Sunday, July 21, 2013

Misunderstand your ground

Whatever else might be said about America's leftists, there is no way to deny that they are tenacious. They are relentless in their assault on the 2nd amendment, if not the Constitution in general. The Zimmerman/Martin case is not something that I have allotted much blog space, and I don't intend to break that trend. Unfortunately, we now see Martin and Zimmerman both being exploited in the interest of advancing the leftist anti-gun agenda, and I don't think enough can be said about that.

The pro-Constitution crowd breathed a sigh of relief the instant that George Zimmerman's defense made the decision to not use Florida's "stand your ground" statute to bolster their case. The events that transpired between Zimmerman and Martin had nothing to do with stand-your-ground. Stand-your-ground statutes grew in popularity as a way of reducing the use of the "blame the victim" approach used by overzealous prosecutors against victims of violent crime who resort to defending themselves. Prior to the implementation of stand-your-ground statutes, many jurisdictions required their citizens to go to great lengths to run away, or try to resolve the situation in a non-violent manner if they had reason to fear violence at the hand of an aggressor. Without stand-your-ground protections, the judgement of a victim who perceives that violence is about to be done to him is replaced by the bias of a prosecutor that then has all the time in the world to write a Hollywood plot about how the victim could have avoided violence, and sell that plot to a jury in the well guarded comfort of a court room.

In the 1921 case of Brown vs. United States, Oliver Wendell Homes had the following to say regarding a victim's duty to retreat: "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife." One can only wonder if Obama et al. would be demanding review of stand-your-ground laws if George Zimmerman had been carrying a knife rather than a handgun. But one shouldn't wonder all that hard. When the situation is boiled down into it's basic ingredients, it is seen that the gun is becoming the focal point of the issue and Zimmerman and Martin merely props on a leftist stage.

To the left, new gun restrictions, or repeal of self defense rights like stand-your-ground, have been set on a course to become "justice" for Trayvon. Whether it is exploiting the murder of children in Newtown, or exploiting the death of Trayvon Martin, there is no depth to which the left will not sink to advance their anti-Constitution agenda. It shouldn't surprise us if the 2nd amendment itself is declared "racist" in the near future. It certainly isn't surprising that John McCain's response to the left's latest attempt to erode gun rights seems to be to ask what he can do to help. Offer some encouragement to the "wacko birds". They really have their work cut out for them.

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Line item veto 2.0

The line item veto, long sought after by American presidents, has finally been put into practice - with a twist. Rather than vetoing elements of a bill prior to signing, Obama has discovered that he can easily veto elements of a bill after it has become law, simply by refusing to enforce the provisions that don't suit him. DOMA? Border security? Immigration law? Obamacare? Just pick and choose the "good" parts, and ignore the rest, or simply ignore the whole thing. It isn't like anybody is going to hold the administration accountable. Seriously, Eric Holder still has his job after committing perjury before congress at least twice.

Obama's upgraded version of the line item veto is way better than the more traditional version requested by presidents past. With the old fashioned kind of line item veto the president has to tip his hand before the law is passed. With line item veto 2.0 the president can just bypass the controversial veto process, and still do pretty much as he likes. He can essentially make a mockery of the rule of law, and our current president is doing a bang-up job of it.

Complex bills that require executive branch execution or enforcement have become toys of presidential whim. It's not difficult to imagine which parts of a complex immigration reform bill will be executed, and which ones won't. Rule of law is a required component of a constitutional republic. If we don't have one, it's difficult to make the argument that we have the other.