Stop the bailout in the Senate

The Senate has scheduled a vote for Wednesday night at 7:30 pm on the bailout package. Now is the time to call your Senators and tell them not to support the bailout. Instructions on how to find your Senators and what to say are in my previous post.

Action: Stop Congress from giving away your money

Rumors of my demise are greatly exaggerated. The bar exam is over, though it's still 10 days away from results.

This morning I urge you to take three minutes (literally only three minutes) out of your day to stop this insane $700 billion dollar bailout.

1) Call your Representative. You can look them up here. Be polite and tell them (a) your name and that you are a constituent, (b) ask if they have a position on the bailout, and (c) urge them to vote against it.

Fun bonus game: If they don't have a position, ask out of curiosity how many people have called them supporting the bailout. When they give the answer (my Senator had received a total of ten calls in favor), ask them why they don't have a position when their constituents overwhelmingly oppose the plan. Kindly let them know you'll be calling back to check on the position as it develops.

2) Call each of your two Senators. You can look them up here. Do all the same things you did for your Representative.

All told, each call will probably take less than a minute of your day and with luck, you can stop one of the worst pieces of legislation in recent memory from getting shoved down our throats.

Report back in the comments if you have the time.

UPDATE: According to Politico, the vote is currently 228 Nay, 205 Yes. However, the vote is being held open for the moment, so call again to tell your Representative to vote against it.

UPDATE 2: We have won! 228 against, 205 for!

UPDATE 3: The roll call vote results are here. Be sure to call your Representative to either congratulate or criticize.

Supreme Court Upholds Individual Second Amendment Right

The Supreme Court ruled today in District of Columbia v. Heller that the District of Columbia's ban on possession of a handgun for self-defense within the home violated an individual right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The majority in the 5-4 decision of the Court was written by Justice Scalia, with Justices Breyer and Stevens dissenting.

Congratulations to Alan Gura, Bob Levy, and Clark Neily, attorneys for the respondent, on their successful work to extract a clear ruling from a Court that has avoided the Second Amendment almost entirely since the nation's founding.

While the ruling clearly supports an individual right, it does not answer some important questions like:

• Does the Second Amendment apply to state governments?


• What standard of review should courts apply to gun laws challenged under the Second Amendment?


• Are systems of gun licensing constitutionally permitted?

All of these questions will come up in the future, as this ruling opens the door for challenges to other gun laws. Likely first on the list for challenge is Chicago's prohibition on handguns.

My prediction is that any Supreme Court nominee that doesn't agree with Heller will be swiftly and immediately filibustered. This prediction stands no matter who the President is and no matter who controls the Senate. Congressmen are particularly sensitive on the issue of gun control, especially after the bloodbath following the Assault Weapons Ban, and this will just make them even more sensitive.


UPDATE: Looks like my prediction about Chicago's gun ban being next to be challenged was correct. From the press release at ChicagoGunCase.com:

Following Thursday’s (5-4) ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual civil right to keep and bear arms, and that a municipal gun ban violates that right, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) filed a federal lawsuit (complaint) challenging the City of Chicago’s long-standing handgun ban.

Previous posts on the D.C. Gun Case:
Supreme Court to hear D.C. Gun Case
ABA Journal article on the D.C. Gun Case

 

Maryland Libertarian Convention Report

I attended the 2007 Libertarian Party of Maryland convention last Saturday. The official business was focused on ratifying our constitution and selecting our new Executive Board.

One of the speakers was George Phillies, who is running for the 2008 Libertarian Presidential nomination. I've heard him speak at previous Libertarian National Conventions, most notably when he was running for LNC Chair. He was not the best speaker at any of these appearances, though he always presented clear ideas.

His speech on Saturday was much improved from all those previous experiences. He was impeccably dressed in a grey suit and red tie, his hair was well coiffed, and he looked more Presidential than professorial. More importantly, he was animated and well spoken. His positions on issues were presented with enthusiasm and in plain language (with the possible exception of the issue of foreign debt held by China). He answered questions, even pointed ones, with ease and confidence.

The most pointed question was mine. I asked him what he had done to improve his speaking since the last time I had seen him. He said simply, "I listen to suggestions and take good advice." He's never going to stop being professorial, but he's turned into a much more engaging speaker, and he'll continue to improve.

Prior to seeing him speak on Saturday, I was leaning towards Steve Kubby, due to his speaking skills. However, I was ambivalent about it, since I thought Phillies had better positions. After Saturday, I'm confident that Phillies is the best choice we have for our Presidential candidate.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...back on politics...

Alberto Gonzales, Master Weasel

Attorney General Gonzales has been busy testifying before Congress. His careful parsing brings you the following entertaining episodes of Constitution shredding and defendant torturing.

First, courtesy of Hit & Run, habeas corpus is not for everyone:

Sen. Arlen Specter: Now wait a minute, wait a minute. The Constitution says you can't take it away except in the case of invasion or rebellion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus?

AG Gonzales: I meant by that comment that the Constitution doesn't say that every individual in the United States or every citizen has or is assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says that the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended.

Ain't careful parsing grand?

Second, brought to our attention by eudaemonia, Patrick Leahy loses patience with "assurances from Syria":

GONZALES: I think General Ashcroft confirmed this publicly, that there were assurances sought that he would not be tortured from Syria.

LEAHY: Attorney General... (derisive chuckle) ... I'm sorry. I don't mean to treat this lightly. We knew damn well, if he went to Canada, he wouldn't be tortured. He'd be held. He'd be investigated.

We also knew damn well, if he went to Syria, he'd be tortured. And it's beneath the dignity of this country, a country that has always been a beacon of human rights, to send somebody to another country to be tortured.

You know, and I know, that has happened a number of times, in the past five years, by this country. It is a black mark on us. It has brought about the condemnation of some of our closest and best allies. They have made those comments both publicly and privately to the president of the United States and others.

And it is easy for us to sit here comfortably in this room knowing that we're not going to be sent off to another country to be tortured, to treat it as though, well, Attorney General Ashcroft says we've got assurances.

Assurances from a country that we also say, now, we can't talk to them because we can't take their word for anything?

Senator Leahy was not amused and promised more hearings if he didn't get better answers within the week.

Attorney General does not sound like the most fun job in the world right now.