See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Obama In Portland. A first take. (OBAMA REPEATS HE WILL CLOSE GITMO, RESTORE HABEAS, AND OBEY THE CONSTITUTION)
Source:
Ideas With Consequences
URL Source: http://ideaswithconsequenses.wordpr ... bama-in-portland-a-first-take/
Published: May 20, 2008
Author: Michael Beaton
Post Date: 2008-05-21 14:24:20 by aristeides
Keywords: None
Views: 2758
Comments: 182
Obama In Portland. A first take. I saw Barak Obama in Portland on Sunday. I do not normally get caught up in shouting and crowd dynamics. And this event was no exception. But I was moved. Deeply. Quietly. I found myself about 30 yards off the main stage watching, watching closely. And listening closely to what was being said. While Obama spoke the obligatory crowd pleasing lines it was notable to me that he did not seem to be trying to whip up the crowd into emotional frenzy. In fact it seemed the opposite. A couple times the crowd wanted to get into the “Yes we Can” chant. Obama seemed to let it run its course and then proceed w/ his remarks. Not that I have anything against the emotion that people are feeling. I tend to want what is underlying the emotional outbursts. I want there to be substance to support it. In this case I felt it was there. Clinton, and others, have tried to cast Obama as having “just words” “he has only given a good speech”. I now understand better why they need to try and detract from the power of Obama’s oratory. It is not like so much political speech, full of vacuous thought, full of promises and non sequitur thoughts designed to appeal to a predetermined crowd. Obama actually talks in full paragraphs, with thoughts that hold together across the entire speech. It is not simply a collection of applause lines or attack lines. He actually engages the issues we are facing in a way that evinces an understanding of this simple maxim : You cannot solve a problem at the level at which the problem was created. My first take on the speech follows. Basic takeaway : His stump speech is smarter, more intelligent, logically cohesive, as well as inspirational and meaningfully hopeful than the best, thought out positions of the others candidates. Or any politician I am aware of for that matter. Reagan is held out as a “great communicator”. I never have understood this, never really feeling that much of what Reagan communicated was worth hearing. As a communicator I would posit Obama is orders of magnitude better than Reagan. And… he has the added benefit of actually communicating something that calls to our “better selves” while not eviscerating what it means to be an American. It seems that Obama has the power to hold this position of transformation. I have never heard a political candidate make the case that what he is offering is not pre-molded answers but a process by which we may affect change for the better. Now it will be up to the country to decide if we have drunk a full cup of the bitters and ready for such a change. Or if it will take another quaff, and another round of drunken stupor, for the citizenry to get it that the course America has followed for so long, (insert lots of detail here), and that has been especially manifest in the horror that has been this BushCo Administration, is fundamentally flawed and in need of deep systemic change. We have to begin to think again as citizens bound together in some essential way that is deeper than our epicurean pursuits and our silly infatuations with flawed beliefs like “we are number one” or/and “they hate us for our freedoms”. I am hopeful, but cynical. I live a contradiction. I am aware of the basic goodness and desires of people, the American people. I am also aware of the powers and forces and individuals who lie in wait to destroy what would destroy them. And they have their hands on the levers of power, money, communications. It is amazing to me however, that even though that is so, there is still the possibility for hope, and for change - change at a deep structural level. It lets me know that as formidable as the masters of the status quo are there is something that they do not own, that is not fully under control. It is from this, whatever that is, that something deeper, more integral, more essential will, if it will, if it can, emerge. My favorite line in the speech: In these two lines Obama has made the essential case: The constitution is the essense of what makes America America. Without it we become only another failed republic tending toward a new tyranny…. as we are now. And that it will take a change in our mindset in order to affect change. He does not promise it will happen. Only, and this is key, that if we, the citizens of America will embrace the notion of citizen once again, that promise that has been America may once again emerge. Maybe even in a more transcendant incarnation. Maybe we can retreat from empire and become less militaristic and more holistic in our foreign affairs? Maybe we can transcend the essential racism that has been in our deep psyche from the beginning, and has been a profound hinderance to our ability to function at the level of our principles. Maybe we can begin the process of being ruled by something more positive, more true, more substantial than fears. Fears stoked by demogauges who know better, and use the knowledge for their own purposes. Maybe we can recover from this financial precipice we find ourselves perched on. But it will take a systemic transformation akin, though different, to the social contracts that came out of the Great Depression. Maybe we can do it before we immerse ourselves in another , more horrible global Great Depression? Or maybe not. But these are the propositions that are before us now. What is certain is that to continue the path currently charted will be to proceed, pell mell, to a certain destruction. It is long past the time for vacuous promises that hardly last longer than the reverberation of the sounds of the words with which they are spoken. It is time for a commitment to a thinking that is different. A thinking that is motivated for a real comprehension of what it is we face, and propelled by a profound and essential desire to live true to “the angles of our better nature.” I know this post needs a good editing, and I will do that in subsequent posts. For now this is meant only as first thoughts on a moment that, to me, was seminal, and which seems to presage what seems to me to be a major choice point that we, as citizens of this country, have now come to. What has happened, even over the last 8 years, has happened. Now what? There is a choice that must be made. And will be made one way or another. Even trying, again, to not choose, or make a default choice of the known; even trying to hold fast to the well worn creeds of the past - our racism, our unsubstantiated beliefs, our formidible ignorance, our memories of world dominance, our lust for war as opposed to transformation, our lazy desire to have someone else figure it all out - just dont mess w/ my football game, or whatever drug of choice used to dull us to the consequences of our national choices; still a choice will be made. I hope we choose well. And for better reasons than we have in the past. Excerpts from Sen. Barack Obama's speech in Portland. As a final note: When have you ever heard a politician in recent times appeal to the constitution in such a profound way. And more, to recognize its authority. And to rever it as something to be upheld in the present tense, not as some historical but anachronistic idea. Not since Lincoln have I heard such language from a presidential contender. “We are now gathered to see if that nation, or any nation so constituted can long endure….”
We will close Guantanamo and restore habeas corpus. And say no to renditions. Because you will have a president who has taught the Constitution and believes the Constitution and who will obey the Constitution of the United States of America. I don’t want to just end the war. I want to end the mindset that got us into the war. I’m tired of the politics of fear that uses 9/11 as a way to scare folks rather than a way to bring us together. I don’t like it in our own party, I don’t like it in the other party.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 179.
#2. To: aristeides (#0)
His votes in the Senate prove he is a liar. But then he is a politician so that is not unexpected. What is unbelievable is that so many people have been taken in by this jug-eared clown.
Does Obama's Constitution contain the 2nd Amendment? I think it is important to establish whether the Constitution he is reading is the same one we are reading.
"I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it's subject to commonsense regulation" like background checks, he said during a news conference. Obama Supports Individual Gun Rights . You may quarrel with the extent to which he would permit regulation, but he obviously believes the Second Amendment is in the Constitution.
Just one more thing that proves he is full of crap. No amendment "grants individual rights" and the founders must be spinning in their graves at such stupid stuff. They knew they weren't granting anyone any rights, just recognizing some God-given rights people had before there was such a thing as government. Obummer needs a lot more schooling.
Let's read the second amendment, shall we? 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. My reading tells me that the 'free State' may or may not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But, since the founding daddies decided that not infringing on the right helps with the security of the free State, they agreed not to infringe it. Let's see if you can follow me now. If the free State may or may not infringe on the right to bear arms, the free State is effectively granting it, through the second amendment. Because, if the free State finds that it has no need for a well regulated Militia, then the free State may decide to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms and there's nothing God can do about it other than maybe do an earthquake or send over some plague. I hope you understand now. Obama is right and you are not, which is not surprising at all, given his intellectual superiority.
You'd be wrong, as it states "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", it doesn't say shall not be infringed by Congress.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State is offered as the reason for allowing the possession of arms. There is no reference to God or inalienable rights. It's something very practical.
The Militia as referred to by the 2nd Amendment was understood to be all free men aged 18-45. In fact, there were laws on the books that REQUIRED men of that age to acquire a firearm. The "free State" was the United States itself. The Founders declared the Militia as necessary for the security of the United States, and further elaborated that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Not too hard to understand, at least in my opinion.
The "free State" was the United States itself. The Founders declared the Militia as necessary for the security of the United States, and further elaborated that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Not too hard to understand, at least in my opinion. I would like to point all to a most excellent post re: 'well regulated militia'. Props to Dawg. freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/re...? ArtNum=76144&Disp=53#C53 The US House subcommittee on the RTKBA (1982) was the best treatment of the subject. They very courageously discovered and documented that there were in fact TWO militias. The militia consisted of all able bodied men between the given age range of service who were expected to provide their own weapons, ball and powder. The other was the SELECT MILITIA which were also private citizens who were supplied with weapons and ammo from the state. Neither were to be confused with The Continental Army. The right to keep arms for personal use was so fundamental that the founders saw no need to mention it in the BOR, any more than the right to eat or breathe air. The 2nd amendment was a guarantee that the individual colonies were not dependent upon the national government for the supply of arms to protect themselves. Those who believe that the 2A only guarantees the govt's "right" to arm the national guard are wrong for several reasons. First, nowhere in the constitution is the word "right" used when referring to govt. Govt has powers, only people have rights. (Bush federalized the state guards with a stroke of a pen and sent them to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and no governors' objections could stop it. So, let's not waste time discussing just who is "the govt" when referring to national guard units.) Second, to suggest that only guardsmen have a 2A right would be like this: "Because an aristocracy of achievement is necessary to the maintenance of a free state, the right to keep and read books shall not be infringed". In other words as Thos. Jefferson wrote, "A democracy of opportunity will produce an aristocracy of achievement". Would such an amendment guaranteeing the right to read only apply to congressmen and senators, or justices of the courts? Those who suggest that only the national guard has a 2A right would have to argue for this ridiculous interpretation. Those who suggest that the 2nd amendment is archaic and was applicable to another time fail to understand (or acknowledge) that in order to research the Miranda case the SCOTUS went back 4000 years to research the history of rights and render a decision. The simple truth is, America is unique because the people are (supposed to be) sovereign and the govt the servants. All attempts to render the govt superior by denying arms to the people is treason. Those who argue for it are state worshipers, and the 1st amendment guarantees their right to religious freedom, but they do not have any right to impose their religion on all through the govt regulation or banning of useful arms for self defense, or to keep the govt in check. At the time of the adoption of the constitution there were local laws that prohibited the carrying of concealed arms. The prevailing philosophy was "If a man be armed then let the world know it". Only "ne'er-do-wells" and "'scape gallows" had need to always conceal weapons, and that was to prey on the unsuspecting. And honest citizens had no reason to fear that govt would totally ban the carrying of arms, therefore there was no legit need to carry concealed, or to whip it out after too many mugs of grog and during heated political debates in barrooms! However in today's society if a criminal wishes to disarm an honest non belligerent they only have to call 911 and dishonestly claim that someone is brandishing a weapon, and if they can describe your weapon then you're going to jail! And, if you try to walk down certain streets displaying a weapon you'll be surrounded with people who taunt you with things like, "We know why you got dat gun, honky. IT'S CAUSE YOU DONT LIKE NIGGAS, HUH?" and you may be forced to shoot your way out. Or, a robber will simply shoot you in the back of the head (the way they do armored car people transporting cash in or out of a store or bank. These guards often have a weapon in one hand and the money in the other.) In short, nothing good can come from the exposed carry of firearms in certain urban areas where police are waiting to pounce on any citizen exercising his/her right to go armed for legitimate reasons. The 1939 Miller decision involved a sawed off shotgun, and the court ruled that the weapon had no military use and therefore was not a suitable militia weapon. Two points: First, the courts then ruled that a weapon with no military value wasn't constitutionally protected, and today's gun banners (like Bill Clinton) argue that weapons be banned because they're military weapons and have no sporting use! So, the antis and their media friendlies cite the Miller case but are careful never to explain what it says because they want it both ways. Second, the appellant (Miller) did not show up to argue his case before the high court. Had he done so (through counsel) he could have easily demonstrated that sawed off shotguns were used in the trenches in WW1, and their military usefulness could not be disputed. Today the federal govt has a totally arbitrary standard for legal shotguns and rifles. (18" bbls for shotguns, 16" bbls for rifles and minimum 26" overall length to be legal) This standard makes no sense when one considers that the XM177E2 (Colt CAR 15) assault carbine that was and is so popular with armies and special forces (John Wayne carried one in The Green Berets) has a 11.5" bbl. So, if a widely used military arm is A) fully auto or select fire, and B) has a 10" bbl (without flash suppressor) and detachable extended magazine, and C) the Miller court ruled that small arms with military value are constitutionally protected and suitable for militia use, then it's a slam dunk that the federal govt has exceeded its constitutionally limited powers in the 1934 NFA and the 1968 GCA. The strange case of United States v. Miller HOUNDDAWG posted on 2008-03-19 2:46:01 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
I was a bit lazy when I summarized the findings of the The Right to Keep and Bear Arms REPORT of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES SENATE NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS in my post. Below are the relevant militia facts and the summary that anti gunners can only gnash their teeth about. There is no historical evidence or even plausible alternative interpretations to counter the subcommittee's findings, and that leaves only emotional pleas (or lies and misrepresentations of the value of firearms as a deterrent to crime) with which to respond. (please review Prof. John Lott's MORE GUNS LESS CRIME.) Also, the two cities of Vancouver, BC and Seattle, WA were compared and the US city had the higher rate of gun violence, until race was factored in! When non whites were removed from the study it was found that heavily gun-restricted Canada has the much higher rate of gun related violence! So, the conclusions of the (religiously anti gun Kellerman) Vancouver/Seattle study were successfully disputed by their own statistics! In short, when the black crime wave is factored out heavily armed America is an amazingly civilized society, and the availability of firearms alone simply cannot be used to explain gun crime. And, if gun prohibition is the solution then why isn't NYC (with its draconian 100 year old Sullivan Law) a paradise filled with peaceful, toga and sandal wearing vegan Eloi who spend their days doing the dance of the butterfly? NYC Mayor Bloomberg would have us believe that NYC is a shooting gallery because Virginians can buy and own guns. But he can't explain why those guns don't cause the same epidemic of violence in states where people have lawful access to them. I suppose NYC has a heroin problem because Afghanistan is allowed to exist. The fact that New York-based banks probably launder most of the world's illicit drug proceeds (and no American laundry/bank that cranks out billions of freshly rinsed and sweet smelling cash has ever been closed down) is not something he'd likely ever address, though. And, it was a refreshing bit of truth when former NAACP president and US Rep. Kweisi Mfume recently announced that "Blacks cannot responsibly own firearms!" (which is exactly what the high court noted in the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857. The court held that "If blacks were free citizens they'd be able to keep and carry firearms everywhere they went!" Those undesirable consequences required no explanation then, and they shouldn't now.) So, what other rights if any should law abiding Americans surrender because shiftless inner city blacks cannot act responsibly or uphold the duties of freedom? If in the future blacks and Hispanics (in Los Angeles for instance) riot at every encounter should all Americans forfeit the right to freedom of assembly? Despite these revelations, no one in power or "respectable academia" will utter the truth about the black crime wave and how it threatens freedom in America. And if they did it still would not move some to change their views, and trying to counter emotional arguments with indisputable facts will remain an exercise in futility and the endless assaults on the 2nd amendment will continue... Having said that, I believe that the crime issue is a red herring and gun control (sic-*UPD) is really about changing the balance of world political power and other mischief that Americans are still well equipped to prevent. From the subcommittee report: "That the National Guard is not the "Militia" referred to in the second amendment is even clearer today. Congress has organized the National Guard under its power to "raise and support armies" and not its power to "Provide for the organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia". 65 This Congress chose to do in the interests of organizing reserve military units which were not limited in deployment by the strictures of our power over the constitutional militia, which can be called forth only "to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions." The modern National Guard was specifically intended to avoid status as the constitutional militia, a distinction recognized by 10 U.S.C. Sec. 311(a). The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." (*UPD=Unilateral Personal Disarmament)
I suppose NYC has a heroin problem because Afghanistan is allowed to exist.
There are no replies to Comment # 179. End Trace Mode for Comment # 179.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestOBAMA REPEATS HE WILL CLOSE GITMO, RESTORE HABEAS, AND OBEY THE CONSTITUTION)
#4. To: James Deffenbach (#2)
#7. To: echo5sierra (#4)
The senator, a former constitutional law instructor, said some scholars argue the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees gun ownerships only to militias, but he believes it grants individual gun rights.
#17. To: aristeides (#7)
The senator, a former constitutional law instructor, said some scholars argue the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees gun ownerships only to militias, but he believes it grants individual gun rights.
#22. To: James Deffenbach (#17)
No amendment "grants individual rights" and the founders must be spinning in their graves at such stupid stuff. They knew they weren't granting anyone any rights, just recognizing some God-given rights people had before there was such a thing as government. Obummer needs a lot more schooling.
#26. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#22)
My reading tells me that the 'free State' may or may not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
#28. To: FormerLurker (#26)
#33. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#28)
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State is offered as the reason for allowing the possession of arms. There is no reference to God or inalienable rights. It's something very practical.
#38. To: FormerLurker, Hounddawg, Jethro Tull, 2A supporters, all. (#33)
The Militia as referred to by the 2nd Amendment was understood to be all free men aged 18-45. In fact, there were laws on the books that REQUIRED men of that age to acquire a firearm.
#178. To: Peppa, rowdee, a vast rightwing conspirator, richard9151, mirage, Ragin1, angle, FormerLurker, Dakmar, James Deffenbach, Jethro Tull, christine, aristeides (#38)
(Edited)
#179. To: HOUNDDAWG (#178)
Replies to Comment # 179.