Message to Christian Voters: McCain is every bit as anti "life" as Obama

Message to Christian Voters: McCain is every bit as anti "life" as Obama
by Matthew J Bell | Originally Sent Via Email on the Eve of the Presidential Election, November 2008

"Vote for life". This is a slogan that is bandied about quite frequently in Christian circles during election times. The notion of being "for life" is not a little slippery. On one reading, for example, it may mean opposition to abortion, euthanasia, and the death penalty (which triumverate is sometimes given, in a gimmicky way, as being "for life from the womb to the tomb"). On another reading, being "for life" is really more narrowly used as a sort of synonym for opposition to abortion alone. In many cases, with either of the first two senses, there is often a (somewhat understandable) presumption of attention on domestic matters. And, additionally, with the first two senses, questions about "war" and "economics" are understood to be distinct questions. Hence, on the first two senses, one can be "for life" and, say, "for the Iraq war" at the same time. But, there is at least one other sense of being "for life". And, this third sense is broad enough to include war and economic considerations. Specifically, one cannot, on this third sense, be "for" an unjust war or be "for" oppressive economic policies, and still arrogate to themselves the title "pro-lifer". Thus, John McCain, who champions U.S. occupation of Iraq and had championed the unjust (according to Catholic just war theory) invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and who is a shill for monopolistic "capitalism", is every bit as AGAINST life, as his (only media-acknowledged) rival, Barack Obama.

Let me first (try to) ensure that this criticism of John McCain is NOT misunderstood as an endorsement of Obama. If we take his slogan at face value - a dangerous proposition, to be sure - then Obama stands for "change" (whatever that means). Are there changes that a Christian should desire for this country? Without question, there are. Chief among them would be desiring a change in the abortion industry, putting an end to abortions-on-demand. But, this is hardly the sort of change that Obama is interested in. On the contrary, here, Obama seeks to preserve the status quo.

Christians must not rest with a status quo that includes the murder of millions of innocent and vulnerable human beings. Hence, Barack Obama is not someone that a Christian can or should endorse.

But, this IS part of the status quo. Lamentably, abortion is a "fact on the ground". Obama certainly aids and abets abortion, and, indeed, advances it; but, without minimizing that evil, we must say that this is not the equivalent of saying that Obama ushered in the practice or authored the policy.

But, how did abortion get to be a fact on the ground? Tracing out the policy on abortion, of course, must take us at least to the opinion in Roe v. Wade. Justice Harry Andrew Blackmun authored that particular majority opinion - an opinion which overturned the abortion laws throughout the nation. And Harry Blackmun had been nominated to the court by Republican President Richard Milhous Nixon, who, during his election bid in 1968 had cast himself as a social conservative who was totally opposed to the leftist "counterculture". The New York Times tells us just how conservative Nixon was: "On Jan. 22, 1973, when the Supreme Court struck down laws criminalizing abortion in Roe v. Wade, President Richard M. Nixon made no public statement. But privately, newly released tapes reveal, he expressed ambivalence. Nixon worried that greater access to abortions would foster 'permissiveness,' and said that 'it breaks the family.' But he also saw a need for abortion in some cases — like interracial pregnancies, he said.
'There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white,' he told an aide, before adding, 'Or a rape.' "[0]

Recently, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made a backhanded reference to much the same thing, saying: "...I had thought that at the time Roe (v. Wade) was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion...".[0]

Author Will Bunch writes that "conservative revolutionary" Republican President Ronald Reagan "invested no real political capital...on the...right-to-life movement...". "In fact," Bunch goes on, "...Reagan ensured the long-term future of legalized abortion in America when he named Sandra Day O'Connor as his first nominee for the Supreme Court...". "...O'Connor would...uphold a woman's legal right to an abortion...over a twenty-four year career on the court." This should not, however, have surprised those who monitored Reagan's political career closely. "As California governor...Reagan...[signed] the bill on legalized abortion in the Golden State...".[0]

More recently, "social conservative" "Christian" Republican President George W. Bush was a "disappointment" to those credulous "pro-life" voters who had been (neo)conned into supporting Bush on the basis of his supposedly unwavering commitment to life - a "commitment" that was either a hollow Machiavellian gambit to begin with or else was simply outweighed in Bush's scales of deliberation by factors of political expediency.

"'Mr. Bush has been disappointing since the election because he supported [Pennsylvania Republican Senator Arlen] Specter for the Judiciary chairmanship over the strong objections of pro-life Christians and because he nominated pro-choice candidates for both attorney general [Alberto Gonzales] and secretary of state [Condoleezza Rice],' says Rod Pennington, founder of Voices Heard, a new grass-roots Christian activist group."[1]

The Associated Press reported in November 2004 that the pro-Abortion Republican (at the time) Specter "bluntly warned newly re-elected President Bush ... against putting forth Supreme Court nominees who would seek to overturn abortion rights or are otherwise too conservative to win confirmation. ... 'When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade, I think that is unlikely,' Specter said, referring to the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. 'The president is well aware of what happened, when a number of his nominees were sent up, with the filibuster,' Specter added, referring to Senate Democrats' success over the past four years in blocking the confirmation of many of Bush's conservative judicial picks. '... And I would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning.'" [2]

And indeed, for example, Associate Justice Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr. is at best a question mark on the issue of Roe v. Wade ("it appears that Alito believes some restrictions on the procedure are constitutionally permitted, but has not signaled a willingness to overturn Roe v. Wade" [3]), while Chief Justice John Glover Roberts, Jr. "has indicated [that] he supports some abortion restrictions but has not committed to overturn Roe v. Wade." [4]

Hence, Bush's appointees can claim at once to be "pro life", but, yet, committed to "upholding the law". Catholics, at least, owing to the intellectual inheritance that they possess from persons like Saint Thomas Aquinas, whose view of law was such that an unjust code could never actually be LAW, ought to see that Bush's appointees, are, therefore, at best, opportunists. But, just perhaps, these appointees are merely token appointees, meant to appease the loud, but intellectually lazy, "pro life" crowd, but not meant to actually undermine the tissue of injustice that allows women to legally murder their own unwanted children.

Beyond this "disappointing" state of affairs with respect to abortion opposition, "pro-life" "Evangelical" George W. Bush has, in part through lies and deception [5], also mired the U.S. military in Afghanistan and Iraq causing upwards of 90,000 [6] (and, quite possibly, 1 million [7]) civilian deaths in Iraq alone as well as the deaths of around 4,000 American soldiers [8] - and all of this has transpired with the express approval of "pro life" "conservative" John McCain [9].

Again, their "pro life" credentials are only held intact by those who either lamentably compartmentalize their concern for life so that children murdered by surgery are somehow distinguished from children murdered by bombing; or who allow caricatured propaganda to dehumanize other human beings so that "enemy" civilians are somehow justifiably exterminated - women and children included - even as the murder of our own innocent civilians (9/11) prompts the country's own battle cry.

And, we must not neglect to mention the deaths of Iraqi civilians which have resulted from U.S. "war" and occupation efforts post-2003 must be added to the deaths of Iraqi civilians between 1991 and 2001, which resulted from the '91 "Gulf War" and the subsequent sanctions. Within six years of the Republican "Pro-Family" George H.W. Bush's attack on Iraq, and the subsequent sanctions of Bush and Clinton there were already estimates of upwards of one million civilian deaths: "The U.N. Children's Fund estimated in 1997 that more than 1.2 million people, including 750,000 under the age of 5, have died because of a lack of food and medicine in Iraq [as a result both of the initial US military actions and subsequent 'sanctions']. The World Health Organization reported in 1998 that 5,000 to 6,000 children die every month in the country as a result of economic sanctions. Human Rights Watch estimated that U.S. and allied bombs killed about 3,000 civilians during the 1991 Gulf War. A study by the Medical Educational Trust in London in late 1991 indicated that as many as 250,000 Iraqis died as a direct result of bombing, Loe said."[10]

For Catholics, especially (although not exclusively), it is worth recalling the Catholic Church's opinion of the 2003 "war" in Iraq - just as it is worth recalling the Catholic Church's teaching regarding abortion, for unjust wasting of life through war is as deplorable as through abortion: "The Roman Catholic Church, led by Pope John Paul II, opposed the U.S.-led war in Iraq." [11] A "top Vatican official" declared " "the war was useless, and served no purpose,". [12] As of April, 2007, "In an Easter litany of the world's suffering, Pope Benedict XVI lamented that 'nothing positive' is happening in Iraq and decried the unrest in Afghanistan and bloodshed in Africa and Asia. ..." [13].

In addition, this wasteful war has ruined the Iraqi water supply [14], ruined the mental health of untold U.S. veterans [15], and contributed to the ruination of the U.S. economy, along with the millions of people whose livelihoods are thereby affected. And the wasteful war only compounded the brutalizing effects of Bush's broader economic policies. "By running persistent budget deficits, the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) warns, leading countries, primarily the United States during the Bush years, "are 'sacrificing' their children."[16]

And, indeed, this closes the circle. For the oppressive economic policies of greedy buccaneer capitalists [17] (amongst which despicable crowd we number the Bush family [18], and John "Keating Five" McCain [19]), arguably foment the sort of hopelessness and disrespect for family that create demand for convenience abortions in the first place.

As a poet has said, regarding the effects of usury:

...Usura slayeth the child in the womb
It stayeth the young man's courting
It hath brought palsey to bed, lyeth
between the young bride and her bridegroom
CONTRA NATURAM... [20]

It is not for nothing that Saint Paul warned Timothy that "the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil" (1 Timothy 6:10).

Why should the Christian Church's ire be raised for one evil and not another? Is economic oppression, which helps to create the market for abortion, not every bit as worthy of our condemnation as abortion itself? Or, do we content ourselves to pull off the aerial parts on the plant of evil and leave the root untouched?

In an earlier age, exponents of the ruinous plague of usury, like John McCain (and the Bush family before him), would have been the recipients of the Church's disapprobation, every bit as much as abortionists are the recipients of it now. It can be "inferred from the (Christian Church) Fathers and ecclesiastical writers... that it is contrary to mercy and humanity to demand interest from a poor and needy man." "[S]uch transactions..., under the pretence of rendering service to the borrower, really threw him into great distress." "The canonical laws of the Middle Ages absolutely forbade the practice" of lending money at interest.[21]

Why should Christians condemn mass murders in utero, while turning a blind eye towards mass murders in Iraq and Afghanistan? As one commentator has put it:

"With regard to abortion, show me where in the Gospel Jesus made one violation of God's law the sole litmus test? The single-issue anti-abortion campaign is a trap that ensures the election of presidential mass murderers. The reason 'conservative' Christians are not passionately opposed to the mass murders of children by Pres[ident] Bush is because these children have been derogated -- the humanity of Arabs (including Arab Christians) and Muslims has been diminished by Orthodox Judaism and its widespread influence over Churchianity.

"The pompous, self-righteous Phariseeism of Catholic and evangelical supporters of McCain and Bush is grotesquely sinful and nauseating. (I say the same about 'Christian' support for Obama and Biden). God will not bless America or any political movement implicated in the killing of the innocent, whether born or unborn, no matter what Catholic prelates who are complicit with or complacent toward the priestly molestation of children, proclaim or abjure." [22]

Yes, Obama is odious. Catholics should oppose him. Christians of any denomination should oppose him. But, what of "Country First" McCain? Should Christians be among those who put "country first"?[23] Maybe Catholics should help to reform the entire political landscape instead of rationalizing poor voting choices as being justified as a selection of the "lesser of two evils". A "lesser evil" is, after all, still evil. And I put it to the reader that in the case of McCain his evils only appear to be "lesser" because many of them are carried out on distant shores, and most of us have poor eyesight.

Christians must choose whether they want to be Christians first or political partisans first. One can utter "God and Country", like some sort of mantra. But, our God is a jealous God. And we will one day be brought to account for all sins - including, without limitation or exception, murdering through abortion, murdering through unjust war, and murdering through economic warfare (e.g., usury). So, let us be "pro life" in a thoroughgoing way. But, if we do, then we must judge McCain to be just as odious as Obama. Christians need to forge a third way.


###


The above message would not have been possible without the innumerable insights of Michael A. Hoffman II, http://www.revisionisthistory.org/ http://www.myspace.com/revisionistreview http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com

Notes:

0. On Nixon: CHARLIE SAVAGE, "On Nixon Tapes, Ambivalence Over Abortion, Not Watergate," New York Times, June 24, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/us/politics/24nixon.html?_r=3&pagewanted=print. On Ginsburg: EMILY BAZELON, "The Place of Women on the Court," New York Times, July 12, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?_r=1&hpw=&pagewanted=print. On Reagan: By Will Bunch, "Tear Down This Myth: How the Reagan Legacy Has Distorted Our Politics and Haunts Our Future," (New York: Free Press, 2009), pp. 100, 114-5, & 20.

1. Ralph Z. Hallow, "Bush 'disappointing' some pro-lifers," The Washington Times, December 8, 2004 Wednesday, SECTION: NATION; Pg. A04. Additionally, The supposedly Christian "Bush is Ariel Sharon's staunchest ally, knowing full well that Sharon authorized the assault on the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem in 2002, birthplace of Our Lord!" Michael A. Hoffman II, email.

2. LARA JAKES JORDAN, "Likely new Senate judiciary chairman warns Bush against nominating anti-abortion judges," The Associated Press, November 3, 2004, Wednesday, BC cycle.

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Alito#U.S._Supreme_Court_career

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Glover_Roberts,_Jr.#Abortion

5. "Study: False statements preceded war Hundreds of false statements on WMDs, al-Qaida used to justify Iraq war," The Associated Press, updated 1:30 a.m. CT, Wed., Jan. 23, 2008, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22794451/; cf.: Rumsfeld Employs Churchill's 'Bodyguard of Lies': Erwin Chemerinsky, "Truth is vital for a democracy," Reprinted in: Deseret News (Salt Lake City) from the L.A. Times, October 13, 2001, Saturday, P. A09.; cf. Jon Dougherty, "Terror alerts manufactured? FBI agents say White House scripting 'hysterics' for political effect," World Net Daily, Posted: January 04, 2003, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30312 cf. ANNE FLAHERTY, "Ex-officials: Bush admin. ignored Iraq corruption," Associated Press, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080512/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_corruption; cf. "And Now, the Counterfeit News," The New York Times, Late Edition – Final, March 16, 2005 Wednesday, Section A; Column 1; Editorial Desk; Pg. 22.; cf. Andrew Buncombe, "Bush 'planted fake news stories on American TV'" Independent, 29 May 2006, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-planted-fake-news-stories-on-american-tv-480172.html; cf. "Audit assails White House 'propaganda'," The Star-Ledger (Newark, New Jersey), FINAL EDITION, October 1, 2005 Saturday, NEWS; Pg. 4; cf. 'US Home Audience' Admitted Target of US Military Propaganda: Wire Report, "U.S. military stoking xenophobia in Iraq," UPI, UPI NewsTrack TopNews, April 10, 2006; cf. "The Pentagon...has begun deploying forces to mount psychological operations, or 'psy-ops'": Carla Anne Robbins, "Spin Control: U.S. Has Early Priority: Managing Its Message," Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition, New York, N.Y.: Oct 4, 2001, p. A.1.

6. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/.

7. Tina Susman, "Civilian toll in Iraq may top 1M," Los Angeles Times, September 14, 2007, http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fg-iraq14sep14,1,4491851.story?track=rss&ctrack=2&cset=true; cf. "Over 1 million Iraqi deaths since 2003," Mon, 13 Aug 2007 06:29:42 GMT, http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=19326&sectionid=351020201.

8. BRADLEY BROOKS, "US nears 4,000 dead in Iraq," Associated Press, Sun Mar 16, 5:17 PM ET, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080316/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq4000_dead.

9. Mark Benjamin, "John McCain's real war record," January 17, 2008, http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/01/17/mccain/; cf. http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53270&type=category&category=47&go.x=10&go.y=11; cf. Shmuel Rosner, "Why lovers of Israel should vote for McCain (according to Lieberman)," Haaretz, Last update - 18:36 29/01/2008, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/949202.html. Note: McCain's credentials even as a political conservative are suspect: "...Now the party has an apparent candidate who is a friend of Sen. Russ Feingold - on campaign finance reform - [Congressman Ron] Paul said. And now the party has an apparent candidate who is a friend of Ted Kennedy - on immigration - Paul said. ... And then there is the war in Iraq, with Paul the only one of several Republican candidates for president this year who took a stance against the war."McCain says we should stay there for 100 years if necessary - I say there is no need," ...", Mark Silva, "Ron Paul: McCain friends with Feingold, Kennedy," Baltimore Sun, February 7, 2008, http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/ron_paul_mccain_friends_with_f.html; cf. "Bill Clinton: John McCain and Hillary are 'very close'," CNN, Posted: 06:45 PM ET, January 25, 2008, http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/25/bill-clinton-john-mccain-and-hillary-are-very-close/.

10. PARIS ACHEN, "Unveiling the casualties of war: Activist crafts newspaper to tell stories of those touched by conflict," The Houston Chronicle, 2 STAR EDITION, March 13, 2003, Thursday, THISWEEK; Pg. 1; cf. PATRICK COCKBURN, "Pentagon revises its Gulf war scorecard," The Independent (London), April 14, 1992, Tuesday, INTERNATIONAL NEWS PAGE; Page 12; cf. ANDREW STEPHEN, "The Gulf War: Saddam sends Bush 'ballistic with anger' - How Iraq's peace ploy may hasten the bloody land battle," The Observer (UK), February 17 1991, Pg. 9.

11. http://www.americancatholic.org/News/JustWar/Iraq/default.asp; cf. "...both the U.S. bishops and top Vatican officials sharply questioned the decision to invade Iraq in 2003", Alan Cooperman, "U.S. Catholic Bishops Call for 'Honest Dialogue' on Iraq," Washington Post, Tuesday, November 14, 2006; Page A15, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/13/AR2006111301234.html.

12. Saddam's capture may bring peace, doesn't excuse war, cardinal says, Catholic News Service, http://www.americancatholic.org/News/JustWar/Iraq/default.asp.

13. FRANCES D'EMILIO, "Pope: 'Nothing positive' from Iraq," Associated Press, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070408/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_easter. And, apparently, the Pope is not the only one with a low opinion of the Iraq "war": "Legal scholars work to build case for Bush war crimes prosecution," Press Release: Massachusetts School Of Law, 17/06/08, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20118.htm.

14. SELCAN HACAOGLU, "Filthy Iraqi drinking water raises cholera fears," Associated Press, 2 August 2008, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080802/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_water_woes; cf. Hannah Allam, "5 years after Iraq's 'liberation,' there are worms in the water," McClatchy Newspapers, Sun Mar 16, 6:00 AM, http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080316/wl_mcclatchy/2878538; cf. PATRICK COCKBURN, "After five years of U.S. occupation, Iraq is destroyed as a country," THE INDEPENDENT, Last updated March 18, 2008 4:59 p.m. PT, http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/355506_iraq19.html; cf. STEVEN R. HURST, "Water taps run dry in Baghdad," Associated Press, Thu Aug 2, 2:19 PM ET, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070802/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq.

15. PAULINE JELINEK, "Army: soldier suicide rate may set record again," Associated Press, Thu Sep 4, 5:33 PM ET, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_suicides; cf. PAULINE JELINEK, "Army suicides reported up again -- at 108," Associated Press, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080529/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_suicides; cf. Suicide rate high among US veterans, Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:36:06, http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=31011&sectionid=3510302; cf. PAULINE JELINEK, "Wartime PTSD cases jumped roughly 50 pct. in 2007 Associated Press," http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080528/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/troops_post_traumatic; cf. "1-in-10 US Iraq veterans have stress disorder: study," Reuters, February 28, 2006 http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-02-28T213511Z_01_MAC231520_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-HEALTH.xml;"Report: 121 veterans linked to killings," Sunday Jan. 13, 2008 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080113/ap_on_re_us/killings_after_combat; cf. DEBORAH SONTAG and LIZETTE ALVAREZ, "Across America, Deadly Echoes of Foreign Battles," New York Times, January 13, 2008http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/us/13vets.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1200229805-BihjYBrb3dPWGqgaxBn73A&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

16. Iraq war 'caused slowdown in the US'," Peter Wilson, Europe correspondent | February 28, 2008, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23286149-2703,00.html; cf. Jane Corbin, "BBC uncovers lost Iraq billions," BBC News, Tuesday, 10 June 2008 18:25 UK, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7444083.stm; cf. DAVID M. HERSZENHORN, "Estimates of Iraq War Cost Were Not Close to Ballpark," March 19, 2008, By http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/washington/19cost.html; cf. KIMBERLY HEFLING, "Veterans make up 1 in 4 homeless in US," Associated Press, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071108/ap_on_re_us/homeless_veterans; cf. Ralph Forbes, "151 Congressmen Derive Financial Profit From War:Blood money stains the hands of more than 25% of members of the U.S. House and Senate," May 28, 2008, http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ralph_fo_080527_151_congressmen_deri.htm; cf. JEANNINE AVERSA, "To fix economy, get out of Iraq," AP, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080208/ap_on_bi_ge/stimulus_ap_poll; Noam Chomsky, "Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy," (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2006), p. 226.

17. This is not to say that Obama is not beholden to the same financial interests. He surely is. Cf. Pam Martens, "Obama’s Money Cartel: How he’s fronted for the most vicious firms on Wall Street," CounterPunch, February 23, 2008, http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16601; Ralph Forbes (Posted by chris rice), "151 Congressmen Derive Financial Profit From War: Blood money stains the hands of more than 25% of members of the U.S. House and Senate," http://www.opednews.com, May 28, 2008 at 09:20:59, http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ralph_fo_080527_151_congressmen_deri.htm.

18. WHY WE FIGHT FOREIGN WARS: "Four Western oil companies are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service the country’s largest fields. ...", ANDREW E. KRAMER, "Deals With Iraq Are Set to Bring Oil Giants Back," New York Times, 19 June 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html; cf. BBC's Newsnight "said the younger George Bush made his first million with an oil company partly funded by the chief US representative of Salem bin Laden, Osama's brother, who took over as head of the family after his father Mohammed's death in a plane crash in 1968", "US agents told to back off bin Ladens," 7th November 2001, http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_443114.html; cf. Ben Aris in Berlin and Duncan Campbell in Washington, "How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power," The Guardian, Saturday September 25 2004, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar; cf.: "The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression": Mike Thomson, "The Whitehouse Coup," BBC Radio 4, Monday 23 July 2007, http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml.

19. Keating Five scandal: "Mr. Keating, his associates, and his friends contributed $56,000 for Senator McCain's two House races in 1982 and 1984, and $54,000 for his 1986 Senate race. Mr. Keating also provided his corporate plane and/or arranged for payment for the use of commercial or private aircraft on several occasions for travel by Senator McCain and his family, for which Senator McCain ultimately provided reimbursement when called upon to do so. Mr. Keating also allowed Senator McCain and his family to vacation with Mr. Keating and his family, at a home provided by Mr. Keating in the Bahamas, in each of the calendar years 1983 through 1986." [F]rom 1984 to 1987, Senator McCain took actions on Mr. Keating's behalf or at his request. The Committee finds that Senator McCain had a basis for each of these actions independent of the contributions and benefits he received from Mr. Keating, his associates and friends. ..." http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/levin040501.shtml. Moreover, McCain is a hot-head who has nearly engaged in fisticuffs with a colleague in the Senate (see, e.g., Michael Leahy, "McCain: A Question of Temperament," Washington Post, Sunday, April 20, 2008; A01, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/19/AR2008041902224_pf.htm) and who - unless he is serious - thinks that it is funny to “joke” about being an “aspiring dictator” (see McCain's Interview with the editorial board of the "Des Moines Register" in Iowa, 30 September 2008) even as the United States Congress was threatened over the economic bailout with the prospect of "martial law" if the plan failed to pass (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnbNm6hoBXc) and even as the USA Patriot Act, and Patriot Act II, Total Information Awareness, Military Commissions Act, John Warner Defense Authorization Act, and Presidential Decision Directive 51 literally erect the scaffolding for a full-fledged police state. Plus, McCain apparently thinks that it is amusing to “joke” about mass-murdering the Iranian people: "Republican presidential candidate John McCain was asked about an Associated Press report that $158 million in cigarettes have been shipped to Iran during George W. Bush's presidency despite restrictions on U.S. exports to that country. 'Maybe that's a way of killing them,' McCain told reporters... ", AP, July 8, 2008; cf.: McCain sings "Bomb Iran" to tune of "Barbara Ann": Republican US presidential contender Senator John McCain's joke on how to deal with Iran is not making everybody laugh. He responded to a question from an audience in South Carolina on Wednesday by breaking into the melody of the Beach Boys song "Barbara Ann" but changing the lyrics to "Bomb Iran", "John McCain, you've done it again," AP/Sydney Morning Herald, April 20, 2007.

20. Ezra Pound, Canto XLV -- "With Usura" (reference owed to Michael Hoffman)

21. Arthur Vermeersch, The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912 ed., Volume XV, New York: Robert Appleton Company, p. 235 (references owed to Michael Hoffman).

22. Michael Hoffman, "Augustine, Abortion and the Democrats: The Talmud is the source of dissent and confusion within Christendom over abortion," 9/01/2008 08:53:00 AM, http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2008/09/augustine-abortion-and-democrats.html.

23. And which country? From some of McCain's rhetoric and history, and from some of the rhetoric of his handlers (chiefly, Joe Lierberman), one might conclude that the country McCain puts first is, often enough, Israel. See, again: Shmuel Rosner, "Why lovers of Israel should vote for McCain (according to Lieberman)," Haaretz, Last update - 18:36 29/01/2008, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/949202.html. But, then again, all of the "mainline" candidates are zionists of one stripe or other (tending, again from much of the rhetoric, towards the Likud end of the spectrum): "America's powerful Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), held a recent summit that featured moments described by one writer as "surreal," "energized" and even "circuslike." "AIPAC's three-day summit included fiery evangelical oratory, adoration for Dick Cheney -- and new plans for going after Iran," reports Gregory Levey for Salon. "Amid an energized and at times almost circuslike atmosphere," Levey writes, "just about everyone in attendance shared two main preoccupations: the 2008 U.S. presidential election and confronting Iran. ... Levey notes that a bipartisan spirit permeated the conference. "Even if Democrats and Republicans bicker on every other issue," he writes, "AIPAC leaders seemed constantly eager to stress that one thing on which the parties can come together is unswerving devotion to Israel." To that end, both House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) made appearances. ... Cheney's presence yielded a rousing, warm reaction, says Levey. "When Cheney first appeared on the stage on Monday morning," he writes, "the crowd immediately rose to its feet and filled the room with loud applause, which continued intermittently through his predictably hawkish speech." "It seemed a remarkable contrast to the currently dismal public opinion polls regarding Bush and Cheney," concludes Levy, who quoted a nearby AIPAC delegate among the cheering throng as saying, "This has got to be the last crowd that still greets him this way." Excerpts from the exclusive Salon article, available at http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/16/aipac/index_np.html , follow... # When the thousands of lobbyists descended on Capitol Hill, they were greeted by nearly every U.S. senator and more than half the members of the House of Representatives -- approximately 500 meetings were held between AIPAC representatives and members of Congress on Tuesday alone. In addition to pushing for the sanctions plan, the goal was to showcase the strength of AIPAC and establish more ties for future communication and lobbying. The AIPAC activists were aided in their mission by some members of Congress themselves, who advised them how to reach out to their colleagues. "Our commitment to Israel defines us as a nation," said Republican Norm Coleman of Minnesota, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, adding that the AIPAC lobbyists "help make sure that we don't forget." ... Following the dinner, Clinton and Obama held competing dessert receptions in the conference center -- in rooms about 25 yards apart -- both eager to highlight their pro-Israel credentials. Debates ensued over which one to attend. "I can't decide," one AIPAC delegate said. "I'd really like to see Obama in person, but Hillary is better for Israel." # Mike Sheehan, "Israel lobby's summit included 'adoration for Cheney'," 03/16/2007, http://rawstory.com/printstory.php?story=5377.

Towards a Jeffersonian Appraisal of the SCOTUS "D.C. Gun Ban" Decision

Towards a Jeffersonian Appraisal of the SCOTUS "D.C. Gun Ban" Decision
Matthew J. Bell June 29, 2008

The recent Supreme Court decision in the case of the District of Columbia v. Heller has been hailed by the likes of Bob Barr as a milestone for "liberty,"1 and "gun rights advocates" consider the decision to be a major victory.2 Commentators, echoing Justice Stevens' dissent, have acknowledged that the decision leaves lingering questions about the details of allowable gun restrictions.3 It seems, however, that most "gun rights advocates" have largely ignored (or are unaware of) the questions (some of which were not directly posed in the case) that the majority opinion does answer - whether implicitly or explicitly; particularly those questions that are pertinent to the scope of the function of the citizens' militia. Inspection of Justice Scalia's majority opinion might leave one to wonder both about whether the framework of liberty assumed by Barr is the same framework that the founders assumed, and, indeed, about whether this supposed gun rights victory is a victory at all.

It is true that the decision was focused most obviously upon the question of whether the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of home self-defense.

"Whether [the Second Amendment]...protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case." (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008), p. 68, http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf)4

Hence, the decision did not specifically address a question such as: What is the scope of a citizens' militia? Indeed, the case did not really even address a question such as: What is the scope of home (or personal) self-defense? However, the majority opinion plausibly has implications for these unaddressed questions - implications that are (or, in our opinion, ought to be) deeply troubling to those (if any there be) who might wish to implement today a citizens' militia modeled after the founding-era citizens' militia.

To put it somewhat artfully, it might seem that the recent Supreme Court decision, had it been handed down in the founding era (per impossibile), would have provided the basis for outlawing the founding-era citizens militia. If this is a credible charge, however, then it is unlikely that the decision really is a victory for "gun rights" (at least as the founders conceived those rights). Moreover, it is plausible that the concept of "liberty" embraced by those who praise the decision is a departure from the concept of liberty that the founders held.

This article shall focus narrowly upon what we are calling a "Jeffersonian" reaction to the decision - i.e., the articulation of a reaction framed around quotations from Thomas Jefferson on what are judged relevant matters. Hence, this article shall not be anywhere near an exhaustive treatment of the opinions of the founders, broadly construed. Additionally, while this article moves toward a Jeffersonian response, it will not pretend even to have attained completeness in that limited task.

Let us begin with the suggestion that, for Thomas Jefferson, keeping and bearing arms was not merely a right, it was an obligation.

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824 (italics added).5

Immediately, then, one finds an asymmetry between the founding-era notion of "gun rights", at least as it finds expression in Jefferson, and the contemporary notion. For, in contemporary parlance, "gun rights" are the peculiar concern of hunters or "survivalists" or "self-defense enthusiasts". In other words, "gun rights" are largely the concern of a special interest group that is a subset of the citizens of the United States.6 From Jefferson's statement, however, we see that this conception plausibly would have been quite alien to him. For, with the exception of certain religious pacifists, Jefferson seems to have regarded it as incumbent upon good citizens in general to be armed. Furthermore, he appears to have regarded it as incumbent upon armed citizens to be available to their neighbors in the citizens' militia.

For, in general, Jefferson held that:

"...the militia of the State ... is ... every man in it able to bear arms." --Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811.

The Supreme Court adopted this opinion in 1939:

"…[T]he Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" (US v. Miller, 307 US 174, 179 (1939)). (p. 25)

Participation in the citizens' militia was an essential component of the Constitutional bulwark against tyranny; and it was requisite that militiamen keep and bear their own arms. Appreciating this demands that we call to mind the various purposes for which the citizen's militia could be summoned: (i.) to act as the first line of defense against foreign invasion;7 (ii.) to put down domestic insurrection;8 and (iii.) to resist the usurpation of the domestic government.9

Of course, a contemporary observer might weigh the various possibilities (threat of invasion, threat of insurrection, and threat of usurpation) differently from other observers.10 The assignment of such subjective probabilities, after all, is dependent upon one's awareness and appraisal of relevant background information; and such awareness varies and such appraisals are partially pragmatic affairs (i.e., they are affairs that are relative to an observer's interests, needs, and desires, etc.). Nevertheless, we may still (and would do well to) ask how well any contemporary citizens' militia would fare in the service of the three mentioned activities. We assume that, however likely any of the three tasks might be thought to be, nonetheless, likelihood or unlikelihood by itself does not change the fact that the citizens' militia (if the founders' conception of it is to be maintained) should be capable of addressing itself to any of the three threats. To assess these matters, we must ask what conditions would need to be satisfied in order for the citizens' militia to function successfully in each of its intended roles. Again, we will not treat these matters exhaustively but will merely hint at the sorts of considerations such an assessment would involve.

For example, with respect to foreign invasion, Jefferson comments:

"Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only force which can be ready at every point and competent to oppose them, is the body of neighboring citizens as formed into a militia."
-Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801.

Hence, we see that, in order to effectively repel a foreign invasion, the citizens militia (i.e., "the body of neighboring citizens") must be such that it is (i.) a "force which can be ready at every point" and (ii.) a force which is "competent to oppose" the enemy.

Are contemporary citizens ready and able to be fashioned into such a force? Apparently not. But, the more pressing question for our purposes is this: Supposing, for the sake of argument, that contemporary citizens suddenly were seized upon by Jeffersonian impulses, would the Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller allow them to fashion themselves into such a force? Let us postpone venturing an answer to this question until further on.

Given the circumstances of the revolution and the history of the founding of this country, we can hardly suppose that the founders thought that the threat of domestic tyranny was far-fetched.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed28.htm

To be sure, the founders saw themselves as engaged in the process of drafting a government that would be, by its very design, difficult to usurp.

"The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them."
-- Hamilton, Ibid.

But, this hardly implies that the founders thought that the militia's third purpose, as stated above, was either superfluous or unnecessary. On the contrary, the armed citizens' militia was itself an important protection against domestic tyranny.

"The importance of [the Second Amendment] will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. … The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
-- Joseph Story, Commentaries On The Constitution Of The United States; With A Preliminary Review Of The Constitutional History Of The Colonies And States, Before The Adoption Of The Constitution. Boston: Hilliard, Gray And Company. Cambridge: Brown, Shattuck, And Co. 1833. http://www.constitution.org/js/js_000.htm

But what is necessary in order to function effectively to resist usurpation of the domestic government? It depends, of course, on the nature of the threat. If, for example, the domestic government - against the advice of the likes of Jefferson11 - has chosen to maintain a standing army; and if the usurpers are in command of that army; then, surely, successful resistance would require, at the very least, some measure of parity with respect to weaponry and training.

According to Justice Scalia, however, such parity is not part of the court's conception of the Second Amendment. For, with respect to weaponry, in Scalia's opinion, only those weapons which are in common use amongst law-abiding citizens fall under the umbrella of protected "arms". This, he says, follows from the historical fact that, during the founding era, the following obtained:

"[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." (From U.S. v. Miller, qtd. on p. 55)

Hence, while Scalia admits, for example, that it might be very difficult for a militia to repel bombers and tanks and, one might add, trained cadres of machine-gun-toting troops without, say, M-16s of one's own, nevertheless, Scalia merely judges that the "prefatory" and "operative" clauses of the Second Amendment have grown apart over the years.

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service - M-16 rifles and the like - may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. However, as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and (p. 58) tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right." (p. 59)

There is apparently nothing that the court can do to guarantee that a contemporary citizens' militia should be effective at repelling invasion or thwarting tyranny - military technology has simply gone beyond the founders' wildest conceptions; and we now have a standing army, contrary to many of the founders' wishes. Well, so much the worse for the effectiveness of a citizens' militia! The citizens simply cannot prepare, according to the Court, to defend against the possibility that the government might one day wield its army as an instrument of oppression.

The force of Scalia's "cannot" seems unclear in his sentence, "the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right." One wonders how copyright law might have been held up if a similar story about static rights in the face of dynamic technology had been told about, say, digital recordings. Somehow, I doubt that, say, the RIAA would have accepted that such technological advancement was so much the worse for copyright law. And, lo! Copyright has been updated to preserve its spirit of protection. Apparently, however, the spirit of what the citizens' militia was intended to protect is doomed to languish and die. It is the relic of a bygone age where "the degree of fit" between a prefatory and operative clause was much tighter than it is today.

But to Scalia - apparently - this is idle. There is no problem, for the citizens' militia is largely passé anyway. For, even if we set aside the issue of disparity of weaponry between any hypothetical, revived citizens' militia, we find another likely impediment:

"Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), held that the right to keep and bear arms was not violated by a law that forbade 'bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law.' …" (p. 51) "Presser said nothing about the Second Amendment's meaning or scope, beyond the fact that it does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations." (p. 52)

Thus, even if we suppose that, a Jeffersonian impulse sweeping the land, people get it into their heads to fulfill their duty to be armed and, in turn, begin to appreciate their correlative duty to make themselves available for a revived citizens' militia, we nonetheless find that, should these people desire to meet together, perhaps to train in the use of their "common arms," they may be labeled a "private paramilitary organization" and find themselves barred from doing so.

Hence, the well-regulated militia may not just be passé, but, should the mood strike the States, it may be prohibited as well. For, nothing Scalia writes draws any distinction between a citizens' militia and a "private paramilitary organization". Moreover, in fact, Scalia admits: "…no one supporting [the individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment] has contended that States may not ban such [paramilitary] groups" (p. 51).

Of course, it may be true that no one who is presently "supporting [the individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment] has contended that States may not ban … [paramilitary] groups", but it is hardly true that no voice has contended that such a ban would be Unconstitutional. Scalia provides the following quotation from William Rawle:

"...No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment [the second amendment to the constitution] may be appealed to as a restraint on both." (p. 37)

Justice Stevens' argument tries to predicate "gun rights" upon militia membership. And, hence, "sportspersons" and "gun aficionados" count Scalia as an ally because Scalia recognizes a "gun right" that is independent of militia membership. Scalia's commentary, here, is representative of the thrust of his case against Stevens:

"Every late-19th-century legal scholar that we have read interpreted the Second Amendment to secure an individual right unconnected with militia service." (p. 47)

But, disconnecting militia membership from the operative Second Amendment protections seems chiefly construed as a blessing to those who think that the avoidance of militia membership is a boon. Insofar as militia membership is considered an unnecessary burden to lay upon Americans, predication of "gun rights" upon militia membership is considered an arbitrary restriction, imposed simply in order to reduce the number of those eligible to keep and bear arms. But, if one has a more Jeffersonian attitude on the matter, one sees that while it is correct to say that one does not obtain "gun rights" in virtue of one's militia membership, nevertheless, the ability to join into a citizens' militia together with one's armed neighbors is itself an important right. Indeed, if we take Jefferson's gun-possession-being-a-duty comment seriously, we may well infer that membership in a citizens' militia is itself a duty. It is not, to be sure, the precondition of keeping and bearing arms; but, nonetheless, it is a main reason for the importance of keeping and bearing arms. Hence, membership in a citizens' militia is no more burdensome than are other crucial ways in which the citizens were intended to participate in their government (e.g., participation in electoral processes), and it is no less essential to maintaining our liberties.

To put the matter another way, the separation of "gun rights" from militia membership in the present Court ruling, seems to cut two ways. Most of the focus heretofore has been upon the Court's "allowance" that non-militia members keep and bear arms. And, indeed, as we have admitted, it is right to acknowledge that "gun rights" exist independently of militia membership. However, some of the phrases in the present ruling also seem to imply, if not expressly to state, that a contemporary citizens' militia would be disallowed. In other words, the Court seems to be of the following opinion. It is the case that both one may, but need not, keep and bear arms, and that militia membership is strictly unnecessary (perhaps because it is thought - erroneously - to be superfluous given our standing army and police forces), and, if the States so decide, may be prohibited (if, that is, the States construe any militia-like organizing as the stirrings of a "private paramilitary organization").

From a Jeffersonian perspective, however, this opinion would be wrong on at least two counts. First, keeping and bearing arms is both a right and a duty, such that, in light of the founder's intentions, the Second Amendment urges citizens to arm themselves as opposed to merely "allowing" for the possibility that they might. And, second, the citizens' militia, being an important protection against coercive governmental force, is far from superfluous or unnecessary given our standing army (and police forces). But, in fact, given the existence of our standing army (and police forces), the citizens' militia should be viewed as more crucial to the survival of our liberties than such a militia would be if the United States had no standing army (and no police forces, or, at least, much reduced police forces) at all.

To reiterate: The Court is correct to acknowledge that keeping and bearing arms does not depend upon militia membership. But, the Court errs, in our view, in de-emphasizing the importance of the citizens' militia. And, the Court errs severely in undercutting the ability of such a militia to exist in our time, to the extent that it does so, insofar as such a militia is arguably more important in our time than it was even in the time immediately following the founding of our country, when such a militia was more or less fully operational.

And, so, Scalia seems to have done damage to the important - if atrophied - institution of the citizens' militia. But, things may even be worse than this. For Scalia seems to hint, and not too subtly, that even the protections that he has acknowledged, and is credited for championing, are tenuous and may be "outmoded".

Justice Scalia writes:

"Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct." (p. 67)

Above, we have what appears to be a rather puzzling statement from a supposed champion of the Second Amendment. This defender of "gun rights", unless I have badly misunderstood what seems to be a fairly straightforward text, evidently believes that the notion that the Second Amendment is, after all, "outmoded" is "debatable".

Has, then, the bulk of Scalia's opinion, ostensibly in favor of a (truncated) right of "self-defense" been for nothing?

Here, we get to a most disturbing point. For, while Scalia announces that it is no business of the "Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct" he seems to think that it is the Court's business to pronounce the citizens' militia extinct; and to pronounce the founding-era conception of "self-defense" extinct;12 and to pronounce extinct as well the danger, so palpable to the founders, that a standing army could be perverted into a tool of oppression.

If only a Court could guarantee freedom from such a danger! But, alas, surely no pronouncement, legal or otherwise, can protect the people from the ambitions of would-be tyrants. Does Scalia pretend to assure us that 21st century citizens face no threat of oppression or suppression of our liberties and no danger of the usurpation of government? Our founders warned us to be eternally vigilant. Scalia, apparently, has a dissenting opinion. But, fortunately for us, our heritage, as it was bequeathed to us by our forebears, was not a heritage of empty promises. Our legacy was a legacy of practical measures designed (and tested) to ensure that the people would ever have the tools to thwart would-be oppressors. Unfortunately for us, however, even many of liberty's supposed champions betray our legacy, and work to subvert it.

In the end, then, perhaps whether one considers Scalia to be a defender of the Second Amendment or not depends upon the probability that one assigns to the eventuality of the usurpation of the domestic government. If one thinks that such a possibility is too remote to be credible, then Scalia will be received as a champion of liberty. If, on the other hand, one shares with the founding fathers a skepticism of the trustworthiness of persons in positions of power and a general distrust of governments, then Justice Scalia might rather seem to be an ensign of usurpation.

For our part, we side with the founders. And, hence, from a Jeffersonian perspective, we feel that we must pass a most unfortunate verdict: This recent Court ruling does more to weaken our liberties than to protect them.

ENDNOTES:

1 More exactly: "The ruling ‘will go down as one of the Supreme Court's most important rulings on behalf of liberty,' says Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr," qtd. at: http://www.bobbarr2008.com/press/press-releases/36/bob-barr-calls-heller-decision-on-gun-rights-%e2%80%9cone-of-court%e2%80%99s-most-important-rulings-on-behalf-of-liberty%e2%80%9d/.

2 Apparently, some so-called gun control advocates are claiming victory as well: "Leading gun-control advocates, such as the Brady Center, are already spinning Heller as a victory: They claim the gun-rights lobby's strength is based on stoking the public's slippery-slope fears that any gun regulation is a forerunner to a total ban. With that ban now impossible, gun-control advocates believe they'll have more ability to restrict sales, possession and carrying in ways short of prohibition", Brian Doherty, "The gun-rights fight isn't over: Self-defense is upheld, but control advocates aren't done by a long shot," LA Times, June 27, 2008, http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-doherty27-2008jun27,0,2867559.story.

3 "In a dissent, parts of which he read from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens said the court left for future cases the formidable task of defining the scope of permissible gun regulations," James Vicini , "Americans have right to guns under landmark ruling," Reuters, Additional reporting by Jeremy Pelofsky; Deborah Charles and David Wiessler, Eds., http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080626/us_nm/usa_guns_court_dc.

4 Hereinafter, where only page numbers are given, the citation should be assumed to be D.C. v. Heller.

5 In the main, we obtained the text of our Jefferson quotations from the following website: http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeffcont.htm.

6 By "concern" we do not imply that those outside the interest group are unaffected by decisions pertaining to the interest group. We only assert that the rights in question will only find expression in (or, perhaps, through) the interest group insofar as the interest group alone will exercise the rights in question.

7 US Constitution, Article I, §8; cf.: p. 27; cf.: "For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us at every meeting [of Congress] to revise the condition of the militia and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion..." --Thomas Jefferson: 8th Annual Message, 1808.

8 US Constitution, Article I, §8; cf. p. 27.

9 Pp. 27-28.

10 To illustrate: those who are obsessed with foreign threats (e.g., the threat that neoconservatives style "Islamo-Fascism) might judge the threat of foreign invasion - albeit in a non-conventional sense - to be higher than the threat of government usurpation (since, for instance, neoconservatives arguably dominate several of the Federal branches.

11 "There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789; "I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... protection against standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787; "Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion]." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801; "Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North's Proposition, 1775; "The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." --Thomas Jefferson to Chandler Price, 1807; "A distinction between the civil and military [is one] which it would be for the good of the whole to obliterate as soon as possible." --Thomas Jefferson: Answers to de Meusnier Questions, 1786; "It is nonsense to talk of regulars. They are not to be had among a people so easy and happy at home as ours. We might as well rely on calling down an army of angels from heaven." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1814; "There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776; "The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814; "Bonaparte... transferred the destinies of the republic from the civil to the military arm. Some will use this as a lesson against the practicability of republican government. I read it as a lesson against the danger of standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Adams, 1800.

12 Hamilton, again: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government... The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms…". Hence, Hamilton seems to consider taking up arms against treasonous representatives part of "self-defense" - indeed, the very "original right of self-defense".