What's Really Important Answer to Jim Qualls
I’ve seen Jim Qualls make reference to the Democrats trying to “get rid of the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth and 14th Amendments� of the Constitution now at least three times in the Post. I honestly don’t know what he is referring to. He has made this blanket statement without giving any examples, leaving us to interpret his meaning. Subsequently, it’s my impression he might have little idea what the Republicans are really doing, the Democrats are really saying, and what the Constitution really means.
Pursuant to the First Amendment: believing prayer, the teachings and trappings of any particular religion should be confined to places of worship, homes and non-public places is something many Americans of various political viewpoints agree on. Also, I’m unaware of anyone trying to get rid of freedom of speech and the press, though the present administration sure gets outraged when anyone uses them to disagree.
The Fourth Amendment guarantees freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, and requires a warrant, based on reasonable cause. I’m only aware of one group wanting to get around using warrants (i.e. NSA wire tapping), and it sure isn’t the Democrats.
The Fifth Amendment guarantees us due process under law. Just recently, the present Congress and President brutally attacked habeas corpus, your right to defend yourself in court. It wasn’t the Democrats.
The Fourteenth Amendment was “designed to grant citizenship to and protect the civil liberties of recently freed slaves.� It did this by, once again, by guaranteeing due process.
The Second Amendment guarantees Americans the right to bear arms. Perhaps Mr. Qualls believes that those wanting to ban assault weapons are against all private ownership of guns. This is as incorrect as it is nonsensical.
When this amendment was written, the hand weapons of the day were single-shot, muzzle loading flintlocks, not the weapons that today fire hundreds and thousands of rounds per minute. Any reasonable person might consider that in a nation that has one of the highest rates of deaths by guns in the world, limiting the populace to non assault-type weapons might be reasonable; and know it is not an attempt to abolish the right to bear arms.
So Mr. Qualls, you might want to actually tell us what you are really talking about, because it’s not real obvious. Reminder: the Republicans have been in power for the last six years, not Democrats.
Comments
Well Stephen, I guess in my particular line of work, I get a sense that people on both sides of the political aisle want to limit the power of the press and totally misunderstand why that part of the First Amendment even exists.
But maybe that's just me.
Posted by: Robert LaHue | November 12, 2006 11:00 PM
Robert, thanks for your comment. It did inspire another blog, so I have answered you in the next post called "Politics Versus Governing"
Posted by: Stephen Rose | November 13, 2006 02:50 PM
Isn't it interesting that the style of the conservatives is being big on making statements with conviction but are not so big about backing them up with facts (re: the various reasons for invading Iraq). We are just supposed to believe it because they said it. All this tells me is that there is ignorance running rampant throughout this country whose hosts are more about being told what they want to hear than what is the truth.
The problem is that people group "morals and verity" with "oughts and shoulds" without ever questioning how or why. In my experience, those who are ruled by "oughts and shoulds" usually are reacting to guilt and fear. Oh funny thing, that. Our President relys on it, too, but for different reasons.
AL FOR PRESIDENT
Posted by: Al | November 14, 2006 05:04 PM
The second amendment provides for a well armed militia to bear arms. It does not provide for anyone else. But of course our well armed militia isn't available in the United States so perhaps the Constitution should be amended for any bozo to pack a gun until our militia returns from Iraq.
Posted by: Andrew | June 18, 2007 08:39 AM
To say nothing of all the support equipment that will most likely never make it back from Iraq in one piece. One can hope for no new natural disasters until the Reserves come home, but it's not certain they will he home any time soon, nor where all the money to replace equipment might magically appear, and in a timely fashion. "Terrorists" are not the only dangers in the world.
Posted by: Stephen | June 18, 2007 10:22 AM