LAT on Fred: That’s not Reagan, that’s a RINO, baby! Yeah! Update: Viguerie piles on

Kowboy on July 10, 2007 at 6:04 PM

Spoken like a true liberal.

Hold on there Kowboy, no need to get personal, check out his blog. He is a lawyer, not a liberal. His blog shows him to be pretty damn conservative, other than his rather narrow reading of the 2nd.

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 6:10 PM

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 6:10 PM

A) Admit that in 1994 he was most assuredly pro-choice
B) Explain when and why he suddenly became pro-choice
C) Admit that he did lobby for this group in 1991, but it’s a moot point because he already admitted he was pro-choice as late as 1994.

What a dufus, he wouldnt have to admit a) if c were true.

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 6:12 PM

Kowboy on July 10, 2007 at 6:14 PM

And besides, cs won’t post in a thread that doesn’t have Fred as the subject, so all debates with him, no matter the subject, have to occur in these threads.

Sorry thats just not true, as much as I enjoy screwing with csdeven head in the Fred threads he does post in other threads and is usually quite rational.

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 6:16 PM

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 6:18 PM

I imagine that even Scalia would concede that the 2nd is silent on the issue of the right to bear cluster bombs

I think not……

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/LevinsonBYU.html

It is certainly worth noting, though, that Justice Scalia himself has also indicated a certain receptiveness to Second Amendment arguments. Thus he writes in his recent Tanner Lectures, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, that even if there would be “few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard,” this would simply demonstrate that the Founders were right when they feared that some (in their view misguided) future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may like the abridgement of property rights and like the elimination of the right to bear arms; but let us not pretend that these are not reductions of rights. [18]

Even more interesting is an extended footnote, replying to Professor Laurence Tribe’s description of the Second Amendment as being simply “seemingly state- militia-based” rather than “supporting broad principles” of private ownership of guns. [19] Scalia notes “several flaws” with Tribe’s argument, including the assumption that the word “militia” refers only to “”a select group of citizen-soldiers’. . . rather than, as the Virginia Bill of Rights of June 1776 defined it, “the body of the people, trained to arms.”‘ [20] “It would also be strange,” he goes on to say, “to find in the midst of a catalog of the rights of individuals a provision securing to the states the right to maintain a designated “Militia.’ Dispassionate scholarship suggests quite strongly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms meant just that.” [21] Scalia concludes: [Page 133]

It is very likely that modern Americans no longer look contemptuously, as Madison did, upon the governments of Europe that “are afraid to trust the people with arms,” The Federalist No. 46; and the. . . Constitution that Professor Tribe espouses will probably give effect to that new sentiment by effectively eliminating the Second Amendment. But there is no need to deceive ourselves as to what the original Second Amendment said and meant. Of course, properly understood, it is no limitation upon arms control by the states. [22]

Scalia’s final sentence is accurate, of course, only if one concludes that the Second Amendment is not referred to in the “privileges or immunities of Citizens of the United States” that states are forbidden to abridge as a result of the Fourteenth Amendment. [23]

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 6:35 PM

JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 6:38 PM

See this is where I get confused.

If we are forced to judge by what you have posted and since we have nothing else to judge you by we must make our judgment upon what you have posted, then clearly this is not where you get confused, but you in fact get confused whenever you attempt to think.

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 6:44 PM

Romeo13 on July 10, 2007 at 6:45 PM

Problem is that technology evolved, but the Constitution did not. We have not had the Constitutional debate about the origional intent, and fixed the Constitution. We allowed the Court to reinterpret it beyond the framers clearly stated intent… (for good reason mind you, but its left us in a mess now…).

Yep, however since Parker vs. D.C it would appear that SCOTUS is taking the individual right position and may well be willing to hear cases regarding the definition of what constitutes a constitutionally guaranteed firearm.

Scalia notes “several flaws” with Tribe’s argument, including the assumption that the word “militia” refers only to “”a select group of citizen-soldiers’. . . rather than, as the Virginia Bill of Rights of June 1776 defined it, “the body of the people, trained to arms.”‘ [20] “It would also be strange,” he goes on to say, “to find in the midst of a catalog of the rights of individuals a provision securing to the states the right to maintain a designated “Militia.’ Dispassionate scholarship suggests quite strongly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms meant just that.” [21] Scalia concludes: [Page 133]

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 6:59 PM

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 7:14 PM

You are doing fine. My point (as confirmed by your article) was that Scalia did legal gymnastics to strike down Brady without having to confront it on the issue of the 2nd. Even he did not want to go there…

Perhaps not if he didn’t have to, However his Tanner Lectures seem to indicate a willingness to do so should the issue come up directly.

It is certainly worth noting, though, that Justice Scalia himself has also indicated a certain receptiveness to Second Amendment arguments. Thus he writes in his recent Tanner Lectures, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, that even if there would be “few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard,” this would simply demonstrate that the Founders were right when they feared that some (in their view misguided) future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may like the abridgement of property rights and like the elimination of the right to bear arms; but let us not pretend that these are not reductions of rights. [18]

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 7:31 PM

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 7:38 PM

C’mon, it’s obvious that fred? was pro-choice in 1994

Only in your twisted little mind, to everyone else it is clear he was a pro-life federalist.

I am not campaigning for fred? or for anyone opposing fred?.

But you are campaigning against Fred with lies half truth and intentional distortions of the truth.

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 7:43 PM

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 8:05 PM

If fred? was speaking just as a federalist he would not have nuanced his position to only include abortion in the first trimester. A real federalist position would leave it totally up to the states. No nuancing required.

That would be federalist position, not a pro-life federalist position, which Fred obviously was. The fact that as you put it he nuanced his position clearly indicates that on a personal level he opposed abortion and said there must be limitations and here is where I am setting them.

The fact that he set it at the first trimester probably had more to do with his recognition that there was no way in hell that the more restrictive limitations were going to be accepted than it did with his being pro-abortion.

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 8:15 PM

tommylotto on July 10, 2007 at 8:27 PM

No, Rudy is pro-abortion but is ok with it being overturned. Fred is Pro-life. Pretty big difference.

doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 8:31 PM