Second Amendment Upheld

The Supreme Court this morning ruled in another 5-4 decision against the DC handgun ban, ruling that the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, is an individual and not a collective right. I agree with the justices that it is not an unlimited right, but the DC gun ban banned all handguns within resident's homes as well as requiring any other firearm, even within one's home, to be either disassembled or disarmed with a locked trigger guard.

Surprisingly, this was the first time in nearly three decades that the Supreme Court had ruled on the Second Amendment. The DC gun ban, like the one in Chicago, was created due to the city's high level of criminal activity. The justices ruled, though, that the constitutional right to bear arms trumps their ability to create public policy.

In my mind, and in the minds of the Founders, the right to bear arms was not only fundamental to self-defense, but also fundamental to avoiding tyranny. If we live in a nation where the police or the military are the only ones with weapons, citizens are unable to defend themselves in a time of crisis or abuse of power. I'm okay with background checks and restricting mentally ill persons from purchasing weapons, though. But I'm glad the Court upheld the individual's right to bear arms.

Hilarious!

In November, San Fransisco voters will vote on whether or not they want to name a sewage treatment plant after George W. Bush. It made me laugh and brightened my day. Check it out.

Death Penalty Decision

Today the Supreme Court ruled that those convicted of raping a child cannot be sentenced to death. I think there is no grosser crime, no other crime where the victim is left alive that has more of a negative impact on the victim than the rape of a child. People that commit this crime should be put away forever, but not sentenced to death. I firmly believe in justice and I firmly believe that people that are sick and twisted enough to do this to a child should be put away for the rest of their natural lives. However, I am so opposed to the death penalty that I don't think that even those who commit this heinous crime should be euthanized. I don't believe that we should be in the practice of killing our own citizens, and this is why.

1- Human error. There are multiple occurrences of people that have been acquitted while on Death Row. Good thing we figured it out before it was too late.

2- Cruel and unusual punishment. I don't think that we have found a method of execution yet that is not cruel and unusual punishment. Firing squad, electric chair, and even lethal injection are all inhumane ways of execution.

3- False accusations. Unfortunately, our prosecutors have too much incentive to maintain a perfect conviction record, even when the accused may be innocent. There are too many institutional incentives to prosecutors, namely the fact that many are elected, to believe that there are not incentives to convict every person that sits in the defendant's chair.

4- Stiffer sentencing. In an attempt to look tough on crime, state and local politicans are increasingly stiffening sentences for crimes, and more and more offenses are becoming federal crimes.

So, again. Don't get me wrong. I don't think there's anything more disgusting than the rape of a child, but I do not believe in the death penalty, and I'm glad Justice Kennedy and I agree on this one.

Security vs. Privacy

An article by an Orlando news station cites the city's program of implementing high tech security cameras to attempt to reduce crime and give police a leg up on enforcement. While I believe that technology can be beneficial to law enforcement, I also get a little weary about this type of government intrusion into privacy. I have heard that those who are innocent have nothing to fear, but where do we draw the line? Wiretapping, email surveillance without warrants, warrant less searches, etc. are all forbidden by the Constitution. Maybe it's my libertarian leanings, or maybe it's just my love of personal freedoms, but I believe our government does not and should not have the power to monitor the actions of its citizens in public. One of the most basic powers of a government is the police power, but it is also one of the most volatile and easily abused, as seen by recent executive abuses. Those of you who read, feel free to disagree... I welcome debate. Let me know your reasoning, but I feel, like Jefferson, that our security is not worth sacrificing our freedoms.

My Fish Tank

Much has been said about my fish tank, so I figured I'd post some pictures of it on here for those of you who may care (or for those of you who may not) here they are:

Another "Great" Solution from Bush

As a follow-up to my last post, I read an article in the Salt Lake Tribune that turned my stomach. Not only does Bush want to drill offshore and in ANWR, but he wants to exploit the deposits of oil shale deposits in areas of Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming as a way to cut gas prices. What's truly tragic is that so many people think this is a good idea. To get to oil shale, you don't drill. You strip mine. Anyone who has ever been to the Bingham Copper Mine or lived in the Southeast where coal companies were allowed to run rampant can see the effects of his practice. The land is permanently scarred and irreversible damage is done. Why? All for the sake of saving us a few bucks. I really hope we're not at the point where we're willing to permanently change the face of the West to save a few bucks. Again, Bush's ideas should be thrown out the window.

Energy Crisis

I had been at a loss of ideas (as well as time) for new blog posts, but I figured I'd post my ideas about the world's energy crisis. It's tragic, really, that we let it get this far before trying to finally do something about our dependence on non-renewable sources of energy. Bush's solution to our high energy costs is just to feed our reliance on oil by drilling offshore... horrible idea. The Dems in Congress want to nationalize all of the nation's oil refineries... another horrible idea. McCain may have the brightest idea of the group, calling for 45 new nuclear reactors and $2 billion a year toward achieving clean coal. Alternative fuels are not only a bright idea in reducing our reliance on foreign oil, but it's also a step toward reducing our environmental impact. Like I said in an earlier post, the high price of oil is beneficial in the sense that it makes people think twice about letting their car idle forever or in leading the public to demand public transportation and bike paths.

All in all, the solution to our energy problem is not to nationalize the oil industry or to drill offshore or in ANWR, but to find alternative sources of energy, of which nuclear is by far the most effective.

Tim Russert Passes Away

Tim Russert, the face of NBC's "Meet the Press" passed away from a heart attack today. He was 58.

I loved watching Russert's show on Sundays because he had an uncanny ability to make politicians real, to cut through the rhetoric and pomp. He commanded respect and communicated well to his guests and to the public.

He will be missed, and best wishes to his family.

Supreme Court comes down on the side of Human Rights

Today the Supreme Court struck another blow to the Bush Administration's policies surrounding the detainees at the military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In a 5-4 decision, Justice Kennedy joined the "liberal" side of the Court in deciding that detainees at Guantanamo are entitled to have their cases heard in civilian courts rather than by military tribunals. While it's not a decision to shut down Gitmo, it's a step in the right direction.

"The laws and constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times," the decision said. My question is why it took us so long to realize this. The Bush Administration has suspended basic civil rights, tortured, and violated international laws all in the name of fighting the war on terror. Today's Court ruling not only took a step toward justice for Gitmo detainees, but also put a check on the unchecked executive power that has been increasing since WWII.

Woodrow Wilson, before he was president, was a historian and a scholar, and he concluded that the best way to allow for the expansion of executive power was by establishing continued crisis. This allowed for the executive to consolidate more power in order to expedite governmental action. The problem with the "War on Terror" is that it will never be over. This "crisis" has allowed this president and opened the door for future president to declare war unilaterally, suspend basic constitutional rights, wiretap without warrants, and the list goes on.

So, while I understand the argument that some of Al Queda's top men are in Guantanamo, and without a doubt, some of them probably are dangerous terrorists. But at the same time, as today's decision states, "...liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law."

The Constitution and the rule of law are designed to protect individuals from the abuses of government, and though these detainees may not be citizens of our country, why should they be any less entitled to their basic and fundamental civil liberties? Like anyone else in our country, they are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Some of these detainees have been held in Gitmo for over six years, subject to tortue and who knows what else without ever having a day in court or charges leveled against them.

The Supreme Court was right to rule as they did today. The only unfortunate thing is that four of the justices on our nation's highest court don't understand the magnitude and the importance of human rights.

US Prison Ships

So, here's another storyline in the Bush Administration's string of human rights abuses. In addition to the secret CIA prisons in foreign countries, a UK newspaper printed an article citing reports of the United States using ships as "floating prisons". This new report sends another shiver down my spine; is this really what the United States has resorted to in the "war on terror"? This is disturbing because not only can you be held without a trial indefinitely, but now our country is "interrogating" terror suspects on board these vessels then moving them to other undetermined locations without ever reporting how many are being held. This is far worse than Abu Ghraib. People may be killed during "interrogation" on these ships, and no one would ever know. Not to mention the "interrogation" techniques being used. These people are being held without public knowledge, with no hope of a trial, being beaten and tortured all in the name of national security. I have heard the argument that those who are innocent have no need to fear, but how many innocent people are being held on these ships or in Guantanamo? We may never know, because many of them may never receive a fair trial. Again, who would know if one of these ghost prisoners were killed on board these ships? The price we are paying for security is too high, and we have allowed the President, mainly W, but all are to fault, to exercise unchecked powers and go to war unilaterally. The public needs to pay attention to these and other civil rights violations being perpetrated by our nation. The United States is in the process of "spreading democracy" across the world, but when we torture, kill, and deny humans their most basic and fundamental rights, how are we justified?
For more information on civil rights, visit Amnesty International or Reprieve.