Reign. October 11, 2007
Posted by Lindsay in Constitution, Criticism, Humor, Media, News, Politics.add a comment
Recently, I’ve been concerned about the possibility of questionable methods of maintaining power in Pakistan and Russia being repeated by the Bush administration. After all, if Cheney can exist in a phantom 2.5th branch of government between the executive and legislative, he might manage to find a rift in the space-time fabric large enough for him to remain in power past the end of the universe itself. Of course, if Bush wants to stay in power, he’ll use a much blunter method, like creating an office of Burger King or something like that.
Pakistan’s leader, Pervez Musharraf, the Chief of Army Staff who took power in a coup, promised he would return the nation to civilian rule if re-elected for president, by turning over the army chief post to a crony. Musharraf has been fighting judges for months, trying to prevent elections from being held, but in the end, he managed to win with 98% of the vote. Similarly, Vladimir Putin has just appointed Viktor Zubkov, who has “no visible political ambitions” to the post of the Prime Minister of Russia, and the two will likely switch places at the end of Putin’s presidential term. But here in the U.S., if a Republican candidate were to somehow win in November 2008, it wouldn’t be very smart of them to put anyone from the Bush administration in their Cabinet. Also, Bush doesn’t have the audacity to suddenly raise the terror alert level in January 2009 so that he can institute martial law and remain in power that way. Although, if he did, I can’t see Pelosi and Reid putting up a serious resistance to it.
Taxation without representation. September 4, 2007
Posted by Lindsay in Constitution, Criticism, History, Media, Violence.1 comment so far
In an op-ed published in The Washington Post, the mayor of Washington, D.C., Adrian M. Fenty, and District Attorney General Linda Singer, summarizing their arguments for why the city should be able to ban handguns in Washington, D.C. Such a ban has been in place since 1976, until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned it earlier this year on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. This was a mistake. Although Republicans allowed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban to expire in 2004, there are a multitude of similar laws at the state level around the country. Clearly, the “right of the people to keep and bear Arms” does not have any stipulations about what kinds of arms the people can keep. The second amendment itself places no upper or lower limit on what kinds of arms the people have a right to wield, nor does it prohibit the states from imposing such limits. In this light, the city of Washington has every right to maintain its ban of handguns, which are uniquely dangerous because of their ability to be concealed easily, and the massive body count they have allowed criminals to almost effortlessly amass.
Naturally, the last line of defense for the pro-gun crowd on this case will be whether or not D.C. has the full rights of a state. Unfortunately, home rule in the District of Columbia has its boundaries. Congress still has the right to impose or repeal any law it so chooses regarding the District of Columbia. However, in this case, it has, for the most part, remained silent, to the citizens’ benefit.
For all of the bad press the city of Washington gets — whether its crime or our school system — we can at least say that we’ve evolved enough to the point where we can protest “taxation without representation” just as our forefathers did without giving both ourselves and criminals the deadly means to reenact the revolutionary script.
