
those
words
prove
that
the
Second
Amendment
does
not
involve
arms
for
personal
defense.
(For
more
on
this
latter
point,
see
Stephen
Halbrook's
article
in
the
Tenn.
J.
L. &
Pol.
[David Kopel, March 4, 2008 at 10:07pm] Trackbacks
Last
May,
after
the D.C.
Circuit
Court of
Appeals
ruled in
District
of
Columbia
v.
Heller
that
the D.C.
handgun
ban
violates
the
Second
Amendment,
Harvard
Law
School
Professor
Larry
Tribe
was
contacted,
and
asked if
he would
like to
write an
amicus
brief in
support
of
Heller.
Tribe
wrote
back to
Heller's
attorneys
that he
did not
want to
do an
amicus
brief,
but he
would be
interested
in
exploring
his
playing
a "more
central
role"
in the
case.
Tribe
urged
that he
could be
effective
with the
center
and
left-of-center
Justices.
The only
"more
central
role"
than
that of
amicus-writer
is that
of
co-counsel
for
Respondent.
And,
obviously,
the only
position
of a
counsel
for
Respondent
would be
in favor
of
affirmance
of the
favorable
judgment
below.
Of
course a
counsel
might
offer a
different
theory
for why
the
decision
should
be
affirmed.
Today in
the
Wall
Street
Journal,
Professor
Tribe
penned
an op-ed
urging
that the
decision
of the
Court of
Appeals
be
reversed;
he
argued
that the
Second
Amendment
guarantees
a real
individual
right
(not
militia-men
while in
militia
service),
but
declared
that a
complete
ban on
handguns
passes
"any
plausible
standard
of
review."
Professor
Tribe
has the
right to
change
his
mind,
but the
air of
forceful
certainty
with
which he
today
argues
for
reversal
seems
inconsistent
with his
unrequited
offer
from ten
months
ago to
play a
"more
central
role" in
securing
affirmance.
In this Russian-language radio broadcast for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, I add my own thoughts to the controversy. Synopsis: the issue hasn't been clearly settled by the courts, but most legal scholarship supports McCain's eligibility. His eligibility is strongly supported by the fact that he was born on American soil, since he was born in the Canal Zone. The clause was intended to prevent dual loyalty, which is not an issue in McCain's case, since he was an American citizen at the moment of his birth, and he was never a citizen of Panama or any other nation. Thus, this is an easier case than someone who was born on foreign soil, and who received foreign citizenship as a result of that birth. (E.g., a child born to American private-sector workers who were living in Ireland at the time of the birth; although I argue that even in this case, most legal scholarship would favor that child being considered "a natural-born citizen.")
- "The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty":
- McCain's birth, Russian language version:
- The meaning of "natural born."
- "Natural-Born Citizen":
[David Kopel, February 25, 2008 at 9:29pm] Trackbacks
I've seen
various
Internet
sites
claiming
that in
Iowa,
Senator
Obama called
Palestinians
"the most
oppressed
people on
Earth." Can
commenters
supply
information
about an
original
source
(rather than
a third-hand
Internet
claim) about
whether
Senator
Obama really
said this?
Even if one
accepts the
theory that
Israel is
entirely
responsible
for
Palestinian
"oppression,"
and that the
Palestinians
(unlike, for
example, the
East Germans
in 1946)
bear no
responsibility
for their
current
situation,
it seems
preposterous
for anyone
to believe
that
Palestinians
are more
oppressed
than, say,
Darfuris or
North
Koreans.
Accordingly,
I hope that
the quote is
just an
unfounded
Internet
rumor.
Update:
Impressively
fast reader
comments
explain that
Obama never
said such a
thing; the
"quote" is a
very garbled
version of
something he
did say, and
which is a
very
mainstream
observation.
Further
update: I
participate
in the
ListServ of
the National
Council of
Editorial
Writers. One
of the main
purposes of
the ListServ
is to
provide
information
about
astroturf
letters to
the editor,
or about
other LTE
issues. I
sent a memo
to the
ListServ
explaining
that the
purported
Obama quote
is fake;
thanks to VC
commenters
for helping
to expose
the truth
about the
false quote.
[David Kopel, February 23, 2008 at 6:29pm] Trackbacks
That's the topic of my media column in today's Rocky Mountain News. The column also expresses skepticism about the benefits of Gannett buying Colorado's leading college newspaper, about media coverage of Obama and Clinton, and about Maureen Dowd.
David Bernstein recently noted Illinois State Senator Barack Obama's 1999 proposal for a federal law against licensed firearms dealers operating within five miles of a school or park. Every town I've ever visited which has more than a few dozen inhabitants has either a school or a park. Hypothesizing that the ban would apply to city parks (e.g., Central Park in New York City) but not to National Parks, pick a geographical region, and describe where a licensed firearms dealer could operate. Or pick a geographic point (e.g, Houston) and identify how far a person would have to drive in order to get to the closest point where a gun store could legally be located. Extra credit for illustrative maps.
At iVoices.org, I interview Hamline law professor Joe Olson for 44 minutes about the Academics for the Second Amendment brief he co-authored in District of Columbia v. Heller. The brief addresses many of the same issues about the framing of the Second Amendment as those raised in a brief written by Carl Bogus (Roger Williams Law School), Jack Rakove, Saul Cornell, and others. The podcast is available in MP3 or streaming format.
