Just because you have the right...

Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito. It's a pretty odd day when I find myself in agreement with this crowd of U.S. Supreme Court Justices and disaligned, at least in underlying principle, with this list: Souter, Ginsburg, Stevens and Breyer. I had briefly thought to say "I applaud the Court's recent Second Amendment ruling" but I quickly thought better of it; it's not something to cheer about the way the NRA is cheering. I do think it is correct; I think free adults should have the right to own weapons.

It's a right that carries an awesome responsibility that many people just can't live up to, and that creates real problems and real tragedies. Guns (and other weapons) are meant for situations where justice, law and order have broken down or are unavailable at that moment. They can really level a playing field when a couple of thugs invade a home.

I wish we didn't live in a society where that, and other more insideous threats, still exist, but we do, and now our right to arm ourselves, should we feel the need, is more clear. To be sure it's not crystal clear; the Second Amendment is probably the most obtusely worded of any of them. It's worth looking at some of the contemporaneous provisions from the English Bill of Rights and from some of the early states -- there are more radical notions there, like the fact that standing armies are dangerous to Liberty in times of peace and that it is up to "the people" to provide for the common defense. And it is up to the people to exercise their rights responsibly -- or not to: you also have the right to not own a hand gun, and to push for a society where others don't feel a need to own one either. That's the homeland I want to protect.

Constitutional Convention in Iowa!

I watched just a few minutes of the Iowa Caucuses on TV last night. While I was interested to some extent in which candidates came out on top, what was more heartening was the process, at least in the one Democratic party precinct that I caught. They were seriously, and with decent debate, considering whether to send proposed amendments to the U. S. Constitution to become part of the Democratic Party platform. These were good, average Americans from our heartland and here they were having a serious discussion about amending the Constitution, and now with emotionally charged things like flag burning, but with practical and serious matters. The one I watched mostly was a proposal to strip corporations of the rights of actual citizens, i.e. those things guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Apparently case law has built up to where corporations have protection like free speech that make it difficult to limit things like billboard placements. I don't remember the exact wording of the amendment but it included something to the effect that corporations needed to be doing a preponderance of societal good in order to maintain the liability protection that they enjoy. The debate got down to where the liability should land, e.g. should the board of directors become personally liable? Should the common shareholders? the corporate officers? I think the idea has merit as a way to hold corporations, including multi-national corporations operating in the U.S., more responsible for their actions. But the big point is that typical Americans are still capable and interested in addressing issues at this fundamental level. It was good to see.