Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Her Overwhelming Priority is Voting Rights, Except When It's Not
Delegate
Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) had to choose between getting her
constituents voting representation in Congress and denying her
constituents' Second Amendment rights. Guess which way
the cookie crumbled. Norton is withdrawing the DC Voting Rights
Act because of an amendment attached in the Senate requiring
District gun control laws to be no stricter than those of the
Federal government. The red-in-the-face fuming of the act's
supporters is priceless.
From a press release on Norton's website:
Despite her overriding priority for voting rights, Norton believed she had an obligation to expose the unusual public safety dangers posed by the Ensign [gun rights] amendment to eliminate its passage. She held two hearings and alerted high level administration officials and her colleagues to the homeland security dangers of the amendment and asked for their assistance.
DC Council Vice Chairman Vincent Gray called the amendment "onerous and dangerous."
Top honors, though, go to DC Councilman Phil Mendelson (quoted in the same Washington Examiner article as Gray), who obviously lacks the self-awareness that restrains the speech of mere mortals and other gun control advocates:
"It is supremely frustrating that D.C. residents are forced to wait on voting representation because of the NRA's boldfaced attempt to impose its view of the Second Amendment on District residents."
Steve Chapman covered the DC statehood movement for Reason back in February, and Reason's Brian Doherty (author of Gun Control on Trial) wrote about post-Heller gun control in May.
|6.10.09 @ 5:35PM|#
I am curious.
If the voting rights amendment passed with the gun rights
amendment, and the SCOTUS found the voting rights to be
unconstitutional, would the gun rights still stand?
|6.10.09 @ 5:39PM|#
If the voting rights amendment passed with the gun rights
amendment, and the SCOTUS found the voting rights to be
unconstitutional, would the gun rights still stand?
I believe so, yes. SCOTUS would strike down the unconstitutional
provisions, and would have no reason to strike down anything
else.
|6.10.09 @ 5:41PM|#
I believe so, yes. SCOTUS would strike down the unconstitutional provisions, and would have no reason to strike down anything else.
Most likely. It depends on whether there was a severability clause
in the amendment. Most likely there is one.
NotThatDavid|6.10.09 @ 5:47PM|#
Regardless of how stupid DC's gun rules are, voting rights should not be contingent on anyfuckingthing, much less a provision giving the federal government more control over DC's local laws than it has over any other city in the United States.
The Angry Optimist|6.10.09 @ 5:55PM|#
oh good grief. Dissolve D.C.'s joke of a government and just appoint me Viceroy of the District.
The Angry Optimist|6.10.09 @ 5:56PM|#
NotThatDavid - you do realize that Congress is Constitutionally
empowered to govern the District, right? The federal government has
ultimate control over the District, according to the
highest law in the land.
Ergo, it is permitted to make any damn thing contingent upon any
other damn thing it pleases. And I, for one, am glad for it.
Naga Sadow|6.10.09 @ 5:59PM|#
Actually, I like her ballsiness. "I want representation but not if I have to compromise my views!". Reminds me of our founding fathers.
|6.10.09 @ 6:01PM|#
Regardless of how stupid DC's gun rules are, voting rights should not be contingent on anyfuckingthing, much less a provision giving the federal government more control over DC's local laws than it has over any other city in the United States.
"Regardless of how stupid?" Even if they violate the Constitution
and Supreme Court rulings? Would you feel the same way about actual
segregation?
|6.10.09 @ 6:03PM|#
Doesn't anybody have any regard for the Constitution? If DC
wants representation in Congress (DC residents already have the
right to vote), they should amend the Constitution to that effect.
If they want to deny 2A rights to DC citizens, they should amend
the Constitution to that effect.
I'm not pleased about 2A supporters trying to buy back existing
constitutional rights by inventing new ones. Unless...the whole
thing was an exercise in political gamesmanship intended to make
liberal heads explode. If so: full speed ahead.
|6.10.09 @ 6:07PM|#
I believe so, yes. SCOTUS would strike down the
unconstitutional provisions, and would have no reason to strike
down anything else.
If that is the case, then I think this was the politically smart
move.
Despite her public rhetoric, she has to believe that there is a
very high probability of DC Voting rights law being struck down by
the SCOTUS as unconstitutional. At which point she would have
essentially given away local DC gun control for nothing in
return.
|6.10.09 @ 6:08PM|#
I'm not pleased about 2A supporters trying to buy back existing constitutional rights by inventing new ones. Unless...the whole thing was an exercise in political gamesmanship intended to make liberal heads explode. If so: full speed ahead.
The Republicans don't have enough to stop this bill from passing.
But they can force the amendment, thanks to all those moderate
Democrats who require a friendly or non-hostile NRA to get elected.
You do what you can.
NotThatDavid|6.10.09 @ 6:19PM|#
[quote]"Regardless of how stupid?" Even if they violate the
Constitution and Supreme Court rulings? Would you feel the same way
about actual segregation?[/quote]
And if the condition was "you can't go beyond recognized
constitutional standards," it'd be different, since that ought to
go without saying. "You can't go beyond the federal government's
standard, no matter what we let every other local government in the
country do" is terrible precedent on principle.
|6.10.09 @ 6:25PM|#
At which point she would have essentially given away local
DC gun control for nothing in return.
Of course, if she believes that SCOTUS is likely to overturn DC
voting rights regardless, doesn't that mean that she is either
(a)advocating for something she knows is unconstitutional or (b)
wasting everybody's time and money in a pointless campaign?
Or (c) both?
|6.10.09 @ 6:27PM|#
"You can't go beyond the federal government's standard, no
matter what we let every other local government in the country do"
is terrible precedent on principle.
Why? The federal government has gotten involved already in
micromanaging other cities and states (unconstitutionally, unlike
its power to govern DC), so that precedent is already set.
|6.10.09 @ 6:57PM|#
Of course, if she believes that SCOTUS is likely to overturn
DC voting rights regardless, doesn't that mean that she is either
(a)advocating for something she knows is unconstitutional or (b)
wasting everybody's time and money in a pointless
campaign?
The only way to know for sure if something is constitutional is to
get it passed and wait for review from SCOTUS.
You and I and everyone else can bloviate all we want, but the
SCOTUS can surprise you any time something goes before them. If you
would have asked me upfront I would have thought the takings in
Kelo as well as the regulation in Wickard v. Filburn were
unconstitutional -- but look what happened there.
So I think it's quite reasonable to think that Ms Norton believes
that it's possible the Supremes would uphold the voting rights --
even if it seems unlikely.
Elemenope|6.10.09 @ 7:18PM|#
This is normal politics all around, which is to say disgusting
in the extreme. What happened to the notion of one issue, one vote,
an atavism left in the dark days of the 18th century? Gun rights
legislation has no business being attached to DC voter
rights.
What would it take to get a germaneness rule passed for amendment
procedure in the Senate (besides an act of God)?
|6.10.09 @ 7:22PM|#
The only way to know for sure if something is constitutional
is to get it passed and wait for review from SCOTUS.
No, the only way to know if something is constitutional is to RTFA
-- the Constitution. That document does not mean whatever 5 out of
9 SCOTUS justices say it does.
LarryA|6.10.09 @ 7:41PM|#
Dang. Just when President Obama was on his way to signing more pro-gun legislation than any Republican.
|6.10.09 @ 8:23PM|#
Let's use some logic: Citizens of DC are also Citizens of the
United States of America and subject to the rule of Constitutional
Law. Amendment II states, "A well regulated Militia, being
necessary for the security of a free state; the right of the people
to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A semi-colon
indicates an independent, but related thought. What part of shall
not be infringed does the Delegate not understand?
Give ALL citizens of the United States of America thier
Constitutional rights that are natural rights of all persons! To
own firearms and use them for collection of food and defense of
self AND vote for representatives of thier Constituional Republic
are natural rights.
Yet another example of politicians who want to RULE us as they are
so wise as to be able to determine what is best for me.
|6.10.09 @ 8:33PM|#
Norton seems to be awfully concerned about minorities being given access to firearms. She reminds me of the old Dave Chappelle character that was a blind, black, Klan member. He didn't realize he was actually black. Norton doesn't realize that blacks can be responsible citizens with the same rights and duties as everyone else. Gotta keep them victims if you want them to vote the right way.
|6.10.09 @ 8:55PM|#
KT | June 10, 2009, 6:00pm | #
So basically we don't get to vote in Congress because OMG GUNS
SCARY!
No, you don't get to vote in Congress (or even elect people who
can) because this country's system is based on an agreement between
the States, and you don't live in one.
You are welcome to build a manmade island in the pacific and decide
how voting rights should be apportioned there.
Elemenope|6.10.09 @ 10:57PM|#
No, the only way to know if something is constitutional is
to RTFA -- the Constitution. That document does not mean whatever 5
out of 9 SCOTUS justices say it does.
Well, no, it means exactly what 5 out of 9 SCOTUS justices say it
does. That reality may not be pleasant, but it is reality.
|6.10.09 @ 11:05PM|#
Reading this stupidity almost made my brain short circuit. So
basically, they are willing to surrender the chance at more rights
because they have this notion (unsupported by any numerical data)
that guns cause crime.
If I lived in DC, I would be pissed.
Warmongering Lunatic|6.10.09 @ 11:42PM|#
The capital of a country needs to be kept politically weakened
by artificial means to help counteract the influence given by being
the seat of coercive power.
The trouble is that, because of modern transportation and
communication technologies, the actual seat of power sprawls
broadly across Virginia and Maryland. (The retrocession of
Arlington didn't help.)
So, what we really need is an amendment to the Constitution that
first repeals the 23rd, and then increases DC to about thirty miles
in radius.
|6.10.09 @ 11:44PM|#
No, the only way to know if something is constitutional is
to RTFA -- the Constitution. That document does not mean whatever 5
out of 9 SCOTUS justices say it does.
Well, no, it means exactly what 5 out of 9 SCOTUS justices say it
does. That reality may not be pleasant, but it is
reality.
Perhaps you can link to the clause in the Constitution that gives
SCOTUS the right to rewrite or interpret the Constitution however
they want, without any recourse?
So if, by a 5-4 decision, SCOTUS says "LMNOP can be executed for
saying things that offend powerful government officials, because
the first amendment clearly limits free speech to just stuff that
the government deigns to allow", THAT would be reality? Really?
Elemenope|6.11.09 @ 3:26AM|#
So if, by a 5-4 decision, SCOTUS says "LMNOP can be executed
for saying things that offend powerful government officials,
because the first amendment clearly limits free speech to just
stuff that the government deigns to allow", THAT would be reality?
Really??
Let's not play stupid for a second. SCOTUS, like all branches of a
political hierarchy, must operate within the bounds of what they
can convince others to follow, e.g. quite simply what they can get
away with. Thus, the reality is where 'what they say it is' and
'what people are willing to accept' intersect.
Since people in our society are quite deferent in reality to what
SCOTUS says what the law is (i.e. they don't rise as one and slay
them, and tend to follow their rulings), they have pretty wide
latitude to say pretty much whatever they want. I imagine if SCOTUS
started handing down rulings ordering people being executed on
wild-assed shit, that might (might!) change.
But I figured you knew that we were talking here about the
intersubjective reality that we all are familiar with the law
being, rather than the highly rarified "what if SCOTUS were to
suddenly go batshit bloodthirsty insane" hypothetical.
The Constitution outlines a design for government, in language,
that like all natural language requires human parsers. That power
to parse and interpret has been vested (rightly or not) in courts.
That *is* reality.
|6.11.09 @ 9:45AM|#
So I think it's quite reasonable to think that Ms Norton
believes that it's possible the Supremes would uphold the voting
rights -- even if it seems unlikely.
I think she's in a box here. Either
(a) she thinks SCOTUS will uphold her voting rights bill, in which
case she just threw it overboard because she believes gun control
is more important; or
(b)she doesn't think SCOTUS will uphold her voting rights bill, in
which case she is pushing something that she believes is
unconsitutional or at the very least a giant waste of time.
Basically, you can move the slider back and forth between the
degree to which she believes voting rights is an unconstitutional
waste of time and the degree to which she thinks it is less
important than gun control.
robc|6.11.09 @ 10:01AM|#
If you would have asked me upfront I would have thought the
takings in Kelo as well as the regulation in Wickard v. Filburn
were unconstitutional -- but look what happened
there.
The Scotus rulings dont mean you were wrong.
Mojotron|6.11.09 @ 10:02AM|#
no mention that the Ensign amendment was a cynical poison pill? What about the concept of self-determination for DC residents? I disagree with the gun ban, but let's not pretend that this was being presented as a good-faith effort.
|6.11.09 @ 10:02AM|#
Why does Norton think that the majority of citizens in DC should
not have the same rights to own and carry a firearm that other US
citizens have?
Not all black people are anti gun, anti self defense!
Personal protection is a right that every citizen has. A firearm
just puts the weaker, smaller or older person on the same playing
field with the stronger, bigger and younger criminal.
Wake up Eleanor!
robc|6.11.09 @ 10:04AM|#
Well, no, it means exactly what 5 out of 9 SCOTUS justices
say it does. That reality may not be pleasant, but it is
reality.
Nope, it means what it means. That is an absolute that is not
affected by man (other than the original writers). The SCOTUS
determines how it is to be applied, until they change their mind,
but they cant change the actual meaning of the document.
robc|6.11.09 @ 10:07AM|#
Changing the meaning of the constitution requires the senate, house and 2/3s (or is it 3/4s?) of the states. Or a constitutional convention.
|6.11.09 @ 10:22AM|#
"NRA's boldfaced attempt to impose its view of the Second
Amendment on District residents"
This seems a little stupid to me. So this character believes that
the absence of gun restrictions imposes rule on someone? I have not
read the legislatio but I would not think that it requires anyone
to go out and purchase a handgun who does not wish to have one. The
only ones who are imposed upon are the criminal element in DC who
would possibly be facing an armed citizen rather than a defenseless
one.
I think, in short, the whole problem in DC might be that the
legislative body and the criminals could be one in the same. The
abolition of gun restrictions protect the innocent and make the
criminals leary.
they call this government|6.11.09 @ 10:44AM|#
freedom is onerous and dangerous. you are free to do whatever you want as long as you have my approval
|6.11.09 @ 11:10AM|#
"Regardless of how stupid DC's gun rules are, voting rights
should not be contingent on anyfuckingthing, much less a provision
giving the federal government more control over DC's local laws
than it has over any other city in the United States."
I disagree with you on the voting rights being contingent on
anyfuckingthing. IMO anyone on the goverment teet making their
living off me making mine should not be allowed to vote. If your
not capable of managing your own life and providing for yourself
odds are your opinion is of little value and not much
thought.
Why should someone that does nothing but collect entitlements get a
vote equal to mine? I think the tipping point has come this past
election where the number of people receiving govenrment
entitlements has exceeded those of us getting jack shit but being
forced to pay for it all.
So why should someone be able ot vote for a Politician who promises
them more free shit at my expense? This is called vote farming. If
you noticed after Katrina all those on the overpasses are the
farmed votes from decades of the process happening. The only time
they round them up in buses is every 2 years to go vote then right
back to the projects till the next election. Yet when it came to
evacuating these same people before the storm they could not be
found. Oddly enough they know where everyone is on election
day.
Once those paying are outnumbered by those on the take it is game
over. Looks to me like the end of the game is near.
I pay I say.. You don't pay then you shut up and sit down and get
what you get. Don't like that then get a fucking job! It is just
that simple.
|6.11.09 @ 12:47PM|#
"Actually, I like her ballsiness. "I want representation but not
if I have to compromise my views!". Reminds me of our founding
fathers."
Except for the part where the founding fathers considered private
firearm rights to be non-negotiable, right? "The object is that
every man be armed", "No citizen shall ever be disbarred the use of
arms.", etc, etc.
Check out the "Founders' Second Amemendment" by Halbrook. It proves
what any intellectually honest person already knew. Gun Control of
any kind violates the constitution.
Michael Ejercito|6.11.09 @ 1:44PM|#
If the voting rights amendment passed with the gun rights amendment, and the SCOTUS found the voting rights to be unconstitutional, would the gun rights still stand?
If the amendment were passed and subsequently ratified, it would
become part of the U.S. Constitution.
Reading this stupidity almost made my brain short circuit. So basically, they are willing to surrender the chance at more rights because they have this notion (unsupported by any numerical data) that guns cause crime.
D.C. had a handgun ban in 1981.
What type of crossbow did John Hinckley use to shoot President
Ronald Reagan?
What about the concept of self-determination for DC residents?
It would require a constitutional amendment (which I do not object
to).
|6.11.09 @ 2:11PM|#
Bears mentioning that the nation's first gun-control laws were backed the Klan, to weaken the ability of newly-freed slaves to defend themselves.
Bill|6.11.09 @ 2:25PM|#
Let's use some logic: Citizens of DC are also Citizens of
the United States of America and subject to the rule of
Constitutional Law. Amendment II states, "A well regulated Militia,
being necessary for the security of a free state; the right of the
people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A semi-colon
indicates an independent, but related thought.
Except that in the actual Constitution, it's a comma, not a
semicolon.
And you really cannot make much of the punctuation or
capitalization used in the Constitution. Back then, there was not
yet a real wide-spread standardization of punctuation and even
spelling, in some cases. And you can't correctly interpret 18th
Century punctuation using modern understanding of what that
punctuation indicates - just like you can't interpret 18th Century
words using modern understanding of those words. Best example:
"regulated."
|6.11.09 @ 2:51PM|#
I've always found it amusing that liberals can find that the
14th amendment grants the right to abortion-on-demand (via the
"right to privacy" that isn't mentioned therein or in any other
part of the Constitution) but can't seem to fathom the concept that
the 2nd amendment protects an INDIVIDUAL right.
They read the Constitution as broadly as possible when it suits
them while pretending that another part of it doesn't even exist.
And they manage to do it while keeping a straight face.
Hypocrites.
|6.11.09 @ 3:48PM|#
THE NRA IS DOING A GREAT JOB!IF YOU WANT TO JOIN IN THE BATTLE CALL 1-877-NRA-2000 AND JOIN THE NRA TODAY !!!THE MORE NUMBERS THE NRA HAS THE MORE THE POLITICANS WILL HAVE TO HONOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT.DON'T SIT ON THE SIDE LINES BE PART OF THE PUSH FOR FREEDOM !!!
|6.11.09 @ 4:33PM|#
Isn't it interesting how Mssss. Holmes-Norton is willing to keep da folk down on the plantation so she can be in step with the Marxist in the White House and all of his Fellow Travelers (who have also denied Black children in DC the right to a better education by voting against school vouchers) Black people have the right to self defense too. When will they wake up and realize that the Democrat party are their new slave masters?
LarryA|6.11.09 @ 5:03PM|#
no mention that the Ensign amendment was a cynical poison
pill? What about the concept of self-determination for DC
residents? I disagree with the gun ban, but let's not pretend that
this was being presented as a good-faith effort.
It doesn't seem the Democrats who voted for it thought it was
poison, given that the guns-in-national-parks amendment to the
credit card bill wasn't.
Hank|6.11.09 @ 6:49PM|#
I am pleased. Residents of the District are not responsible enough for gun ownership.
|6.11.09 @ 9:20PM|#
If guns can't be blamed for DC's murder,mayhem and pervasive
disorder, Eleanor might have to look at the big black elephant in
the room. And of course she and the rest of her kind don't want to
do that.
I find it is a reasonable assumption that the present level of
urban Negro violence and dependancy is at least in part,a product
of genetic selection mediated by liberal social policy. Easy
welfare and inadequate incarceration of criminals has resulted in
several generations of illegitimacy in these communities, with the
most aggressive males sireing the most offspring with the most
irresponsible females. The resulting loss of orderly and civilized
behavior from black majority communities like DC, that we would
expect is pretty much what we are seeing.
A gun ban as comprehensive, draconian and unconstitutional as DC's
can only serve to illustrate the wisdom and forsight of founding
fathers, and the moral bankruptcy black leadership.
I'm very pesimistic about reversing this degenerative trend given
the lid of political correctiness clamped on American society today
by leftist polititions and their media lapdogs.
FROM MY COLD DEAD FINGERS!!!
|6.11.09 @ 9:35PM|#
"It is supremely frustrating that D.C. residents are forced to
wait on voting representation because of the NRA's boldfaced
attempt to impose its view of the Second Amendment on District
residents."
It is scary that people believe that the Bill of Rights is an
imposition on themselves. The ignorance of this country is
overwhelming at times...
|6.16.09 @ 11:03PM|#
The DC rulers' extreme anti-second-amendment stance seems ridiculous to outsiders, but the DC voters must be OK with it.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245