Category Archives: Second Amendment

In a press conference defending the states new restrictions on concealed carry permit holders, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, told reporters last month: This whole concept that a good guy with a gun will stop the bad guys with a gun, it doesnt hold up. And the data bears this out, so that theory is over.

With all due respect to the governor, she clearly hasnt actually looked at the data.

Almost every major study on the issue has found that Americans use their firearms in self-defense between500,000 and 3 milliontimes annually, according to the latest report on the subject by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Just this year, a more comprehensive study concluded thatroughly 1.6 million defensive gun usesoccur in the United States every year.

For this reason, The Daily Signal each month publishes an article highlighting some of the previous months many news stories on defensive gun use that you may have missedor that might not have made it to the national spotlight in the first place. (Read other accountsherefrom 2019, 2020, 2021, and so far in 2022.)

The examples below represent only a fraction of the news stories on defensive gun use that we found in September. You may explore more by using The Heritage Foundations interactiveDefensive Gun Use Database.(The Daily Signal is Heritages multimedia news organization.)

As these recent cases show, the reality of armed citizens defending life, liberty, and property never has been more relevant, or more supported by the available evidence.

Restricting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans doesnt make them safer. It just hinders their ability to protect themselves and others, making them even more vulnerable to attacks by criminals who know their victims are defenseless.

This piece originally appeared in The Daily Signal

The rest is here:
Yes, Democrats, Sometimes a Good Guy With a Gun Does Stop the Bad Guys. Here's Proof. - Heritage.org

Editor, Daily Press:

Conservatives cannot have it both ways. They like to talk about original intent regarding the Constitution and laws. However, this doctrine only seems to apply when it agrees with their views.

Take, for instance, the reasoning for the recent Supreme Court ruling, which erased 50 years of progress and has returned women to the status of second-class citizens by overturning Roe v. Wade. They then turn around and want unfettered access to all kinds of guns, claiming the Second Amendment gives them that right. All of a sudden, the doctrine of originality is tossed out the window. Just read the wording.

Contrary to Thomas Sanco's allegation that the Secondnd Amendment was adopted to allow armed insurrection against the U.S. government, it was intended to allow people to possess firearms as part of a "well-regulated militia" to facilitate defense against enemies of our new nation. Right-wing radicals conveniently ignore the words "well-regulated militia." Then there is the fact that assault rifles did not exist at the time the Second Amendment was adopted. These gun absolutists are guilty of intellectual dishonesty at the least, and at worst are destroying the pillars of the rule of law and of our representative democracy.

In the Sept. 20 issue of the Tahlequah Daily Press, Thomas Sanco stooped to the old device of setting up a straw man to knock down. He portrayed President Biden as a fear mongering opponent of all guns in opposition to "pro-gun Americans." He falsely claimed to be supporting his argument with facts.

Fact No. 1: The president of the United States is not anti-gun and has stated so on numerous occasions. Fact No. 2: Assault weapons were utilized in nearly every single mass murder incident in this country. Fact No. 3: When assault weapons were banned, there were many fewer mass shootings than before the ban and since the ban was ended. He also cites FBI statistics on weapons used in murders. Yet he fails to mention those statistics are incomplete at best, since his crowd has been successful at disallowing requirements to report gun violence.

The bottom line is, Sanco does not understand or chooses to ignore the original intent of the Second Amendment, which was the law of the land until a recent conservative Supreme Court used twisted logic to give credence to the false assertion that the intent was to allow unfettered and unregulated access to firearms by every American. Our nation cannot survive if the absurd assertion is accepted that Americans have an "inalienable" right to possess guns to attack our own government.

David Nagle

Tahlequah

Go here to see the original:
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Second Amendment has been misinterpreted - Tahlequah Daily Press

Iowa would have some of the most extensive gun rights guarantees in the nation under a constitutional amendment for voters to decide on Nov. 8.

Why it matters: A "yes" vote would mean all gun restrictions under the Iowa amendment would be subject to "strict scrutiny," the highest legal hurdle for legislation to clear if challenged in court.

Catch up fast: Iowa is one of six states that doesn't recognize Second Amendment rights in its state constitution.

What they're saying: The proposal goes much further than the Second Amendment, placing gun access ahead of safety and potentially blocking policies that limit them in places like school settings, Connie Ryan, executive director of Interfaith Alliance of Iowa, tells Axios.

Of note: Amendments like the one proposed in Iowa have only been adopted by three states Alabama, Louisiana, and Missouri and each was approved between eight and 10 years ago according to research published by the Iowa Law Review.

Yes, but: Gun rights advocates have already succeeded via a U.S. Supreme Court decision in June that struck down New York's concealed carry law, Richard Rogers, a board member of the Iowa Firearms Coalition, told Axios.

The intrigue: Both sides tell Axios they believe public opinion is generally on their side.

More:
Iowa residents to vote on adding gun rights amendment to state constitution - Axios

Wyoming voters will decide the fate of two constitutional amendments in Novembers general election. One proposes to change the retirement age for certain judges, while the other would allow municipalities to invest in stocks in the same manner the state does.

Changing the Wyoming Constitution involves a lengthy process originating with the Legislature. Both amendments began as legislation and received the required two-thirds supermajority in both the House and the Senate. That move sent them to the ballot for voter consideration.

Cities, counties and towns currently have the ability to make low-risk, fixed income investments, such as certificates of deposit, federal agency bonds and U.S. Treasurys.

If voters approve Amendment A, those municipalities would have the option to invest in equities, like the stock market, just as the state does.

Rep. Pat Sweeney (R-Casper) brought a bill to the Legislature earlier this year to get the amendment on the ballot. He introduced the legislation following the sale of Wyoming Medical Center, for which Natrona County received more than $100 million. The Board of County Commissioners then agreed to invest those funds rather than spend them.

However, because the countys investment options are limited, the funds are yielding very minimal returns, according to Paul Bertoglio, a Natrona County Commissioner and proponent of the amendment. If properly invested and managed for long-term returns, the funds could provide additional revenue for local governments without any additional taxes, he said. With decreases in coal and oil and gas production, Bertoglio expects the state to be under increasing pressure to cut, including funding for local governments.

At some point, theyre going to have no choice but to start cutting back what they give us, and that is the value of this it gives us an independent revenue stream that offsets some of those cuts, he said.

The Wyoming County Commissioners Association has endorsed the amendment, but with the expectation that the Legislature will create rules requiring long-term investing by municipalities be done by professional portfolio managers instead of local officials.

The Wyoming County Treasurers Association, meanwhile, opposes the amendment.

The volatility of the market means that losses are inevitable, and county treasurers believe any loss of the funds entrusted to us is unacceptable, the association wrote in an open letter to the public.

While investing in equities would indeed provide higher yields, it would also come with unacceptable risk, according to the treasurers.

The investment of public funds is rooted in a system of trust, and we are very aware of your expectations. To that end, the safety of your money should be the priority, over yield and other political considerations, the letter stated.

The amendment mirrors one from 2016 that granted the state the ability to invest in equities.

The second amendment on the ballot faces no apparent, organized opposition.

If approved by voters, Amendment B would change the required retirement age for Wyoming Supreme Court justices and district court judges from 70 to 75.

Mandatory judicial retirement at age 70 has resulted in the loss of many eminently qualified Justices and Judges in Wyoming, according to a fact sheet from the Wyoming Judicial Branch. If the mandatory retirement age were extended, not only could these members of the judiciary continue to meaningfully contribute to the law in Wyoming, longer service would also result in a net savings for the state.

Wyoming is one of 17 states that has a mandatory judicial retirement age of 70, according to the fact sheet.

As a Judiciary Committee bill in the Legislature, the proposal faced little opposition. In the House, it passed third reading 54-5 with one excused. In the Senate, it passed 20-10.

Sen. Tom James (R-Green River) voted against the amendment because he opposes extending appointments for any position which has decisions over the peoples Constitutional rights, he wrote in an email to WyoFile. He added that he believes judges should be elected, not appointed.

Since 2000, some 20 constitutional amendments have appeared on the ballot in Wyoming, according to secretary of state records. Twelve of those were approved, including one in 2012 guaranteeing citizens the right to make their own healthcare decisions, which is now at the center of a lawsuit involving Wyomings abortion trigger law. The other eight amendments were defeated by voters. Early voting in Wyoming is currently underway. The general election is Nov. 8.

View post:
Election 2022: What to know about constitutional amendments - WyoFile

I teach Second Amendment classes and have comments regarding The Baltimore Suns recent ghost gun editorial (In Delaware, a worrisome challenge to ghost gun restrictions, Sept. 28). The editorial omitted critical considerations related to Judge Maryellen Noreikas recent decision blocking enforcement of Delawares law banning possession and distribution of ghost guns.

The Sun may have not cared for the holding, but Judge Noreika is a careful and deliberate jurist. She did what was required of her by the recent United States Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol v. Bruen. She is not entitled to make up the law or follow her personal bias whatever that may be.

Junes New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen case was a sea change decision for the Second Amendment. It held that when the Second Amendments plain text covers an individuals conduct the Constitution protects that conduct. To justify the restriction, Delaware was required to demonstrate to the court that the enacted ban is consistent with the nations historic tradition of firearms regulation. The Delaware attorney general failed to make that showing and the judges hands were tied. She had to, and did, follow New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. In other words, to enforce this law she had to find that Delawares ban was consistent with a historic tradition of regulation as it existed at the time of the founding. The judge cant be faulted for doing her job. Had she not followed this very recent Supreme Court precedent, she would be called an activist judge.

Judge Noreikas decision is not binding on any court sitting in Maryland, but Bruen binds Maryland courts, and Maryland will face this same challenge when it seeks to enforce its ghost gun ban. Perhaps Maryland will take its cue from the Delaware decision and will be prepared to tie historic tradition of regulations that existed at the time of the founding or soon after into its ghost gun restriction. If it is unable to do so, it will fail.

James B. Astrachan, Baltimore

Add your voice: Respond to this piece or other Sun content by submitting your own letter.

Read the original here:
Delaware ghost gun decision followed the law | READER COMMENTARY - Baltimore Sun

A terrible trio of Supreme Court cases from last term illustrates the need for judicial reform, which can occur through several options.

In a single week in June 2022, at the close of its last term, the U.S. Supreme Court undermined its own political legitimacy through three decisions: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization, and West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency. Each of these decisions strikes at a core justification for any government: the need to protect the lives of its people.

Conservative and liberal political theories of different stripes agree that a foundational purpose of government is to preserve the lives and assure the safety of its citizens. They agree that government is justified by the need to preserve civil order through law, ideally through democratic processes, to protect the unalienable right to life.

Protecting the right to life is a primary justification for the consent of citizens to the authority of government in the social contract tradition of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, which informed revolutions establishing democratic republics in the United States and Europe. Since then, long-standing questions have persisted about whose lives matter and who counts as citizens. A foundational principle, however, remains that government must protect the right to life of its citizens to remain politically legitimate.

For this reason, it is shocking to see the Supreme Court acting contrary to the right to life of millions of Americans with respect to gun safety, reproductive health, and climate damage. The Courts self-inflicted political illegitimacy demands immediate reform.

To begin with some conceptual background, legitimacy is an essentially contested concept in social theory. For purposes here, one can distinguish the following kinds of legitimacy: legal legitimacy, empirical political legitimacy, and substantive political legitimacy.

Legal legitimacy refers to whether the enactment of laws and their application follow agreed standards of rationality and interpretation. The frequent and arbitrary interference of an authoritarian leader in particular cases, for example, would void legal legitimacy.

Empirical political legitimacy refers to whether citizens in a specific government believe law-making and law-applying processes accord with their fundamental values, including, for example, following democratic procedures and trusting judges to act fairly.

Substantive political legitimacy refers to whether a legal and political system adheres to a minimum standard of moral coherence and normative justification of political authority. A regime that deprives a large mass of its citizens of vital rights loses this kind of legitimacy.

Owing to its decisions at the end of its last term, the Supreme Court has lost legitimacy along all three dimensions. Most decisively, the Court has lost its substantive political legitimacy by preventing the government from protecting the right to life of millions of Americans against gun violence, reproductive health risks, and degenerative climate consequences.

My argument that the Court has wrongly decided these cases is not simply a legal or constitutional one. It is an argument based in political and democratic theory that the current Court has lost its substantive political legitimacy, thus mandating its structural reform.

The first instance of the Courts misfiring came in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The Court in this case overturned a century-old New York state gun licensing statute through an expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment. In an earlier decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court had previously struck down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home as a violation of the Second Amendment. But in Bruen, the Court went further to require any gun licensing regime to give citizens a right to meet objective criteria to carry a gun in public.

Purportedly grounded in history, Justice Clarence Thomass majority opinion in fact flies in the face of hundreds of years of the government regulating dangerous weapons to keep people safe in their homes, on the streets, in their schools, and in their workplaces. Thomas argues that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to carry arms following a tradition going back to the first kings of England. The true history shows a gradual empowering of the state to restrict the public carry of weapons. As one historian explains, Thomass opinion is rambling and adopts an almost childlike caricature of historical method.

More than the bad history and bad law, Bruen is politically illegitimate because of its predictable consequences. It will exacerbate gun violence by impeding federal, state, and local governments from enacting common-sense gun safety regulations to preserve many human lives. Striking down the licensing statute in New York also overturned similar laws in six other states and the District of Columbia, and has thrown into doubt other important gun safety regulations.

The Court has done so at a time when doctors describe gun violence as an epidemic. Justice Stephen Breyers dissent provides the grisly details. Simply reciting the names of places of recent gun massacresPhiladelphia, Uvalde, Buffalo, Atlanta, Dayton, Orlando, Charleston, Aurora, Newtown, and morerecalls a toll of many innocent lives lost, including many children. Since 2010, gun-related deaths have increased more than 44 percent. Gun-related deaths now exceed 45,000 annually, surpassing car accidents as a cause of death. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that 48,832 gun deaths in 2021 is the highest number of gun deaths in 30 years.

The Courts majority in Bruen is oblivious to the carnage. Justice Samuel Alito, in a concurring opinion, repeats a gun lobby trope about anecdotal cases of good guys with guns who foil public assaults. But he fails to grapple with the grim nationwide statistics. Studies show that the good guy with a gun is a statistical unicorn.

Bruen compounds the Courts misinterpretation of the Second Amendment in Heller by announcing what is essentially a new constitutional right of vigilantism. The Court refuses to give credence to the post-Heller test developed by eleven Courts of Appeals that balanced the governments interest in preventing gun violence against Second Amendment rights. Last week, a federal judge illustrated the destructive scope of Bruen by striking down provisions of New Yorks post-Bruen gun safety legislation, including the prohibition of guns in sensitive areas such as museums, theaters, stadiums, libraries, bars, and even child care facilities.

No modern government can maintain its political legitimacy without keeping its citizens safe from an epidemic of gun violence. As the philosopher Amanda Greene reasons, legitimacy is not possible while there is open conflict and threat of violence.

If Bruen threatens the safety of all Americans wherever they may go in public, a second legitimacy-shattering decision endangers the lives of many women.

In Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization, the Court struck down the 50-year old precedent of Roe v. Wade. Whatever one may think of the morality of abortion, the problem for the Courts political legitimacy is that its radical decision will inevitably cause the deaths of many pregnant persons. This choice is ironic, given the Courts intention to protect prenatal life.

The Court heard evidence that reversing Roe and its precedents would cause many deaths from lack of professional medical attention, a return to unclean or improvised abortions, and forcing mothers with serious health risks to give birth. The Courts majority did not care. Justice Alito, writing for the majority, noted impassioned and conflicting arguments about the effects of the abortion right on the lives of women, but then ignored the evidence.

In dissent, Justices Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan observed that Roe and its precedents allowed states to prohibit abortions after fetal viability, so long as the ban contained exceptions to safeguard a womans life or health. Dobbs now frees the states to adopt any legal restriction beginning at conception, including criminal penalties against mothers and doctors. It recognizes no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, nor for fatal birth defects or complications that risk a mothers life.

Speaking plainly, the Court has condemned many women to death. Women who carry a pregnancy to term are 14 times more likely to die than when abortion terminates a pregnancy. They are 75 times more likely to die in Mississippi, the state where Dobbs arose. Moreover, researchers have estimated that a ban on abortions increases maternal mortality by 21 percent, with white women facing a 13 percent increase in maternal mortality while black women face a 33 percent increase. The Courts majority has the blood of these women on its hands.

It is one thing to bestow a new constitutional right. It is quite another to withdraw a preexisting, settled right knowing that the decision will kill many people who have relied on it.

At oral argument, Justice Sotomayor asked: Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts? I do not see how it is possible. She is right.

Last but not least, the Courts decision in West Virginia v. EPA impedes governmental power to address the most difficult and threatening problem that humanity has ever faced: global climate disruption. Once again, the Court undercuts the ability of government to preserve the right to life of present and, in this case, future generations.

The climate emergency is here. As Justice Kagan observes in her dissenting opinion, many deaths are already occurring from an increasing severity of heatwaves, droughts, wildfires, storms, and floods. By the end of the century, human-caused climate disruption may account for as many as 4.6 million excess yearly deaths. The Courts majority simply shrugs off the scientific facts of these dangers.

The majoritys arrogance in West Virginia is astonishing. It reaches out to review a moot Obama-era Clean Power Plan, and then creates an entirely new major questions doctrine to restrict governmental authority. As Justice Kagan writes, this doctrine appears magically as a get-out-of-text-free card to prevent agencies from doing important work, even though that is what the U.S. Congress directed.

Professor Richard Revesz confirms that the new major questions doctrine announced in West Virginia, and effectively applied in an earlier case National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, casts an ominous pall over the nations regulatory future. Even though Congress acted in August to re-empower the EPA by adopting a statute overturning the effect of West Virginia with respect to the agencys authority to regulate greenhouse gases, the new major questions doctrine will continue to impede effective climate and other health-related policies.

As in Bruen and Dobbs, the Courts new doctrine announced in West Virginia will kill people. Taken together, the cases count three strikes against the Courts political legitimacy by preventing the political branches from acting to protect the basic right to life of its citizens.

One may also assess the legal legitimacy of these decisions as egregiously wrong. Bruen extends a wrong-headed originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment and adds historical errors. Dobbs lacks any coherent legal analysis on the merits and violates the principle of stare decisis, overturning the 50-year old precedent of Roe as well as the 30-year-old precedent on precedent of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. And West Virginia conjures a brand new major questions doctrine to prune the authority of the administrative state.

My argument here, however, does not focus on the weaknesses in the Courts constitutional interpretation or legal methodology. A deeper, unifying feature of these cases is that they are politically illegitimate because they subvert the governments authority to protect citizens lives with respect to gun violence, reproductive health, and climate damage.

Not surprisingly, these decisions are unpopular with the public, eroding the Courts political empirical legitimacy as well. Public opinion polls show the Court at its lowest approval ratings on record. In the latest Gallup survey, a record low of only 47 percent of Americans say they trust the judicial branch headed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Only 40 percent approve of how the Court is doing its job.

The Courts loss of both substantive and empirical political legitimacy means that the quality assent of citizens needed to justify it has vanished. A major political structural adjustment is therefore required. A Supreme Court that has lost its political legitimacy must be reformed. Otherwise, our government as a whole could lose legitimacy, tilting the political world toward chaos.

Although it is rare, this is not the first time in history that the Court has launched itself into political illegitimacy. And the political branches, Congress and the President, have corrected the Courts course before.

There are two important historical precedents. The first followed the Courts worst decision ever, Dred Scott v. Sandford, which held that no enslaved or free black person had federal constitutional rights. Dred Scott sparked the Civil War, and its breach of legitimacy was repaired only by the recognition of rights in the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, along with the federal civil rights statutes adopted in the 1960s.

Another low moment for the Court occurred when it repeatedly struck down many statutes passed in the early days of President Franklin D. Roosevelts New Deal.

In these previous moments of lost judicial legitimacy, the political branches responded. During the Civil War, Congress increased the number of Supreme Court justices to ten, giving President Abraham Lincoln another appointment, and Congress then reduced the number to seven to prevent President Andrew Johnson from appointing justices to undo Reconstructionwhich, unfortunately, later occurred anyway.

Responding to the Courts evisceration of the New Deal, President Roosevelt threatened to appoint as many as six additional justices, depending on how many sitting justices reached the age of 70. This threat encouraged the switch in time that saved nine when a few justices changed their tune and upheld New Deal legislation.

The United States faces another constitutional legitimation crisis today. Fortunately, there is a menu of choices available to address it. The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States issued a report in December 2021 examining options for reform.

In reviewing the options, any reform should meet two conditions. First, statutory interventions rather than constitutional amendments are needed because there is no time for a constitutional amendment. Second, any reform when adopted must dislodge the current majority that is acting illegitimately.

Here are three specific options that could be adopted singly or in combination.

1. Expand the Court to 13 justices. The power of Congress to alter the number of justices on the Court is long established as constitutional. The number of justices has fluctuated historically between a minimum of five and a maximum of ten, and the Commission determined that there is widespread agreement among legal scholars that Congress has the constitutional authority to expand the Courts size. Law professors and former judgesincluding Michael Klarman, Mark Tushnet, Nancy Gertner, and Lawrence Tribesupport expanding the membership of the Court.

Expanding the Court to 13 justices would counter the Machiavellian machinations of Senator Mitch McConnell. As Majority Leader, McConnell refused even to hold hearings on President Barack H. Obamas appointment of Merrick Garland. McConnell later rushed through a confirmation of President Donald J. Trumps appointment of Amy Coney Barrett, thus arguably stealing two appointments for Republicans. Giving President Joseph R. Biden the power to appoint four justices would rebalance the Court to a seven-six Democratic-to-Republican ratio.

Other justifications to expand the Court include increasing the number of justices to handle an increasing workload, returning to a tradition of one justice for each court of appeals, and conforming to the numbers of judges on the highest courts of other democratic governments in the world, which range from seven to 18.

2. Establish 18-year term limits for justices. Federal judges have a constitutional right to lifetime appointment, but this does not mean that Congress cannot set term limits specifically for the Supreme Court. As the Commission on the Supreme Court recognizes, rotation systems are possible. Retroactively imposing an 18-year term limit would require Justice Thomas to retire immediately, Chief Justice John Roberts in 2023, and Justice Alito in 2024.

Two thirds of Americans favor terms limits for the Courts justices, according to a recent poll.

3. Set a mandatory retirement age of 75. Following the same logic that lifetime judicial appointments do not necessarily entail lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court, Congress could set a retirement age of, say, 75. Retired justices could remain active as senior judges by special designation to lower courts or as special masters. Setting a retirement age of 75 would require Justice Thomas to retire next year, Justice Alito in three years, Justice Sotomayor in seven years, and Chief Justice Roberts in eight years.

The Commissions report reviews other alternatives as well, including jurisdiction stripping, a supermajority requirement for constitutional review of statutes, legislative overrides, a mandatory code of judicial ethics, and recusal rules for conflicts of interest. Other creative options include a Supreme Court lottery that entails randomly drawing Supreme Court panels for each case from a pool of all appellate judges, and a balanced bench comprising five justices appointed by Democrats, five by Republicans, and five by the ten politically appointed justices.

One might argue that rejiggering the structure of the Court may also have detrimental consequences for its legitimacy, causing it to become even more political or politicized. The United States, however, stands very far away today from dreams of neutral principles. The Courts illegitimacy has become not just legal or even political; it is now existential.

At a conference last month, Chief Justice Roberts said, I dont understand the connection between opinions that people disagree with and the legitimacy of the Court. He confuses legal legitimacy and political legitimacy. The problem is not just that the Court is getting the law wrong. Worse even than acting as politicians in robes, the Courts current majority is taking an axe to a foundational root of the political legitimacy of government: the power to protect the right to life of its people.

Because the Court has become the most dangerous branch, arrogantly heedless of the human and environmental consequences of the jurisprudence it so ruthlessly imposes, it must be stopped. Congress and the President must determine the exact mode of reform, but some effective change of the Courts structure is essential to restore its political legitimacy.

Eric W. Orts is the Guardsmark Professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

Link:
Supreme Illegitimacy - The Regulatory Review

In Indiana, Republican Sen. Todd Young is working to defend his seat against challengers Democrat Thomas McDermott Jr. and Libertarian James Sceniak on the November ballot.

So far, Young is seen as the frontrunner as a well-known fundraiser with more name recognition, but both McDermott and Young have ads on TV as of this week.

IndyStar asked each candidate to fill out a questionnaire explaining their stance on key issues, from abortion to marijuana legalization. Here's where candidates stand on the issues, in 100 words or less, edited only for length and lightly for grammar.

Meet Sen. Todd YoungYoung attempts to focus on bills rather than talk show soundbites

Meet Thomas McDermott Indiana Democrat running for U.S. Senate compared to Donald Trump

Meet James SceniakLibertarian Sceniak plays the long game

Question: Should Congress pass any laws either restricting abortions or codifying abortion-rights into federal law? If so, what provisions should those laws contain?

McDermott: First of all: Im pro-choice. I believe all Hoosiers deserve to make their own health care decisions. Elected officials like our current senator that support fully banning abortion with no exceptions are extreme and simply cruel. I will fight in Washington, D.C. to codify Roe and restore Hoosiers' freedoms and civil liberties. The gerrymandered supermajority in the Indiana Statehouse has already shown us that they refuse to protect women or even listen to them. That means we must codify Roe on the federal level.

Sceniak: I consider myself personally pro-life, but banning and criminalizing does not work. Abortions will still be performed and often with greater risk, thus losing more lives. Our end goal should always be to preserve life. This can only be done by increasing society's support for life. My plan for reducing abortions involves supporting adoption through substantial tax breaks and continuing to subsidize the cost of adoption, supporting foster care, ensuring every individual has the opportunity and freedom to pursue happiness by ensuring we fight inflation and waste, and to ensure we educate young men and women in safe sex practices.

Young: It was the right decision for the Supreme Court to restore authority over this issue back to the states, allowing each state to make its own laws regarding abortion. I am pro-life, but I also understand this issue divides our country and divides Washington. In the Senate, there are not 60 votes to legalize or ban abortions, and this is an issue that will be decided by each individual state.

Q; Should Congress address inflation or rising gas prices, and if so, how?

McDermott: Elected officials need to do more to address the needs of working families and that means tackling inflation, making sure jobs pay living wages, and fighting unnecessary taxes. My opponent has been in Washington for over a decade, yet he points the finger at the president when it comes to inflation. I promise that when Im in Washington, regardless of whom the president is, I will work to pass policies that help Americans and their financial well-being. We can tackle inflation in real, meaningful ways if we can look beyond the partisan politics that currently dominate our U.S. Senate.

Sceniak: Inflation is a monetary phenomenon and is caused by the rising money supply. The money supply doubled from 2020 to 2021, putting too many dollars in circulation at the same time there were supply shortages. What Congress can do to reduce inflation is reduce wasteful spending, which means less borrowing, resulting in less pressure to increase the money supply. As far as addressing rising gas prices, Congress should encourage more drilling and more refining capacity to increase the supply of oil and repeal laws like the Jones Act that make it difficult to transport oil across the country.

Young: When President Joe Biden and the Democrats took control of Washington, the cost of a gallon of gas was $2.38. Gas skyrocketed in price because of his policies. On his first day in office, Biden signed an executive order to cancel the Keystone XL Pipeline and supported other anti-energy production policies found in the Green New Deal.

High gas prices hit everyone, but they especially hurt middle class and low-income families, and people on fixed incomes. The best way to reduce gas prices is to unleash American energy production. A Republican Congress will pass legislation expanding our domestic energy supply.

Q: Congress passed a gun reform law this summer. What else, if anything, should be done to limit mass shootings?

McDermott: As a gun owner and a Navy veteran, I was taught how to use firearms responsibly. I support the Second Amendment and I don't want to take away your gun. I have a lifetime license to carry. Still, I believe military-style assault weapons do not have a place on our streets, where they can be used against our police, our children and our neighbors. We need to pass effective gun safety measures, eliminate loopholes that put guns in the hands of those that shouldn't have them, and protect our children so that schools are safe and secure.

Sceniak: "Shall not be infringed" is self-explanatory. I will always support the civil rights of people to defend their family, person and property. Creating better access to mental health resources should be a starting point. The more we take care of our neighbors through these services the more we will address the heart of these issues. When we create a culture of mentally healthy and happy individuals, who have a future to look forward to, violence will decrease including those violent acts that are not committed with a gun.

Young: I support the Second Amendment. When it comes to violent gun crime, lawful gun owners are not the problem, criminals are. We dont have to choose between protecting Second Amendment rights and making our communities safer. We can and should do both. To deal with the root causes of violence, I have long supported increased federal funding for better access to mental health services and to train more mental health providers, particularly in school settings. To that end, I supported the Safer Communities Act because it is the most substantial investment in community-based mental health services in our nations history.

Q: Are there any federal election reforms, such as those updating the 1887 Electoral Count Act, that you would support?

McDermott: Yes, I support the Electoral Count Act and would also fight to end Citizens United to remove unfettered money in politics that allows special interest groups to dominate elections over the American people. Money is power in todays politics, and that power is too concentrated at the moment in favor of corporations and Super PACs instead of ordinary Americans. Taking dark money out of our elections will help elect candidates that have to answer to people and not corporations or special interests.

Sceniak: Election security and reforms are essential for civil conversations and politics to take place. Election security is extremely important. We need to ensure that every vote counts and we have confidence in our electoral system. The Constitution leaves the electoral process to each state, and election reforms should happen at the state level. At the federal level, the top priority is to ensure that states practice equality within their voting laws, ensuring that all voices are heard through the democratic practice of elections.

Young: I joined a bipartisan group of my Senate colleagues in introducing the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act. This bill was the result of several months of discussion and negotiation within a bipartisan working group.

This legislation establishes clear guidelines and common sense reforms for our system of certifying and counting electoral votes through the Electoral Count Act, and has received several endorsements across the ideological spectrum. I hope to see this bill get signed into law this year.

Q: Is the House Jan. 6 committee necessary to investigate what happened on Jan. 6, 2020?

McDermott: Yes. Americans deserve to know the full scope of what happened that day and how it happened. My belief is that no one is above the law, and when our Capitol Police are attacked and our elected leaders targeted with violence, its essential that we get to the truth of the matter and punish those that were involved. My opponent says he supports law enforcement, but when given the chance to support the Capitol Police he turned his back on them by refusing to support their efforts to get to the bottom of what happened on Jan. 6.

Sceniak: No one person is above the law. If a crime is thought to be committed, it should go through the proper channels of investigation. House committees can be part of this process. We should hold government officials to high standards as well as investigate what broke down with security. In addition to those issues, we should also investigate why so many Americans did not believe their voice was heard through the election process. My caution is that in investigating we do this to seek justice and not simply to gain political momentum.

Young: I was appalled by the violence on Jan. 6, as I stated at the time and many times since. I am against all violent protests. I have never been shy to condemn violence from any group, no matter their political background. The most critical investigations are the legal ones. We have a Justice Department that charges and prosecutes criminal activity and that process is ongoing, as it should be.

Q: Should protections for same-sex and interracial marriages be enshrined in federal law?

McDermott: Yes. The Supreme Court has shown us that it is not afraid to get rid of 50 years of precedent when it overruled Roe v. Wade. If left to the states, we will have a patchwork of different laws in different states that will deny basic freedoms that are already protected by federal law through Supreme Court precedent.

Sceniak: I am proud to stand with all Hoosiers and their families. Interracial marriage and same-sex marriage is part of the unique cultural diversity in Indiana as well as throughout all of America. Ideally the government should not regulate marriage and love through licensing, but because it does, we must seek laws that protect all marriages. Discriminatory practices against interracial marriage and same-sex marriage should not be tolerated by states nor federal law. I stand with the Libertarian party that recognized this from their inception in 1971, before either of the other parties. Love is love.

Young: Given the Obergefell decision on same-sex marriage in 2015, I think most people consider this issue settled. A lot of Hoosiers I hear from wonder why the government regulates marriage at all. In the Senate, there are continued conversations about how to ensure any bill the Senate considers would include religious freedom protections, which are critically important. If a bill related to this topic comes to the floor for a vote, I will review it and discuss it with my constituents before deciding how I will vote.

Q; Are there any immigration reforms you think Congress should pursue?

McDermott: I support real immigration reform, not the empty talk, scare tactics, and political stunts you see in Washington year after year. As the husband of an immigrant, I know how important immigrants are to America and our history. As a Navy veteran, I know how important the safety and security of our border is. We must look at smart and compassionate solutions. This is America we know these things dont have to be mutually exclusive. My opponent has been talking about immigration for 12 years and hes done nothing about it. Lets elect someone that will work toward real solutions.

Sceniak: Immigration is a top priority. We are a nation of immigrants and a melting pot of unique cultural diversity. Just as a castle has a moat, we need to protect our nation with a vetting process. Our drawbridge should be wide and welcoming, allowing for any peaceful person who seeks freedom and prosperity to come to America. As a senator, I will promote and vote with policies that allow for those who want to live, work, and contribute to our society and economy to have access through work visas and accept refugees from oppressive regimes like Venezuela.

Young: I served on the Arizona-Mexico border while I was in the Marines. I have seen firsthand the drugs and human smuggling that result from open borders. Im doing everything I can in Congress to work with the brave men and women of the Border Patrol who, I'm proud to say, have endorsed my campaign for reelection to get them the tools they need to handle this crisis. That effort will include an actual physical fence in some areas, and other technologies, so that we have the people and resources to cover the border, including the desolate area where I served.

Q: Do you agree with President Bidens student loan forgiveness plan, and do you support any other initiatives to either reduce the cost of college or decrease student loan debt?

McDermott: I agree with this one-time debt relief solution. However, I also believe that the program should be extended to those who attended community colleges and took non-college paths like trade unions and other professions. We all know the real problem is the ever-rising price of a college education. Ive tried to tackle this problem as mayor of Hammond by starting the College Bound Scholarship Program, which has provided scholarships to thousands of Hammonds graduating seniors. We must reduce the costs and lower barriers to an education in this country so that we do not stifle yet another generation's economic opportunities.

Sceniak: The president's student loan forgiveness is a transfer of wealth from taxpayers to a specific group of people college graduates. I believe, due to financial institutions and federal policies, that many students were extorted into debt that is difficult to pay down. Some relief, such as forgiving the interest due on that debt, is a good policy. With a nation that is $31 trillion in debt we are not in a position to forgive all college debt without bringing substantial harm to future generations and their economic opportunities.

Young: Asking Hoosiers who didnt attend college or already paid off their college debt to foot the bill for others is an unfair, misguided proposal. It will do nothing to make higher education more affordable, which is what we should really be focused on. I know the value of education. I served for it, attending the Naval Academy and commissioning in the Marine Corps. Student loan repayment is a short-term solution that fails to address the root of the issue: the out-of-control costs of higher education, and the lack of incentives to study practical subjects.

Q: Biden recently announced that he has directed his administration to review how marijuana is scheduled under federal law. Do you support the federal decriminalization of marijuana?

McDermott: Decriminalizing marijuana is the right thing to do. Hoosier seniors and veterans are especially on my mind when it comes to the reclassification of cannabis. Sen. Todd Young and other Indiana leaders have abandoned them on this issue and they deserve access to the health benefits marijuana provides, as well as the economic benefits that would come to the Hoosier state.

Sceniak: Yes. Cannabis usage and possession has no victim, therefore it should not be a crime. The drug war has wasted countless taxpayer resources. Cannabis laws have often been over enforced in minority communities while ignored in others causing further discrimination to these families. Instead, we should treat drug abuse as a medical issue, which would allow those who have addictions to get the help they need rather than fearing they'll be sent to a jail cell. Prohibition did not work with alcohol and we see the same result with cannabis.

Young: This is another example of President Biden taking unilateral action to grab headlines and distract from his other failures. I continue to support more research about the health impact of marijuana use, and Ive co-sponsored legislation to begin clinical trials for veterans. Ultimately, the legalization question is best addressed by states.

Call IndyStar Statehouse and political watchdog reporter Kaitlin Lange at 317-432-9270 or email her at kaitlin.lange@indystar.com. Follow her on Twitter:@kaitlin_lange.

Follow this link:
Where Indiana Senate candidates stand on the issues - IndyStar

A BBC documentary, Trump: The Comeback, will use the run-up to the November mid-terms to look at whether billionaire Donald Trump could run for president again at the 2024 election

Video Unavailable

Play now

Donald Trump says he was the healthiest President ever

Almost two years on and one huge election defeat later, Donald Trump is still giving his supporters hope that he might make a return bid for the White House.

The 45th president of the United States was comfortably beaten by Democratic Party incumbent, Joe Biden, in the 2020 election.

Then there was the storming of Capital Hill by Trump supporters on January 6, 2021, who had been whipped up by his branding of the election result as a big lie.

But that has not stopped the property tycoon from dropping hints that he could stand again in the 2024 contest to belatedly try to secure a second term.

A documentary on BB2, Trump: The Comeback which airs at 11.15pm on Tuesday October 11 will use the run-up to the November mid-term elections to look at whether the billionaire could give it another go.

Image:

There is nothing preventing Donald Trump from running for president in the 2024 election.

To stand the best chance of winning, he is likely to need to be endorsed as the Republican Party candidate rather than running as an independent.

With his former vice-president Mike Pence, the former (and weight-shedding) US secretary of state Mike Pompeo and Florida governor Ron DeSantis all reportedly considering putting their name in the hat, there would be no guarantee he would receive the partys support.

Trump was impeached twice the first time in history that had happened to a US president during his only term in office.

However, the ex-president was acquitted by the senate for a second time in February 2021, following the electorate's decision to boot him out of office, leaving the door open for the 76-year-old to run again in 2024.

Mr Trump has told his supporters to have "hope" and has been active in giving his backing to certain Republican candidates in the run-up to the mid-terms.

In August, he called himself the "healthiest ever" president in what some read as a dig at the 79-year-old Mr Biden, who has had to isolate a number of times after contracting Covid-19 and who has seemed confused in public situations.

Image:

Congress in 1947 accepted a change to the US constitution to include the Twenty-Second Amendment.

This brought in the rule that no president could serve more than two terms in the Oval Office.

It was introduced after war leader Franklin D. Roosevelt secured a third and fourth term in 1940 and 1944 respectively.

Roosevelt nicknamed FDR died shortly after his fourth election win, giving him an unparalleled 13 years in power.

Before him, the tradition had been set by the example of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson the first and third presidents who both decided not to serve a third term that presidents would serve two terms only.

But Roosevelts success led to fears of unlimited presidencies, and so Congress acted to bring the Twenty-Second Amendment in, with it coming into force from 1951.

It has meant that two-term presidents such as Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton have not been legally allowed to stand for a third term.

Some political commentators argue it allows presidents to be more radical in their second term as they do not have to worry about re-election.

The amendment would not prevent Trump from running in 2024 as he has only served one term.

But, should he win in two years time, it would make his sophomore term his last.

READ NEXT:

Go here to see the original:
Can Donald Trump run in the 2024 election and what is the Twenty-Second Amendment? - The Mirror

WSKG The states crime rate is once again an issue in the New York governors race after two teenagers were shot on Sunday outside the home of the Republican candidate, Long Island Rep. Lee Zeldin.

Two 17-year-olds were injured in the drive-by shooting and are in the hospital.

Zeldins twin 16-year-old daughters were at home by themselves when the shooting occurred, and they immediately called the police and their parents. They were shaken up by the incident but unharmed. Police believe that Zeldin and his family were not the targets of the crime.

Zeldin spoke about the incident Monday while marching with his daughters at the Columbus Day parade in New York City.

They were experiencing something that couldnt possibly be any more traumatic for two 16-year-old girls, Zeldin said. But they handled themselves swiftly and smartly.

Its the second violent encounter involving Zeldin since he launched his bid for governor. On July 21, as Zeldin was giving a speech in a Rochester suburb, a man approached him with a plastic pointed defense-style keychain and grabbed his arm.

Campaign aides wrestled the alleged attacker, David Jakubonis, to the ground. Jakubonis lawyer later said that his client is a war veteran who struggles with mental health and addiction issues.

The Republican candidate said the incidents illustrate his beliefs that crime in New York is out of control, and that the public is concerned about it. Hes made the issue a priority in the campaign.

If youre going to talk to people about what they care about right now, he said, they are talking about safety on our streets. They are talking about safety on our subways.

Zeldin wants to roll back what he calls pro-criminal laws approved by Democrats in the governors office and the State Legislature. They include the 2019 bail reform laws that ended many forms of cash bail.

Kevin P. Coughlin / Gov. Kathy Hochuls Office Gov. Kathy Hochul meets a young attendee at the Columbus Day Parade in New York City on Oct. 10, 2022.

He also wants to amend the Raise the Age law that ended the practice of treating 16- and 17-year-olds as adults in the criminal justice system. He said while the law had a good intent to help teens accused of crimes get a fresh start adults have been using them to carry out crimes, knowing that they will receive lesser charges in family court.

The states crime rate has risen since the pandemic began, but it is still far lower than it was in past decades. Data on whether the bail reform laws have led to more recidivist crimes is so far inconclusive.

Gov. Kathy Hochul, who is the Democratic candidate in the race, also marched in the Columbus Day parade, though she and Zeldin did not meet. Hochul said shes been briefed on the shooting outside her opponents home and has offered to send State Police investigators to help catch the perpetrators.

Im so pleased that no one was injured, that the family is safe, Hochul said.

Hochul supports the states recent criminal justice reforms, though she backed recent changes to make more crimes bail-eligible and to give judges more power to hold defendants before their trials.

The governor views the shooting outside the Zeldin home as another reason to double down on controlling the flow of illegal guns.

Its a reminder, we all have to work together to get guns off the streets, said Hochul, who added she will do everything she can to make sure the streets are safe.

That is one of my highest priorities, she said.

Zeldin said the incident outside his home has not changed his opposition to the states gun control laws, including a new law that regulates the carrying of concealed weapons. Portions of that law were recently struck down by a federal judge. The ruling has been appealed by the state attorney general.

Zeldin said theres a difference between career criminals and other New Yorkers who simply want to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

I never will have any problem with a law-abiding citizen who wants to safely and securely carry a firearm solely for self-defense, Zeldin said.

Zeldin and Hochul have not spoken directly about Sundays incident.

Zeldin said at the time of the July attack, he asked Hochul for a State Police security detail, but his request was denied. Hochul said its up to the federal government to provide protection because Zeldin is a congressman.

Go here to read the rest:
Crime again the focus of governors race, after drive-by shooting outside candidates home - WSKG.org

Democracy is not a state. It is an act, and each generation must do its part to help build what we called the Beloved Community, a nation and world society at peace with itself. Representative John Lewis, New York Times (2020).

Twice-impeached former Republican President Donald J. Trump, along with his devoted allies, again and again challenged the American democracy imagined by the framers of the Constitution and by those who through our history have revered the rule of law. He found weaknesses in our system of government, and even broke through some of the most significant safeguards for our democracy in stunning breaches including abuses of power that the framers could not have foreseen.

No other president has transgressed so many of our institutional norms. No other president has rejected the results of a free and fair election and then incited mob violence to end democracy. And Trump and his followers, including many in his complicit major political party, persist and remain a threat to the future of our democratic republic. At this writing, he has just become the focus of a federal investigation of possible violations of the Espionage Act and other laws on government documents.

In his sobering and deeply researched new book 13 Cracks: Repairing American Democracy after Trump (Rowman & Littlefield), renowned historian Professor Allan J. Lichtman recounts how Trump exploited the most vulnerable weaknesses of our democracy. As he details Trumps many abuses, he also provides detailed historical context on challenges to democracy from other American leaders.

Professor Lichtman shares his profound concern for the fate of our democracy. In the introduction to 13 Cracks, he stresses the words of legendary civil rights champion Representative John Lewis who wrote that democracy is not a state but an act, an act that requires renewal with each American generation.

American democracy has always been fragile and nowafter four years of Trump and his complicit partyit seems dangerously close to slipping away, Professor Lichtman contends. As he notes, the Economists highly regarded Democracy Index in 2020 ranked the US only twentieth-fifth of democratic nations and described our country as a flawed democracy.

And in this cautionary book, Professor Lichtman not only assesses the history and state of our democracy, but he also advances detailed proposals to shore up our institutions at this fraught time. His remedies to strengthen some of the current loopholes in our policies and laws consider problems from presidential overreach, nepotism, conflicts of interest, presidential lies, and lack of transparency, to voter suppression, presidential transitions, foreign interference in elections, and protecting election results.

In another equally powerful recent book, Repeal the Second Amendment: The Case for a Safer America (St. Martins Press), Professor Lichtman presents a carefully researched account of the history of American gun ownership and legal developments on the right to keep and bear arms. In addition, he chronicles the horrific human cost of gun violence in America now as more than 100 citizens die each day from gunshot wounds. And he focuses on the efforts of the gun lobby, particularly the National Rifle Association (NRA), along with gun makers and rightwing politicians, to oppose any reasonable provisions that would make Americans safer from gunshot trauma. He argues that meaningful legal measures to protect Americans from the scourge of epidemic gun violence will come only with repeal of the Second Amendment.

Professor Lichtman may be most well-known for predicting the outcome of every presidential election since 1984 using the system he developed and described in his book The Keys to the White House. As a Distinguished Professor of History at American University, Professor Lichtman focuses on American political history and quantitative analysis and history. He has been a recipient of AUs Scholar/Teacher of the year award.

In addition to the previously noted titles, some of his other acclaimed books includeWhite Protestant Nation: The Rise of the American Conservative Movement, a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award;FDR and the Jews(with Richard Breitman), winner of the National Jewish Book Award Prize in American Jewish History; andThe Case for Impeachment. Professor Lichtman also has lectured in the US and internationally and has provided commentary for major US and foreign media networks as well as leading newspapers and magazines. And he has served as an expert witness in more than 100 civil rights and voting rights cases.

Professor Lichtman generously discussed questions about his work, our current political situation, his recent books, and more in a lively recent conversation by telephone.

Robin Lindley: Congratulations Professor Lichtman your recent work. It's an honor to talk with you today. Before getting to your books 13 Cracks and Repeal the Second Amendment, Id like to hear about your sense of our political situation today. Youre renowned for your predictions of presidential elections since 1984 using the 13-key election prognostication process described in your book The Keys to the White House. Do you have a prediction yet for 2024?

Professor Allan Lichtman: Its still a little bit early and I don't have a solid prediction, but I will tell you that, as always and just like it was in 2016, the conventional wisdom is all wrong. The conventional wisdom is saying, oh my God, Biden is unelectable. He should never run again. That couldn't be more wrong.

One of my keys to the White House is incumbency. So, if Biden doesn't run, Democrats lose the incumbent key. The second key is that there will be a huge internal party fight for the incumbent party if Biden doesn't run. So absent Biden, you're already down two keys before you even start. And it only takes six keys to count out the incumbent party.

What's so wrong with the punditry is that it's off the top of the head. It's not based on any grounded theory of how American presidential elections really work. It's just based on the whims of the moment.

Robin Lindley: Thanks for those insights. Do you have any thoughts on vice president for 2024?

Professor Allan Lichtman: None. It doesn't matter. There is no key for vice president.

And another thing I've said in commenting on current politics and the upcoming election is yes, we have inflation and that's sad because inflation affects everyone. But I also say several things about that. One, it's a worldwide problem and not something that's unique to the United States. Two, it's not caused by Biden. Presidents don't control the economy. Three, Republicans have no answer to inflation. So, my elevated view of the next election is you can vote for the Democrats and you may well have inflation, but you also have your democracy, or you can vote Republican and you still may well have inflation and you're going to lose your democracy.

Robin Lindley: Thank you. And congratulations on your new book 13 Cracks on tangible ways to clean up the political mess left by Trump. You advance programs and policies for saving or restoring democracy after the persistent election denial from the right and the violent insurrection on January 6, 2021. The January 6th Select Committee is making lots of news recently. Whats your sense of where the committee's going, what it's done so far, and what the justice department may do?

Professor Allan Lichtman: I think that, even though they don't have prosecutorial powers like Mueller did, the January 6th committee has made up for the multiple sins of the Mueller investigation and the Mueller Report.

I thought the Mueller investigation and report was one of the great disappointing moments in American history. He did an awful job of investigating. An in-person interview of Donald Trump was left out. A lot of other key witnesses were let off the hook. And he wrote a report that that reached no clear conclusions, and that William Barr could spin as he pleased.

The opposite is true of the January 6th committee. They've done amazing research. They have brought out all kinds of information that none of us, even those of us who follow things, knew about. And, as I often put it, they brought it down to where the goats can get it. They made it a comprehensible, clear, compelling presentation. And everybody says, oh, all the views are baked in. No one's going to move. Thats just another one of these off the top of a head, miserable punditry responses that unwise people give. Not drastically, but our politics are so closely divided that even a very small movement could make a difference.

And sometimes you get big movements. In Kansas who would ever have imagined even a month ago that 59 percent of the voters in a primary, which usually draws a Republican turnout in a Republican state, would vote against an abortion ban.

And so, I do think maybe the January 6th committee has not moved huge numbers of voters, but it has moved some, and that makes a huge difference. And they may well give Merrick Garland a basis for prosecuting. I don't just mean an evidentiary basis. I mean politically turning up heat on this guy so he gets off his duff and actually does something.

Robin Lindley: I appreciate your take on the Select Committee. In 13 Cracks, you share ideas on retaining and restoring our democracy. What do you think is most important for protecting elections and for preventing another attack on the Capitol or similar violence?

Professor Allan Lichtman: Number one, and currently they may be doing this, is rewriting of the Electoral Count Act to make it crystal clear. Its impossible to read the in 1887 Act. So again, bring it down to where the goats can get it. It must be so clear that no one can do any of the things that Donald Trump wanted to do, such as have Mike Pence unilaterally change the election results, or submit fake electors from a legislature to overturn the verdict of the people.

In the same spirit, a new law should make it crystal clear that state legislatures are not unilateral powers that can just declare winners of elections. They have to follow their own laws and their own constitutions, and they have to be checked by courts. That's the American way. Legislative bodies were never granted total power over everything and yet the Supreme Court is taking up a case that could well yield that result.

Robin Lindley: Then how do you deal with an extremist majority on the Supreme Court? Do you have thoughts on proposals such as expanding the court or imposing term limits?

Professor Allan Lichtman: Im not in favor of expanding the Court. I am in favor though of some way of term limiting justices.

And there are ways, by law, to restrict the ability of the courts to take away fundamental rights. Whatever you may think about abortion, the Dobbs decision is the only time in the history of the country going all the way back to the founding that the Court has taken away a constitutional right. That never happened before

Robin Lindley: Its ironic that the Supreme Court struck down a New York state concealed weapons law in the Bruen case this year and shortly after decided in Dobbs to leave matters of abortion up to the states.

Professor Allan Lichtman: Yes. That's just remarkable hypocrisy. They want the women's reproductive decisions to be decided by the democratic process of the state, but the states can't try to protect their citizens with gun laws. Oh no. That's beyond the province of the states.

You really put your finger on a fundamental contradiction. Unfortunately, our politics today is result-driven and nothing is more indicative of that than the interpretation of the Second Amendment. As I point out in Repeal the Second Amendment, Clarence Thomas has said the framers made a clear decision to constitutionally protect the individual right to keep and bear arms. That is one of the most historically inaccurate statements I've ever heard from a serious leader in the United States. Not a single individual of the many thousands involved in drafting, adopting or ratifying the Second Amendment ever said it protected an individual right.to keep and bear arms. None of them. Not one.

With the Heller decision [finding an individual Second Amendment right], Scalia couldn't turn to any original contemporary evidence to support that decision. That's why distinguished conservatives like Judge Posner, maybe the most distinguished conservative jurist in the country, blasted Scalia. Posner said that Scalia did the same thing he accused liberals of doing by reading his own values and politics into the Constitution.

In the decision overturning Roe, Alito said the Court had to see if abortion rights are embedded within the tradition of the country. It wont do that of course with the Second Amendment. But if you look at tradition, nothing is clearer than, of the state constitutions adopted just before the Second Amendment, only one establishes an individual right to keep and bear arms. All of the others, every single one of them, either is silent on arms or makes it clear that the right is tied to a militia and the common defense.

And finally, it doesn't cast a great light on the framers. Dont forget that a lot of them were slaveholders, including James Madison, the author of the Second Amendment, and so were thousands of congressmen and state politicians who adopted or ratified the Amendment. Do you believe that, for one moment, slaveholders would have voted for an Amendment that gave Black people a right to keep and bear arms? Not for a second, but the reason they could swallow the Second Amendment was because it was tied to the militia. And guess who was banned from the militia? Black people. I think that is an irrefutable argument. I don't see how you could deny that.

Robin Lindley: You touch on history professor Carol Anderson's argument in her book on this troubling amendment, The Second. She traces the history of the Second Amendment, as you do, but with an emphasis on how it's been used since its inception to oppress black people. And then you also have the history of gun violence against Native Americans.

Professor Allan Lichtman: I don't disagree. That's not the thrust of my book, although I do touch on that. But no question, whites were keeping arms from Blacks. From the very beginning, who was armed in the state militias? The state slave patrols. So the whites got all the weapons and blacks were left out.

Robin Lindley: Yes. Legislation in several states prevented Black people from possessing guns. And state militias of white men would search the homes of Black people and, if guns were found, the militia would immediately confiscate them.

Professor Allan Lichtman: Right. And since there was no recognized right to bear arms individually, except for the militia, which Blacks couldn't join, there was nothing to stop state militias, which were often all-white slave patrols, from confiscating guns. And this reverberates, of course, into Reconstruction. Even when the slaves were free, they were not armed. They may have had few old shotguns or fowling pieces, but they were outgunned by the Ku Klux Klan and other white vigilante groups.

Robin Lindley: The title of your book, Repeal the Second Amendment, is quite provocative. Were you the target of harsh, angry pushback on the book?

Professor Allan Lichtman: No. And I was inspired by the late Justice John Paul Stevens who, by the way, was appointed by a Republican president. He wasnt a crazy liberal. He wasn't at all. He was kind of a Justice Kennedy or a Justice Sandra Day OConnor, a swing vote. He wrote an op-ed piece advocating for repeal of the Second Amendment. And I saw that, and I said, Wow.

I have to tell you, a lot of my good liberal friends told me not to write the book and said, hey, you're playing right into the hands of the NRA thats been claiming that the gun control movement really wants to get rid of the Second Amendment. And here's my response. I called it the book I had to write. For decades, gun control advocates have been saying we support the Second Amendment but, as we've seen, that plays right into the hands of the gun rights advocates and it provides no basis for building a real gun control movement, despite overwhelming public support for gun control.

And, at the time I wrote the book, it had been almost 30 years since there had been any national gun control legislation with the ban on semiautomatic weapons, and it even had been repealed. So ground was lost and, I argue, the game has to be changed. We cannot keep saying, we support the Second Amendment, particularly when the gun advocate interpretation of the Second Amendment is a hoax. I call it the greatest hoax in the history of the country.

I also made it very clear in my book that, until the 2008 Heller decision, the Second Amendment was never interpreted by the courts to establish an individual right to keep and bear arms. And, just because you repeal the Second Amendment doesn't mean you confiscate guns any more than when you don't have an amendment on automobiles means you confiscate automobiles. That's never been part of the history of the country. It just means you open the door to reasonable gun control like we've already had.

And Clarence Thomas and company have banned this gun permit law in New York State. So, there are six states with similar laws, and the death rate from firearms in those states was 6.6 per 100,000 compared to 16.3 per 100,000 for the remaining 44 states. In other words, the death rate is two and a half times, not two and a half percent, but two and a half times higher in the states without permit laws than it is in the states with permit laws. In other words, these measures work. And what's the harm of them if they're cutting down on deaths and injuries. This is another fundamental flaw of the NRA and gun advocate movement, which by the way, is heavily financed by the gun industry, which heavily advertises to young people and people wanting to be semi-soldiers and all of that.

Robin Lindley: Were you ever threatened because of your call to repeal the Second Amendment?

Professor Allan Lichtman: No, I'm kind of surprised. Maybe three were one or two bad reviews in Amazon, but I was expecting a torrent of scathing, one-star reviews. I didn't get that many maybe because my book is measured, and I mean that in a positive way. I don't mean its dumbed down, but it's not a polemic. It's a carefully reasoned historical and contemporary analysis. Everything I say is backed up by history and fact and figures, and not denouncing gun advocates. I'm certainly not even criticizing people who own guns by any stretch of the imagination.

But you have gun advocates in the gun industry, and what are they telling us? America should be the safest country in the world among other advanced democracies. Plus, we have the greatest access to guns. So, by their logic, we should not be compared to Guatemala, but compared to other democracies. We should be by far the safest country in the world. And of course, the opposite is true.

You look at the most comparable, G-Seven nations plus Australia, and you are 20 times, not 20 percent, but 20 times more likely to be murdered by a gun in the US than in these other countries that have gun controls. In Japan, which arguably has the tightest gun controls in the world and has about a third of our population, you measure gun murders in the single digits as opposed to more than 15,000 here in the US.

Robin Lindley: The statistics on gun deaths and injuries are heartbreaking. Since you've written the book, we've had this year a record number of mass murders with guns and some of the bloodiest incidents were with assault weapons that use devastating high-velocity ammunition and have become deadly weapon of choice. I just learned that, in the last ten years, gun manufacturers have made more than a billion dollars in profits just from selling assault weapons like the notorious AR-15.

Professor Allan Lichtman: So that's their big market now. In researching the book, one thing I looked at was gun magazines. And you can see over time how these magazines and the advertising has evolved from all guns are dangerous, but the guns were designed for target shooting or hunting, not mass killing, and now thats migrated to and is almost entirely dominated by guns designed for nothing more than mass killing.

Robin Lindley: I wonder if banning high velocity ammunition, as opposed to the weapons, might be effective.

Professor Allan Lichtman: That would be fine. That would really help a lot. But theres been a lot of proposals like that and it just hasn't happened. The ideal would be to ban both, but the gold standard is the state gun permit laws that confirm 6.6 gun deaths per thousand, including suicides, murders, and accidents, in states with permit laws versus 16.3 deaths per thousand in states without those laws. That is one of the most compelling statistics I've ever seen.

Robin Lindley: The argument that gun violence is a public health epidemic intrigues me. It seems very powerful and compelling that a right to bear arms must be balanced against the public interest in safety and health. And we see here that virtually unlimited access to guns endangers safety and health of citizens dailyand much more so than in other democracies. Shouldnt public health be the paramount consideration?

Professor Allan Lichtman: Yes. As I have said, that balance is great. And no one's talking about confiscating people's guns. No one's talking about taking guns away when you go to the gun range and do target shooting or taking away your gun to hunt.

We're talking about reasonable laws that keep guns from getting into the wrong hands and reasonable laws that prevent the proliferation of firearms that have no purpose other than to kill people in the mass shootings. And the injuries inflicted by these firearms are just horrific. I talk about that, and I share some medical testimony.

It's just barbaric that we allow this carnage, and what's the balance on the other side? What is the value of anyone having such a combat gun other than law enforcement or the military? None. You don't need an assault weapon to hunt. You don't need one to target shoot. You don't need to protect yourself with mass-killing weapons.

Robin Lindley: The purpose of those military-style weapons is to kill as many people as possible in a short time. These are combat weapons and their high-velocity bullets cause devastating injuries by shredding and bursting internal organs, shattering and splintering bones, and leaving cavernous wounds. Even survivors are left with horrific injuries and often lives of disability.

Professor Allan Lichtman: Absolutely. And even those who are not directly injured suffer trauma too. Even if you're one of the kids who wasn't hit by a bullet, youre traumatized for the rest of your life by being at Parkland or Sandy Hook, or even knowing kids who went to Parkland or Sandy Hook. Come on.

Robin Lindley: You have kids very worried about even attending school now.

Professor Allan Lichtman: Yes. Kids are afraid to go to school. Imagine that in the United States of America in the 21st century. And to what end?

Robin Lindley: Mental health seems a red herring in the gun debate. Other nations have mentally ill people yet function without daily mass shootings. And most of these mass murderers with assault weapons in the US don't have documented mental health problems before they shoot and kill lots of other people, including children in some cases.

Professor Allan Lichtman: A complete red herring. You will never, ever reduce gun violence by focusing on mental health. There are other great reasons to focus on mental health, and I'm all for it, but it's a red herring. It's a distraction. All these other countries have mental health issues comparable to the United States.

We are not a unique a country awash with mental health problems. But the difference is gun control, not mental health. Plus, the vast overwhelming majority of people with mental health problems, 99.9 percent, don't go out and shoot someone. There are a few extreme cases but, except in those most extreme cases, there's no predictive relationship between mental health and gun violence. And, most of the worst perpetrators of gun violence didn't have a history of mental health issues, like guy in Las Vegas who I think perpetrated the worst ever shooting massacre [leaving 58 dead and almost 500 with gunshot wounds] at a music concert, and he had no history of mental health problems. He was a perfectly decent stable citizen.

Robin Lindley: Yes. And gun advocates stress the need to arrest criminals, yet most of these gun-wielding mass killers were not criminals before their mass shooting incidents.

Professor Allan Lichtman: Yes. They're not criminals. That's right.

Robin Lindley: Your book clarified for me the role of the NRA. You describe the iron triangle of the gun lobby, the gun industry, and politicians. I think people are confused about what the NRA is, and what the gun lobby is, and what the role of the gun producing industry is.

Professor Allan Lichtman: In his farewell address, President Eisenhower talked about the military-industrial complex as posing an enormous threat to America. And the military-industrial complex is marked by the iron triangle of the gun makers or the weapons makers of all kinds, and the military, and the politicians. The politicians benefit, of course, by having military contracts in their districts or states and by touting their support for the military.

I think I'm the first one to point out that there is also a firearms-industrial complex. It consists of course of the gun makers who, as you point out, enjoy enormous profits by selling these military weapons that have no purpose other than to kill people quickly and efficiently. And they are tied to the gun lobby. The NRA is not the only part of the lobby, which includes Gun Owners of America and others, but the NRA is the primary lobby and the other groups are normally tied by a commonality of interest. They're tied by their financial interest in that the gun makers are contributors to the gun lobby as represented by the NRA, which in turn enriches the gun makers.

I have a whole section in the book on how top NRA executives prosper while stepping on its ordinary employees. And then in turn, the NRAs financial contributions have a tremendous influence on the politicians, particularly conservative Republican politicians who benefit from the support of the gun lobby and their members.

Robin Lindley: You trace the history and evolution of the NRA. It seems that the stranglehold of the NRA on the Republican Party goes back to the days of Nixon, more than a half-century ago, with the increasing extremism of the GOP and its Southern strategy that embraced racist tropes. And the NRA stranglehold has become increasingly strong.

Professor Allan Lichtman: Yes. Here's what's really going on, and again, no one else has discovered this. As I write in Repeal the Second Amendment, in 1955, the NRAs constitutional expert wrote a memo to the NRAs CEO saying that the Second Amendment was no help to stopping gun control. The consensus has always been that the Second Amendment is only tied to establishing a well-regulated militia. In 1975, the NRA handbook said the Second Amendment is not of much value in combating gun control.

Then, in 1977, you have what's called the Revolt in Cincinnati. A new militant leadership took over the NRA and it decided to gain power in what I call the Great Second Amendment Hoax by perpetrating the myth that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms. And the NRA shared its propaganda through [screen actor] Charlton HestonMoses.

For the first time ever, the NRA made the Second Amendment the fundamental base of their gun advocacy appeal. And then this appeal became tied to the Republican Party as a club to use against liberals. And the NRA doesn't just support gun rights. It supports the whole right-wing agenda by calling Democrats socialists and saying they're trying to take away your guns, and to take away your freedoms. So, the NRA became an essential player, not just in the gun rights movement, but in the whole conservative movement. And because it has all these local members all over the country, it's uniquely positioned to benefit Republicans in their districts and their states.

Robin Lindley: Thanks for that background, Professor Lichtman. The idea of repealing the Second Amendment sounds extremely complicated. And you have this stumbling block now of the Supreme Courts Heller decision that recognized a private right to keep and bear arms. Is the idea of repealing the Second Amendment catching on at all?

Professor Allan Lichtman: I think, after the recent gun permit decision, it is catching on a bit. The problem is, as I have said, a lot of those who believe in gun control are not willing to take the risk, even though they've been moving a stone for decades. They think it's playing into the hands of the NRA, but I think saying we support the Second Amendment is playing into the hands of the NRA and Clarence Thomas.

And I'm not naive. I talk in my book about how incredibly difficult it is to pass a constitutional amendment. I understand that in order to repeal an element of the constitution, it takes two thirds of both houses of Congress and three quarters of the states so you'd have to have a lot of red states coming along. But the womens suffrage movement took almost 80 years. The civil rights movement took about the same time to get rid of Jim Crow.

Even if things don't happen overnight, they're still worth pushing for. By changing the terms of the debate maybe, even if we don't get the repeal, we'll develop some real momentum in this country for change. My basic point is that I'm not claiming this is necessarily going to succeed, but I am claiming the game needs to be changed.

Robin Lindley: Would it be helpful to have a replacement amendment for the Second Amendment?

Professor Allan Lichtman: I'm not opposed to that if you could come up with one that Clarence Thomas or a future Clarence Thomas could not twist as the Court has twisted the current Second Amendment. I'm not opposed to that, but you must be careful.

Robin Lindley: Would you like to add any other comments about the Second Amendment?

Professor Allan Lichtman: Yes. Repealing the Second Amendment may seem like a daunting goal, but protecting the lives and safety of the American people makes it very much a worthwhile goal. And repeal of the Second Amendment does not mean the confiscation of guns. It simply means that we will stop courts and hopefully politicians from striking down laws that would make America a much safer place,

Forty thousand lives are lost every year to gun violence. The chances of being murdered by a gun today in America are 20 times higher than our closest peer nation. We are not the safest among our peers because we have the Second Amendment. We are the least safe. And that's the best argument possible for repeal.

Robin Lindley: Thanks very much Professor Lichtman for your thoughtful comments and insights on presidential politics, gun violence, and more. Congratulations on your recent books and your stellar career as a professor, author and scholar.

Robin Lindley is a Seattle-based attorney, writer and features editor for the History News Network (historynewsnetwork.org). His work also has appeared in Writers Chronicle, Bill Moyers.com, Re-Markings, Salon.com, Crosscut, Documentary, ABA Journal, Huffington Post, and more. Most of his legal work has been in public service. He served as a staff attorney with the US House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations and investigated the death of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. His writing often focuses on the history of human rights, conflict, social justice, medicine, art, and culture. Robins email: robinlindley@gmail.com.

Visit link:
Allan Lichtman on the State of Democracy, the Second Amendment, and More - History News Network