Trump Says Second Amendment ‘Will Never Be Repealed’
March 29, 2018 by admin
Filed under Latest Lingerie News
Comments Off
Mr. Stevens retired from the Supreme Court in 2010. He wrote a major dissent about the Second Amendment in one of the court’s hardest-fought decisions. Mr. Stevens argued that the amendment does not protect an individual’s right to own firearms.
“That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power,” Mr. Stevens wrote on Tuesday, referring to the National Rifle Association, the powerful gun lobbying group. “Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.”
Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, indicated the administration was not considering a repeal of the Second Amendment.
Newsletter Sign Up
Continue reading the main story
Thank you for subscribing.
An error has occurred. Please try again later.
You are already subscribed to this email.
“The president and the administration still fully support the Second Amendment,” Ms. Sanders said on Tuesday in response to a question about Mr. Stevens’s Op-Ed. “We think that the focus has to remain on removing weapons from dangerous individuals, not on blocking all Americans from their constitutional rights.”
In his tweet, Mr. Trump also said that Democrats support repealing the Second Amendment, but that has not been the case in Congress, which is only considering modest policy changes on guns. In the 1990s, a Democratic congressman from New York introduced legislation for a repeal, but it did not get any traction. Mr. Trump’s opponent in the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton, did not campaign to repeal the Second Amendment.
“We can uphold Second Amendment rights while preventing senseless gun violence,” Mrs. Clinton tweeted in May 2016.
Mr. Trump had the support of the N.R.A. early in his campaign for president and has said he is “the biggest fan of the Second Amendment.” After the deadly mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., last month, Mr. Trump proposed stricter controls on access to guns, particularly raising the age to purchase an assault weapon to 21 from 18. After a meeting with the N.R.A., Mr. Trump no longer advocated for an age increase.
Instead, the White House — with the support of the N.R.A. — says appropriately trained teachers should be armed to respond to future mass shootings.
“Gun free zones are proven targets of killers,” Mr. Trump tweeted on March 1.
Many ideas, some good some not so good, emerged from our bipartisan meeting on school safety yesterday at the White House. Background Checks a big part of conversation. Gun free zones are proven targets of killers. After many years, a Bill should emerge. Respect 2nd Amendment!
—
Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)
March 1, 2018
Arming teachers has been widely criticized, recently by people who gathered for marches for more gun control.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
At a March for Our Lives demonstration in Anchorage, Alaska, on Saturday, Melanie Anderson, a 44-year-old middle school teacher, held up a sign that said “teacher, not sharp shooter.”
Continue reading the main story
Share and Enjoy
Extreme Partisan Gerrymandering: The Supreme Court’s Play In 3 Acts
March 29, 2018 by admin
Filed under Latest Lingerie News
Comments Off
Loading…
The curtain rises Wednesday on Act II of Extreme Partisan Gerrymandering, a play in three acts currently playing at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Act I opened the first week in October when the nine justices heard arguments in a case testing whether there is any constitutional limit to partisan gerrymandering — the practice of drawing legislative district lines to maximize and perpetuate the power of the incumbent party. At issue in the case is the Republican gerrymander of the Wisconsin Legislature — a design that delivered nearly two-thirds of the districts to the GOP even as Republicans lost the statewide vote.
Act II opens Wednesday, as the court hears arguments in a second gerrymandering case. This one is from Maryland, and the justices decided to review it more than two months after the arguments in the Wisconsin case were completed. Just why the court added the second case, and so much later, is unclear. Speculation has centered on two theories — one legal and one political.
The political explanation was spurred by a comment from Chief Justice John Roberts during the Wisconsin arguments. “If you’re the intelligent man on the street and the court issues a decision” and the Democrats win, he speculated, “the intelligent man on the street is going to say, ‘It must be because the Supreme Court preferred the Democrats over the Republicans.’ … And that is going to cause very serious harm to the status and integrity of the decisions of this Court in the eyes of the country.”
Now, as it happens, while the Wisconsin case involves a redistricting that strongly favors the Republicans (although only at the state legislative district level), the Maryland redistricting under scrutiny Wednesday favors the Democrats. The Democratic leadership in the state drew the congressional district lines to make it more difficult for the GOP to prevail in one of the two traditionally Republican congressional districts in the state. The result is that today just one of Maryland’s eight members of Congress is a Republican.
The bottom line is it could be that optics are part of the reason the court added a second partisan gerrymandering case to its docket, so that in one case, the Republicans could prevail, and in the other, the Democrats could.
Equal protection or free speech?
There are other differences between the two cases. The Maryland challengers object to only one district’s design, while the Wisconsin challengers object to the whole state’s redistricting. That said, drawing new lines for one district, would, of necessity, have ripple effects, changing the lines in others.
Another difference is the major legal argument. The Wisconsin challengers argue that extreme gerrymandering deprived Democratic Party voters of the equal protection of the law guaranteed by the Constitution, while the Maryland challengers contend that the gerrymander there deprives Republicans of their First Amendment rights by making their speech, their votes, less valuable. But each of these arguments feeds into the other. And statistical analyses suggest that each argument, if adopted, would produce pretty much the same results.
The First Amendment argument, however, appeals, in particular, to the justice whose vote is likely to decide the case, Justice Anthony Kennedy. In 2004, he provided the fifth vote for the court staying out of partisan gerrymandering cases, but he made it clear that he remained open to finding a way to measure what is unconstitutional gerrymandering based on party and he specifically mentioned the First Amendment notion that government action cannot punish people based on partisan affiliation.
Election expert Rick Hasen, of the University of California, Irvine, said that Kennedy, 81, knows he will not be on the court forever.
“It’s put-up-or-shut-up time,” Hasen said. “Either he’s going to say, ‘We’ve got to start policing this’ or he has to recognize that what is going to happen in the next round in 2020 is going to look a lot worse than in this round, that it’s going to be no-holds-barred, squeeze out whatever you can, in favor of your party and against the other party.”
Act III of this drama? Well, that is likely to come in June when the Supreme Court finishes writing it.