Here's a list I've just made up from the NSW Government Website. I'm comparing the percentage of people voting Conservative to those who vote for Progressive parties in the NSW Senate:
THE FISHING PARTY 1.39%
AUSTRALIANS AGAINST FURTHER IMMIGRATION 1.41%
LIBERAL / NATIONALS 30.73%
CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC PARTY (FRED NILE GROUP) 4.00%
THE SHOOTERS PARTY 2.54%
HORSE RIDERS PARTY / OUTDOOR RECREATION PARTY 0.59%
Total of Conservative Political parties: 40.66%
AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRATS 1.54%
THE GREENS 8.15%
UNITY PARTY 1.15%
RESTORE THE WORKERS' RIGHTS PARTY 0.85%
LABOR 36.24%
SOCIALIST ALLIANCE 0.38%
HUMAN RIGHTS PARTY 0.36%
Total of Progressive Political parties: 48.67%
Some caveats:
1) There are some parties/individuals I didn't include because I didn't know where they stood politically (eg "Save Our Suburbs" and Dawn Fraser).
2) I have included the Australian Democrats as a "Progressive" party even though they are fairly centrist.
3) This doesn't mean I like the ALP. I put them 2nd last on my ballot paper.
2007-03-29
Jodi fights back
The seat of Newcastle has swung back into Jodi McKay's (ALP) favour. She's 800 votes ahead with 78.7% counted. This is an interesting battle in my own state seat.
2007-03-28
Was the invasion of Iraq unconstitutional? No. 2
I wrote the other day a piece that essentially argues that the invasion, defeat, occupation and control of Iraq by America in 2003 was essentially a war. And if it was a war, then surely Congress needed to make a formal declaration. This is according to the Constitution, which states:
The Congress shall have power:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
I argued that the power to declare war is in the hands of congress, while the waging of war is directly up to the president (who is commander-in-chief of the armed forces). I also argued that the reason this is so was probably because the framers of the US constitution did not want a king who would declare war on a whim, but rather have war declared in a sober and realistic manner.
It seems as though the Federalist Paper Mo. 69 supports my view. In this paper, written in 1788 by Alexander Hamilton, compares the US President with European Monarchs thus:
The President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people for FOUR years; the king of Great Britain is a perpetual and HEREDITARY prince. The one would be amenable to personal punishment and disgrace; the person of the other is sacred and inviolable. The one would have a QUALIFIED negative upon the acts of the legislative body; the other has an ABSOLUTE negative. The one would have a right to command the military and naval forces of the nation; the other, in addition to this right, possesses that of DECLARING war, and of RAISING and REGULATING fleets and armies by his own authority. The one would have a concurrent power with a branch of the legislature in the formation of treaties; the other is the SOLE POSSESSOR of the power of making treaties. The one would have a like concurrent authority in appointing to offices; the other is the sole author of all appointments.
So, according to Alexander Hamilton, the executive cannot declare war. The president does not have the authority to either declare war or wage war without congressional approval. George W. Bush did have congressional approval to use force in 2003, but not to wage war and completely defeat Iraq, nor remove Saddam Hussein from office, nor dissolve the Iraqi government, nor to order his troops to occupy and control the nation.
Therefore - Bush has failed to comply with the constitution, a document he swore to uphold, and has committed a high crime. He should be impeached.
From the One Salient Overlord Department
© 2007 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
FAQ about the author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
The Congress shall have power:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
I argued that the power to declare war is in the hands of congress, while the waging of war is directly up to the president (who is commander-in-chief of the armed forces). I also argued that the reason this is so was probably because the framers of the US constitution did not want a king who would declare war on a whim, but rather have war declared in a sober and realistic manner.
It seems as though the Federalist Paper Mo. 69 supports my view. In this paper, written in 1788 by Alexander Hamilton, compares the US President with European Monarchs thus:
The President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people for FOUR years; the king of Great Britain is a perpetual and HEREDITARY prince. The one would be amenable to personal punishment and disgrace; the person of the other is sacred and inviolable. The one would have a QUALIFIED negative upon the acts of the legislative body; the other has an ABSOLUTE negative. The one would have a right to command the military and naval forces of the nation; the other, in addition to this right, possesses that of DECLARING war, and of RAISING and REGULATING fleets and armies by his own authority. The one would have a concurrent power with a branch of the legislature in the formation of treaties; the other is the SOLE POSSESSOR of the power of making treaties. The one would have a like concurrent authority in appointing to offices; the other is the sole author of all appointments.
So, according to Alexander Hamilton, the executive cannot declare war. The president does not have the authority to either declare war or wage war without congressional approval. George W. Bush did have congressional approval to use force in 2003, but not to wage war and completely defeat Iraq, nor remove Saddam Hussein from office, nor dissolve the Iraqi government, nor to order his troops to occupy and control the nation.
Therefore - Bush has failed to comply with the constitution, a document he swore to uphold, and has committed a high crime. He should be impeached.
From the One Salient Overlord Department
© 2007 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
FAQ about the author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Evangelical liar?
Monica Goodling is an Evangelical Christian (apparently).
She is high up in the United States Department of Justice and is heavily involved in "Attorneygate".
She has been subpoenaed to testify about her involvement in the scandal, but has decided to "take the fifth" to prevent her from incriminating herself.
So an Evangelical is now resorting to covering up the truth?
She is high up in the United States Department of Justice and is heavily involved in "Attorneygate".
She has been subpoenaed to testify about her involvement in the scandal, but has decided to "take the fifth" to prevent her from incriminating herself.
So an Evangelical is now resorting to covering up the truth?
2007-03-26
Moron the Election
Regarding the seat of Newcastle, it seems I spoke too soon. Jodi McKay is now running second... not to Bryce Gaudry but to John Tate! The ABC is now predicting that Tate will win, with a 22% swing against the ALP in one of its traditional heartlands. It now seems that the Hunter Valley generally is moving towards more independent politics.
And how about a break up a conservative vs progressive primary voting trends?
Conservative parties - 39.2% of the vote
Progressive parties - 48.2% of the vote
Conservative = Liberal Party + National Party + Christian Democrats
Progressive = Labor Party + Greens
(Although I still have a very hard time believing that the Labor Party can be defined as "progressive")
And how about a break up a conservative vs progressive primary voting trends?
Conservative parties - 39.2% of the vote
Progressive parties - 48.2% of the vote
Conservative = Liberal Party + National Party + Christian Democrats
Progressive = Labor Party + Greens
(Although I still have a very hard time believing that the Labor Party can be defined as "progressive")
2007-03-25
The Threat of the Right
It's been my opinion for some time now that the "Wingnuts" - the group of Right Wing bloggers, politicians and grassroots conservatives - are frightened. They are so motivated by fear that they are willing to jump to all sorts of ridiculous conclusions about what threatens them.
I've just read a report in The New York Times about the efforts of the New York Police Department (NYPD) to spy upon potential protesters who were planning on disrupting the 2004 Republican National Convention meeting in New York. The lengths to which the police went to to investigate any threats was commendable... but ultimately a complete waste of time and money.
Of course, the NYPD managed to neutralise and prevent certain unlawful actions from taking place... but the entire process smacks of overkill. It was not the threat of terrorism that motivated this investigation, it was the threat to President Bush and the Republican party by left-wing protesters.
Violent left-wing opposition died back in the 1970s when The Weather Underground and the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA) gave up their activities. Since then no left wing group in America has resorted to violence, and many former members of these groups have since regretted their actions.
The reason is, essentially, that the Left Wing in most Western countries is essentially pacifist. Although the Weather Underground and SLA used violence, the death and injury toll wreaked by The Red Army Faction in Europe and The Japanese Red Army were far more damaging to leftist credibility. The only leftist guerilla organisation left in the Western World still using violence is ETA, whose actions in Spain are mainly nationalist rather than Marxist in intent.
In many ways, the "peace movement" of the 1960s, which was taken up quickly by the left, represented the mainstream of leftist thought at the time, rather than the isolated instances of leftist terrorist organisations. The continuing pacifism of the American left is one of its most obvious features. No leftist in America is spouting Marx and demanding revolution. No leftist is publically calling upon people to use violence against their oppressor, or against the Right wing.
Yet many on the right still think that the left is synonynmous with revolutionary communism and international terrorism. For many on the right, the left is a convenient representation of "the enemy". Thus the left, and the Democrats along with them, are oftentimes described as being worse than the terrorists and truly seek to destroy America.
This is not just a couple of right wing weirdoes who say this - it is the mainstream. Orson Scott Card, a right-wing science fiction author, has recently released a book called Empire which is a work of speculative fiction about what may happen in the future. What does Card think will happen? He writes about a radical leftist army taking control of America after a civil war, which is then overthrown by the forces of good - ie conservatives. Of course, Card is not exactly being creative at this point... his work is reminiscent of The Turner Diaries, a racist work of fiction dating back to 1978, about the future of America after a UN-sponsored left-wing coup and the survivalist right-wingers who take part in milita action against them.
Yet, when it comes down to it, who is more likely to take direct military action against citizens of the United States? Is it the Left or the Right?
Timothy McVeigh, a former soldier and right winger, took his hatred of the US government and the left to the only reasonable extreme - he blew up a bomb in Oklahoma city and killed 168 people. McVeigh was a fan of The Turner Diaries.
After the horrific 9/11 attacks, one could only imagine what some right-wing militia survivalists would be thinking. Since they had all read the Turner Diaries, they would probably have identified this as the moment of action, when the UN (or whoever) was acting to strike against the United States, overthrow its government and enslave its people. So what did they do? They attacked first... with Anthrax.
The 2001 Anthrax attacks are interesting because they reveal what lengths domestic terrorists are willing to go to in order to further their ends. This was no attack by the SLA or Weathermen - they were amateurs compared to those who were responsible for the anthrax attack. For starters, in order to gain the Anthrax, these Domestic terrorists would have had some way of getting it from American biological warfare stocks. Obviously someone with high security clearance was able to run off with a sample of anthrax and give it to his friends who were planning to strike first.
But it was who these domestic terrorists aimed at that was improtant. Anthrax was sent to ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, The New York Post, The National Enquirer, and two US Senators - Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle, both leading Democrats. In short, the Anthrax was aimed at the Mainstream Media (MSM) and the Democratic Party - both targets of Right wing hatred and derision.
Many in the right wing are fearful of some mythical left wing coup, sponsored by the UN and involving dark conspiratorial forces. But the fact is that the Left, by being pacifist, will do no such thing. On the other hand, history has shown us that, at least in the last 15-20 years, that Right wingers are far more likely to engage in domestic terrorism.
Now think back to the NYPD's role in left-wing surveillance. What do we learn from their experience in this area?
It was obvious that many left wing groups were willing to break the law and engage in public mischief during the 2004 Republican National Convention, but the report by the NYPD does not have one shred of evidence of an organised left-wing conspiracy behind it all. They were merely disparate groups, some willing to advocate public mischief like throwing "faux feces", but none willing, or even able, to involve themselves in anything worse than that.
On the other hand, Right Wing groups are more likely to be gun owners and have members who belong to survivalist militias. These are people who have taken onboard the racist rantings of The Turner Diaries and believe with all their hearts in wild conspiracies about the UN invading America and destroying all that America holds dear. These are people who will write off even the most basic and easily provable facts reported in the news because the "MSM" is trying to destroy America, while all the time believing Fox news and their propaganda. These are people who will put up pictures of Hillary Clinton to aim at on firing ranges. These are people who think with their trigger fingers, whose fear of armed confrontation inevitably results in armed confrontation by these same people.
I'll leave you with some lyrics from a recent Nine Inch Nails song:
I got my propaganda
I got revisionism
I got my violence
In hi-def ultra-realism
All a part of this great nation
I got my fist
I got my plan
I got survivalism
From the One Salient Overlord Department
© 2007 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
FAQ about the author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
I've just read a report in The New York Times about the efforts of the New York Police Department (NYPD) to spy upon potential protesters who were planning on disrupting the 2004 Republican National Convention meeting in New York. The lengths to which the police went to to investigate any threats was commendable... but ultimately a complete waste of time and money.
Of course, the NYPD managed to neutralise and prevent certain unlawful actions from taking place... but the entire process smacks of overkill. It was not the threat of terrorism that motivated this investigation, it was the threat to President Bush and the Republican party by left-wing protesters.
Violent left-wing opposition died back in the 1970s when The Weather Underground and the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA) gave up their activities. Since then no left wing group in America has resorted to violence, and many former members of these groups have since regretted their actions.
The reason is, essentially, that the Left Wing in most Western countries is essentially pacifist. Although the Weather Underground and SLA used violence, the death and injury toll wreaked by The Red Army Faction in Europe and The Japanese Red Army were far more damaging to leftist credibility. The only leftist guerilla organisation left in the Western World still using violence is ETA, whose actions in Spain are mainly nationalist rather than Marxist in intent.
In many ways, the "peace movement" of the 1960s, which was taken up quickly by the left, represented the mainstream of leftist thought at the time, rather than the isolated instances of leftist terrorist organisations. The continuing pacifism of the American left is one of its most obvious features. No leftist in America is spouting Marx and demanding revolution. No leftist is publically calling upon people to use violence against their oppressor, or against the Right wing.
Yet many on the right still think that the left is synonynmous with revolutionary communism and international terrorism. For many on the right, the left is a convenient representation of "the enemy". Thus the left, and the Democrats along with them, are oftentimes described as being worse than the terrorists and truly seek to destroy America.
This is not just a couple of right wing weirdoes who say this - it is the mainstream. Orson Scott Card, a right-wing science fiction author, has recently released a book called Empire which is a work of speculative fiction about what may happen in the future. What does Card think will happen? He writes about a radical leftist army taking control of America after a civil war, which is then overthrown by the forces of good - ie conservatives. Of course, Card is not exactly being creative at this point... his work is reminiscent of The Turner Diaries, a racist work of fiction dating back to 1978, about the future of America after a UN-sponsored left-wing coup and the survivalist right-wingers who take part in milita action against them.
Yet, when it comes down to it, who is more likely to take direct military action against citizens of the United States? Is it the Left or the Right?
Timothy McVeigh, a former soldier and right winger, took his hatred of the US government and the left to the only reasonable extreme - he blew up a bomb in Oklahoma city and killed 168 people. McVeigh was a fan of The Turner Diaries.
After the horrific 9/11 attacks, one could only imagine what some right-wing militia survivalists would be thinking. Since they had all read the Turner Diaries, they would probably have identified this as the moment of action, when the UN (or whoever) was acting to strike against the United States, overthrow its government and enslave its people. So what did they do? They attacked first... with Anthrax.
The 2001 Anthrax attacks are interesting because they reveal what lengths domestic terrorists are willing to go to in order to further their ends. This was no attack by the SLA or Weathermen - they were amateurs compared to those who were responsible for the anthrax attack. For starters, in order to gain the Anthrax, these Domestic terrorists would have had some way of getting it from American biological warfare stocks. Obviously someone with high security clearance was able to run off with a sample of anthrax and give it to his friends who were planning to strike first.
But it was who these domestic terrorists aimed at that was improtant. Anthrax was sent to ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, The New York Post, The National Enquirer, and two US Senators - Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle, both leading Democrats. In short, the Anthrax was aimed at the Mainstream Media (MSM) and the Democratic Party - both targets of Right wing hatred and derision.
Many in the right wing are fearful of some mythical left wing coup, sponsored by the UN and involving dark conspiratorial forces. But the fact is that the Left, by being pacifist, will do no such thing. On the other hand, history has shown us that, at least in the last 15-20 years, that Right wingers are far more likely to engage in domestic terrorism.
Now think back to the NYPD's role in left-wing surveillance. What do we learn from their experience in this area?
It was obvious that many left wing groups were willing to break the law and engage in public mischief during the 2004 Republican National Convention, but the report by the NYPD does not have one shred of evidence of an organised left-wing conspiracy behind it all. They were merely disparate groups, some willing to advocate public mischief like throwing "faux feces", but none willing, or even able, to involve themselves in anything worse than that.
On the other hand, Right Wing groups are more likely to be gun owners and have members who belong to survivalist militias. These are people who have taken onboard the racist rantings of The Turner Diaries and believe with all their hearts in wild conspiracies about the UN invading America and destroying all that America holds dear. These are people who will write off even the most basic and easily provable facts reported in the news because the "MSM" is trying to destroy America, while all the time believing Fox news and their propaganda. These are people who will put up pictures of Hillary Clinton to aim at on firing ranges. These are people who think with their trigger fingers, whose fear of armed confrontation inevitably results in armed confrontation by these same people.
I'll leave you with some lyrics from a recent Nine Inch Nails song:
I got my propaganda
I got revisionism
I got my violence
In hi-def ultra-realism
All a part of this great nation
I got my fist
I got my plan
I got survivalism
From the One Salient Overlord Department
© 2007 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
FAQ about the author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
The NSW State Election
These are my thoughts about the State Election (all stats are from election evening and will obviously change once the final results are known)
The Biggest Winner: The NSW Labor Party
You have to hand it to the NSW ALP. They managed to win an election and continue ruling for a fourth term. By the time the next election comes around, the Labor Party will have been in power for 16 years. And they have managed to do this despite all the corruption, child abusing and girlfriend abusing politicians and straight out stupid decisions. A party that can win despite these problems will be a happy party indeed.
The Winningest Loser: Peter Debnam
Peter Debnam has no reason to stand down as opposition leader. He has overseen a +2.1% swing towards the Liberal Party (as of this evening) and has fought hard against the ALP political machine. If I were him, I would be proud of his effort, despite losing.
The Losingest Winner: Jodi McKay
Jodi McKay has won the seat of Newcastle for the ALP in a titanic three-way tussle between her, ousted sitting member Bryce Gaudrey and Newcastle Mayor John Tate. Yet she has managed to do this while securing just 31.2% of the primary vote. That means that over two-thirds of Novacastrians, a Labor "heartland", decided not to vote for the primary ALP candidate. All over the Hunter there has been a 10-12% swing against the ALP in ALP seats.
The Spanner in the Works: The Greens
As I predicted, the Greens have managed to secure over 8% of the primary vote. They have only increased their margin by 0.5% over the last four years (which should worry them), but if you look at seats around the state, the Greens have sometimes polled higher than the ALP in Liberal seats, and polled higher than the Liberal Party in ALP seats. The Greens polled very well in Marrickville (32.5%) and Balmain (29.5%) to run second to the ALP. It is obvious that the Greens are causing real problems, particularly in ALP and Liberal seats. They need work in Tamworth though, where the Greens candidate polled just 1% of the vote - the lowest Green result in the state.
The Most Worried Party: The NSW Labor Party
Labor won this election with 39.5% of the Primary vote. They won in 2003 with 43.6% of the Primary vote, in 1999 with 42.2% of the Primary vote and 1995 with 41.3% of the Primary vote. There's no doubt that, despite their victory, Labor party leaders should be shocked that they have lost 4.1% of the NSW voting public. (BTW - In 1988, the ALP took 38.5% of the primary vote, 1% less than they did today... and lost badly!)
The Shrinking Minority: The NSW Liberal Party
Although Peter Debnam should be happy, the Liberal Party's share of the primary vote is a pathetic 26.8%. In other words, three out of every four people in NSW did not vote for the Liberal Party. The Liberal party's problem began when the lost the election in 1995 and gained 32.8% of the Primary vote. In 1999 only 24.8% voted Liberal, and in 2003 it was 25.2%. While the Liberal party has been clawing back its votes, it really dropped down the cliff in 1999. Back in the 1980s, Liberal party votes were consistently around 32-35% of the Primary vote. Since we have a Liberal Prime Minister, and have decades of history of the Liberal Party being a major force in Australian Politics, I really think that this election sounds a major warning to the Liberal party - much more so than the ALP. You can't expect to run the country over the long term when your primary vote drops from one-third to one quarter over a 12 year period.
From the One Salient Overlord Department
© 2007 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
FAQ about the author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
The Biggest Winner: The NSW Labor Party
You have to hand it to the NSW ALP. They managed to win an election and continue ruling for a fourth term. By the time the next election comes around, the Labor Party will have been in power for 16 years. And they have managed to do this despite all the corruption, child abusing and girlfriend abusing politicians and straight out stupid decisions. A party that can win despite these problems will be a happy party indeed.
The Winningest Loser: Peter Debnam
Peter Debnam has no reason to stand down as opposition leader. He has overseen a +2.1% swing towards the Liberal Party (as of this evening) and has fought hard against the ALP political machine. If I were him, I would be proud of his effort, despite losing.
The Losingest Winner: Jodi McKay
Jodi McKay has won the seat of Newcastle for the ALP in a titanic three-way tussle between her, ousted sitting member Bryce Gaudrey and Newcastle Mayor John Tate. Yet she has managed to do this while securing just 31.2% of the primary vote. That means that over two-thirds of Novacastrians, a Labor "heartland", decided not to vote for the primary ALP candidate. All over the Hunter there has been a 10-12% swing against the ALP in ALP seats.
The Spanner in the Works: The Greens
As I predicted, the Greens have managed to secure over 8% of the primary vote. They have only increased their margin by 0.5% over the last four years (which should worry them), but if you look at seats around the state, the Greens have sometimes polled higher than the ALP in Liberal seats, and polled higher than the Liberal Party in ALP seats. The Greens polled very well in Marrickville (32.5%) and Balmain (29.5%) to run second to the ALP. It is obvious that the Greens are causing real problems, particularly in ALP and Liberal seats. They need work in Tamworth though, where the Greens candidate polled just 1% of the vote - the lowest Green result in the state.
The Most Worried Party: The NSW Labor Party
Labor won this election with 39.5% of the Primary vote. They won in 2003 with 43.6% of the Primary vote, in 1999 with 42.2% of the Primary vote and 1995 with 41.3% of the Primary vote. There's no doubt that, despite their victory, Labor party leaders should be shocked that they have lost 4.1% of the NSW voting public. (BTW - In 1988, the ALP took 38.5% of the primary vote, 1% less than they did today... and lost badly!)
The Shrinking Minority: The NSW Liberal Party
Although Peter Debnam should be happy, the Liberal Party's share of the primary vote is a pathetic 26.8%. In other words, three out of every four people in NSW did not vote for the Liberal Party. The Liberal party's problem began when the lost the election in 1995 and gained 32.8% of the Primary vote. In 1999 only 24.8% voted Liberal, and in 2003 it was 25.2%. While the Liberal party has been clawing back its votes, it really dropped down the cliff in 1999. Back in the 1980s, Liberal party votes were consistently around 32-35% of the Primary vote. Since we have a Liberal Prime Minister, and have decades of history of the Liberal Party being a major force in Australian Politics, I really think that this election sounds a major warning to the Liberal party - much more so than the ALP. You can't expect to run the country over the long term when your primary vote drops from one-third to one quarter over a 12 year period.
From the One Salient Overlord Department
© 2007 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
FAQ about the author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
2007-03-24
Modern Refomers?
As CraigS has reminded me, over at Monergism.com there is a bunch of caricatures of modern Evangelical and Reformed leaders.
Of the list of 15, only 2 are not American (Iain Murray and Don Carson - although the latter is Canadian so can probably be described as American!). I've been trying to think of a list of modern Reformed leaders in my head that are not American and not on the list. Here are some of my picks:
Graeme Goldsworthy
The Brothers Jensen.
Maybe John Stott?
Maybe Jim Packer?
And that's all I can come up with. There has to be more. Please select some for me.
Of the list of 15, only 2 are not American (Iain Murray and Don Carson - although the latter is Canadian so can probably be described as American!). I've been trying to think of a list of modern Reformed leaders in my head that are not American and not on the list. Here are some of my picks:
Graeme Goldsworthy
The Brothers Jensen.
Maybe John Stott?
Maybe Jim Packer?
And that's all I can come up with. There has to be more. Please select some for me.
2007-03-23
Grammar and Gun Ownership
An expert in grammar shoots down popular interpretations of Gun ownership and the US Constitution.
The second amendment says:
The argument is whether the original framers meant this to refer to the existence of militias (which are regulated by government), or whether ordinary citizens can be included in it as well.
The idea is - what do the commas mean? And what did they mean in the 18th century?
The second amendment says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The argument is whether the original framers meant this to refer to the existence of militias (which are regulated by government), or whether ordinary citizens can be included in it as well.
The idea is - what do the commas mean? And what did they mean in the 18th century?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)