Friday, June 27, 2008

What are you REALLY voting for?

Yesterday, the supreme court announced that the constitution actually means what it says, and that it's OK if we want to exercise our pre-existing and fundamental rights... at least most of the time, presuming we follow the allowed restrictions...

Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy about Heller, and I think it's a better ruling than many would have you believe (not that it won't require literally decades of litigation to resolve those issues)...

...My problem here is that there had to be a supreme court decision on this; not to determine how much the government could restrict a fundamental right, but whether that right even existed at all.

The even bigger problem I have with this, is that about 30% of the population have convinced themselves that it doesn't; and that among that 30% are a strong minority of our national legislature (there are some pro gun democrats, and some anti-gun republicans), and a not insignificant minority of our state legislatures (about 15% of the state legislatures outright, and presumably anywhere from 15 to 30% of the legislators in the rest of the states).

Even a member of the supreme court, construed the very concept of the limitation of government so obscenely, that he was openly mocked by another; to wit:
"The majority would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons." -- Associate Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
YES, that is EXACTLY what the framers did; that is in fact the entire purpose of the second amendment, and the bill of rights as a whole;. and anyone who in any way does not understand that has no business being a citizen of this country, never mind being a supreme court justice.

Stevens is either a liar, a fool, or disingenuously dissembling to make a fundamental right into nothing more than a hindrance to government.. which is by far the worst interpretation of his actions, and unfortunately I think the correct one. It makes him both craven, and a clear enemy of the core principles of liberty and limited government.

... but 30% of the population agrees with him.

... and that frightens me.

Now, that wouldn't really be an issue, except for one thing: That 30% controls one of the major political parties in this country.

Which also wouldn't be TOO much of a problem, except for one other thing: That 30 percent also controls 4 members of the 9 member supreme court.

Yesterdays decision on Heller was 5-4 in favor of the idea that the government cannot abrogate our fundamental rights by force of law; except in certain strictly limited ways.


There were four justices of the supreme court who voted against the very foundation of our limited government.... In fact against the very IDEA of any real limitation on government, as I see it.

And it's not just about guns (though Silveira and Fincher are certainly illustrative), it's also about Angel Raich, and Susette Kelo, and all the other decisions favoring government over the rights of the people.

Those four justices have been reliable votes against freedom, liberty, and limitation of government (they were frequently joined by Anthony Kennedy, and now retired Sandra Day O'Connor. I also don't discount the fact that on occasion even the so called "conservative justices have also voted against liberty)


So, at this point, there comes a decision.

In 2008, this country will choose our next president. We have two choices (yes, only two. Don't try and pretend otherwise).

In addition to the veto pen, and the office of commander in chief; the next president is likely to select at least one, and possibly as many as three justices for the supreme court. If they get two terms, an even money shot historically; they may be selecting as many as five justices.

Barack Obama is one of the 30%, and unabashedly so.

John McCain is one of those people who have deluded themselves into thinking there is a balance to be struck between the rights of individuals, and government. He's wrong, in some ways disastrously so (BCRA for example); but he isn't actively promoting the position that individual rights are superseded by "governments rights" (which don't exist).

Obviously, neither are good; but one is clearly worse.

More importantly though, is the realization that indeed we ARE in a two party game; and what that game really is.

One party is controlled by those utterly hostile to the notion of individual rights; the other is controlled by people who believe in individual rights but disregard them when it suits them.

One party is the 30%, the other isn't.

For those of you who say "I don't vote for the party I vote for the man", or "Continuing to vote for the lesser of two evils is rewarding their bad behavior. We should teach them a lesson"...

Let me be blunt: Grow the hell up, wake the hell up, and get your head back into the real world where it belongs.

Let's face it folks, we ARE in a two party system. No matter what the Libertarian party wants to believe about its own relevance (and nominating Bob Barr showed they really don't care so long as they can get enough press to get 4% in the general and qualify for automatic ballot inclusion and matching funding) a vote for anyone other than John McCain, is a vote for Barack Obama.

I'm even tempted to say not voting is the same as voting for Obama.

Welcome back to the real world folks; where there hasn't been someone you could actually vote FOR (as opposed to voting against), since around 1817. All you can do now, is vote against the worse guy (or rather, the worse party).

Of course that's "OK" because you don't actually vote for the president, you're voting for the party; and as much as we are not a parliamentary system and that should NOT be the case, it is.
The president himself has very little to do with how the country is run, except in crises. The party, who fill in all the blanks for appointees and bureaucrats, really chooses who runs things and how.

So, you can vote for the 30%, or you can vote for the other guy, but as the game is right now, there is no third choice.

I'll take the other guy thank you.

I'm not saying I like it, or that you have to like it. I'm saying that's how it is whether you like it or not, and deluding yourself into thinking otherwise is ridiculous and harmful.

So either play the game by the rules, don't play the game, or change the rules.