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.

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.

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.