Daily Archives: September 29, 2013

How The Government Shutdown Ends 1

I want to be the first to present this scenario so that I can get the credit for predicting it if it occurs.  If it doesn’t occur, nobody will remember this post. (As if they would remember it even if it does occur.)

Let’s say that the shutdown drags on for more than a week (or maybe a month).  The major political donors from Wall Street to the Republican Party would be up in arms threatebning a cutoff of donations if the issue does not get resolved.

Speaker Boner faced with the Hastert rule that he refuses to break cannot bring a bill to the floor of the House unless a majority of Republicans approve.

Nancy Pelosi will organize the Democratic Caucus to join forces with enough reasonable Republicans (stop laughing) to overthrow Speaker Boner, and force a clean budget bill to be brought before the House.

There will be enough votes in this coalition to get the bill passed.  The country will be so happy with what Pelosi accomplished that she will be elected President in 2016.  (I told  you, stop laughing.)

Oh, I forgot.  If you think of this as political humor, feel free to laugh after all.


Do you think the following scenario is more likely to happen?

If the Speaker brings a clean budget resolution to the floor of the House, Nancy Pelosi promises that enough Democrats will vote for the bill to get it to pass.  In addition, Pelosi promises that enough Democrats will vote to keep the current Speaker when he faces a rebellion from within his own party.

Will the mere threat of such a scenario get the House unstuck?

How Fake 2nd Amendment History Kills

The Consortium News has the article, How Fake 2nd Amendment History Kills.

The whole idea of the Constitution – with its mix of voting, elected representatives and checks and balances – was to create a political structure that made violence unnecessary. As the Preamble states, two key goals were to “promote the general Welfare” and to “insure domestic Tranquility.”

So, the Framers weren’t encouraging violent uprisings against the republic that they were founding. To the contrary, they characterized violence against the constitutional system as “treason” in Article III, Section 3. They also committed the federal government to protect each state from “domestic Violence,” in Article IV, Section 4.

And one of the first uses of the new state militias formed under the Second Amendment and the Militia Acts was for President Washington to lead a federalized force of militiamen against the Whiskey Rebellion, a tax revolt, in western Pennsylvania in 1794.

Though it’s true that many Americans owned a musket or rifle in those early years especially on the frontier, regulations on munitions were still common in cities where storing of gunpowder, for instance, represented a threat to the public safety. As the nation spread westward, so did common-sense restrictions on gun violence. Sheriffs in some of the wildest of Wild West towns enforced gun bans that today would prompt a recall election financed by the National Rifle Association.

This history was well understood both by citizens and courts. For generations, the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment as a collective right, allowing Americans to participate in a “well-regulated Militia,” not as an individual right to buy the latest weaponry at a gun show or stockpile a military-style arsenal in the basement.

The article addresses the issue that many gun rights activists claim is the reason why the Second Amendment is important.  They feel the need to be armed in case they must rise up against a tyranical government that takes over this country.

They claim that if we want to change what the Second Amendment says, we ought to pass a Constitutional Amendment.

The above article says

In the late Eighteenth Century, the meaning of “bearing” arms also referred to a citizen being part of a militia or army

That is the reason we must argue over history.  If the Second Amendment only recognizes the bearing of arms in a “well regulated militia”, then it is up to the gun rights advocates to pass a Constitutional Amendment to change what the Constitution says about this issue.

Of course there is always the problem of our side finding rights implied by the Constitution that were never intended.  Although there is a difference between a  right that was never explicitly considered, right to privacy and therefore abortion, versus a right that was considered and rejected under the meaning that existed of words when the words were written..