your source for all things dan

The interminable debate over health care reform has revived one of the common complaints about our legislative branch: it provides for equal representation of states in the Senate. Under our system, citizens of my home state of Rhode Island (population: 1 million and shrinking) carry the same weight as those in my current state of North Carolina (population: 9 million and growing). To add insult to injury, the size of the House has not been updated for almost a century, allowing it to devolve from a proportional representation of the nation's will into some form of Senate-lite, where smaller states still enjoy a far better politician-to-constituent ratio (3:1 in the case of Rhode Island versus North Carolina). All of this is enough to leave voters in larger, bluer states shaking with rage as they watch senators from Montana and Maine decide how to fix health care for the 99.993% of the population that has no say in their re-election. Talk of abolishing the Senate has become almost as popular as talk of banning the filibuster.

The refusal to increase the size of the House is clearly an example of the powerful trying to retain power at all costs, but the belief that the Senate is a scam that tears at the very fabric of democracy is simply wrong. Such a belief is flawed because it assumes that we live in a democracy, which is only partially true. The U.S. is not a democracy - it is a democratic republic. Each state is currently a representative democracy, using the popular vote as a means of electing representatives to a larger federal government. The states come together as a republic, having agreed to join based on the laws that were in place at the time.

So while Rhode Island and North Carolina have been democracies for quite some time, the U.S. as a whole has never had such a distinction, and claims that we are being robbed of our political will by the Senate's continued existence betray an ignorance of basic civics. Would the Founding Fathers have drafted the same model of governance if they knew how the geographic, social, and financial aspects of the country would change? Perhaps. But that is neither here nor there - the fact is that the country would not have come together and survived if it had tried to be a full-fledged democracy instead of a republic. And since it never was such a democracy, it is silly to complain about how growth and inertia have ruined it.

Consider the following historical anecdote:

From the signing of the Constitution through the end of the Civil War, the nature of the republic was demonstrated in writing and in speech by the use of plural conjugation. A journalist might say, The United States are negotiating a trade pact with France; the plural are indicating that the states - not the union - were the ones making the final decision(s).

Post-Civil War, the story changes: having brought the rebel states back into the fold, the federal government flexes its muscle, enacting laws that guarantee more uniformity in state laws and using the financial crisis of Reconstruction to keep states in check. Soon journalists drop the plural and start referring to the union rather than the states: The United States is negotiating a trade pact with France. This is how we think of the country today, but is not how it was designed. The expansion of federal power in the last century has caused modern citizens to think that their state is simply a convenient subdivision of the federal government, when in fact it is a full partner in a contract between sovereign states, a contract predicated on the existence of the Senate (among other things).

All of this means that we are getting the exact type of government that we are supposed to get, which is good, because in this particular case, there is nothing we can do to change it (short of revolution). In addition to outlining the process for constitutional amendments, Article V also makes one very important restriction: it prohibits the removal of equal representation in the Senate unless every single state in the union ratifies the decision.

Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

That's right - our Founding Fathers, while woefully ignorant of all the amazing changes that would occur in subsequent centuries, were able to foresee that fluctuations in people and power could result in a super majority with the power to nullify an essential building block of inter-state peace. They explicitly denied any amendment related to Senate representation unless it had the blessing of all states, something that is all but impossible. Even the sacred First Amendment does not enjoy such protection.

The Senate may be a frustrating obstacle to larger states looking to influence policy decisions, but understanding the historical precedent for it can help us understand why things like health care reform may require opt-in clauses and other seemingly-inefficient mechanisms in order to pass muster. Senators have a reputation for being academic and procedural, and they are certain to enforce their state's role in the process even if half of America writes it off as an unexplainable mistake.

Labels: culture, law, narcissism

Of all the crazy thing that people are saying about the planned civilian trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), the craziest is the idea that the defendant is not entitled to constitutional rights because he is not a U.S. citizen. This is complete balderdash. If you remove the strong emotion and anger associated with 9/11 for just a moment and think about the factors that went in to this decision, it becomes clear that a civilian trial is the most reasonable approach. Relevant factors include the actual text of the U.S. Constitution with regards to criminal law and legal precedent with regards to the rights of non-citizens.

A quick review of the actual text confirms that our judicial system does not differentiate between trials for non-citizen criminals and those of U.S.-citizen criminals. Thus, the furor that has been raised because KSM is enjoying the same rights as a U.S. citizen indicted for an equivalent crime is misplaced. The rights in question are covered under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, which read as follows:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Let's focus on the first line of each amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;

Right off the bat, we can see that this law pertains to any "person", not any "citizen", "native", or other designation. Interpreting "person" to mean anything more specific in order to arrive at a predetermined conclusion would require judicial activism, which is anathema to those in vehement opposition to the trial. That's one downside of strict constructionism - it doesn't leave you much wiggle room when you're not getting your way.

Now, there is also a clause that allows the government to avoid a traditional trial in the case of war crimes. This is a popular citation by those looking for a way to shuttle the terrorists off to a military tribunal. There are a number of problems with this approach.

First, defining 9/11 as a war crime is questionable at best given how we have reacted to previous instances of domestic terrorism. I do not recall anyone declaring the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing to be a war crime, nor the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. In both cases, a high-profile target in a high-density area was attacked by extremists because of some perceived injustice by the U.S. government, and yet both sets of suspects were tried, convicted, and sentenced by civilian courts.

Second, despite their personal declarations of war against our government, the fact is that all of the aforementioned terrorists acted on U.S. soil, against U.S. civilians, without the support of any sovereign nation. Quite simply, they are thugs who managed to commit a crime that was an order of magnitude more destructive (both physically and emotionally) than other thugs. I do not know of any domestic law that attempts to clarify how violent or unique a crime must be in order to be classified as a war crime, and all of the international laws relate to battlefield scenarios that are clearly not applicable. Regardless, I suspect that such a law would be easily circumvented by the unlimited creativity of those who wish to attack us.

But just for the sake of argument, let's say it were possible to have a domestic war crimes law. Where would you draw the line between regular crime and war crime when outside a military theater? How many people do you have to kill? How much money must you waste? Does emotional scarring matter? What about relativity? Oklahoma City had far fewer deaths and injuries than 9/11, but I imagine it was equally traumatic given that the entire metropolitan area is just one-eighth the size of Manhattan. Similarly, assassinating the President only takes the life of one person, but it would be more devastating to the nation as a whole than the 1993 WTC bombing, which killed six civilians and caused non-fatal structural damage to one building.

Without answering these questions, we cannot know if KSM is indeed a war criminal or if we are gerrymandering the rule of law to fit his actions and our desired results.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;

To those who think that prosecuting KSM in Manhattan is an irresponsible decision by politicians looking to ignite a media circus, I present the procedural requirements of the Sixth Amendment. If the Fifth Amendment requires us to have a civilian trial, the Sixth Amendment requires that we have it in the same county where the crime was committed. Being that Manhattan is an area with an extremely high population density, such counties are rather small, and so it happens that the court house where KSM must be tried is in close geographic proximity to the former WTC. If KSM had attacked a tall building in Wichita, then perhaps the court house and the site of the attack would be farther apart and the whole situation less controversial, but that is not the case. If you attack innocent people in the financial district of downtown Manhattan, you will plead your case in the same[1].

So, taking the time to read the text of the laws in question has proved helpful. For me this is sufficient, but let's continue with the second factor (legal precedent) to seal the deal.

To determine the rights of non-citizens as it relates to criminal acts and trials, we should make a comparison with the other rights we give to non-citizens. A cursory review of the Bill of Rights and simple reflection on everyday happenings reveals that foreigners can come to our country and immediately enjoy all of the rights prescribed therein. The fact that you are here on a tourist visa (or whatever) does not mean that a police officer can arrest you for saying derogatory things about Michelle Obama, Lost, the Pittsburgh Steelers, or anything else that Americans love. You are also not forced to select or disavow any religion. No one will try to quarter troops in your apartment. The government does not have the authority to buy houses owned by non-citizens for pennies-on-the-dollar and use them for public works projects.

And, as painful as it may be, they will be tried by an impartial jury if they are suspected of a crime. There is nothing in the Constitution or any court ruling that provides an exception for foreigners. Illegal aliens may be deported because it's more efficient than trying and jailing them, but anyone who is here legally will have due process. Even those pieces of the Alien and Sedition Acts that still remain in place only authorizes a war-time Executive to arrest and deport non-citizens - it doesn't allow continued detainment and punishment. Since we clearly don't want to let KSM go free to whatever country would take him, we're obliged to indict him and put him on trial. Those are the rules.

With all that said, sometimes rules become obsolete and they must be updated to handle scenarios that the original authors could have not imagined, such as the need to wage war against an organization that has no property, borders, national economy, or international obligations. This may be the most frustrating news for those opposed to the KSM trial: not only is our Constiution incomplete on the subject of modern warfare and terrorism, but there is no one to blame for it. Rather than lash out at politicians for adhering to the law as it's written today, opponents should instead focus their energy on changing the law through the means provided by its authors. At least then we would be having an intellectually useful debate about what the law should be as opposed to a pointless debate about what people assume the law says.

[1] And from KSM's perspective, there's really nowhere he could go to escape his reputation and improve his odds of a fair trial. Everyone hates him, and New York jurors will only be marginally more prejudiced than those in Nebraska or Oregon.

Labels: culture, law, narcissism

Last fall, this blog openly mocked those who thought that the eventual ruling in DC vs. Heller would be a silver bullet that clarified the nature of the Second Amendment once and for all. I fully expected the justices to punt, passing down a narrowly-scoped decision(s) that resolved the immediate conflict without setting a precedent by which other gun regulations could be interpreted.

Yesterday, Justice Scalia threw my arrogance right back in my face, handing down a decision that did I what I claimed was impossible: it made a solid case for individual gun rights based on a sentence that has more grammatical errors than words. This opinion may end up being the most significant of Scalia's career; he shows no mercy, shooting down each the dissenters' points with an impressive combination of 18th century literature reviews and historical research on the motivations of the laws that preceded the Second Amendment. Whether you like Scalia or not, he makes a hell of an argument. If you haven't read it, you owe it to yourself to at least read the syllabus[1].

This is not to say that the opinion is perfect. It does not include a comprehensive set of instructions for dealing with all of the edge cases surrounding individual gun ownership; it merely states that individuals must be allowed to own guns outside the context of a state organization. The ruling also makes clear that individual acts of self-defense are a constitutional right, but it does not explain why it is permissible to apply heavy regulations to such acts in public but not in private. Scalia himself acknowledges that there is enough fodder among the edge cases to fuel years of lawsuits.

What I find most interesting about this ruling is that the author - an unabashed social conservative who wears his politics on his sleeve - resisted the temptation to strike down state and municipal laws banning certain non-automatic weapons[2]. Most conservatives resist the notion of incorporation, which holds that the Bill of Rights must be applied at a state level because of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause; to those that believe in extreme judicial restraint, it is not the duty of the federal government to protect the people from state laws the undercut the Bill of Rights. However, since total incorporation has been in effect for decades now, Scalia could easily have rationalized its application within his opinion, invalidated any state or municipal law banning certain non-automatic weapons, and been a national hero to millions of people.

But he didn't. He stuck to his principles, knowing that his decision would set off a landslide of lawsuits in the lower courts.

I don't think that Scalia is innocent of having injected his personal beliefs into past decisions - he's made many arguments that were really hard to swallow from an alleged small-government conservative - but in this case, he walked away from the opportunity to slam the door on people he considers political opponents. I realize that the other four justices in the majority had input into the decision and would not have signed on if they didn't agree with all of his findings, but Scalia is an imposing personality, and I think he could have strong-armed the others into going along with it. Alternatively, had Justice Kennedy been assigned to write the opinion, and he had tried to apply incorporation, I think the right-wing justices would have been turned off and written a separate majority opinion, resulting in a ruling that favored Heller but did not set judicial precedent (which was my original prediction).

At the very least, we can appreciate this ruling because it means that Democrats will no longer have to reassure midwestern gun-owners of their unwavering gun love by participating in incredibly awkward campaign gimmicks.

[1] Abstract, for the scientists in the audience.

[2] This case is complicated by the fact that D.C. is a municipal oddity: it is a city, but it is run by the federal government. This means that federal law - which is where Scalia's non-incorporative decision will be applied - is the only law that matters. If Dick Heller lived in any other city in America, the findings would probably have been less favorable for him.

Labels: culture, law, narcissism

I will not be participating in today's voting because I live in North Carolina, and our primaries are scheduled for May 6th. Of course, I don't actually get a vote on May 6th, either - my vote has been negated by the people of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, as well as the party officials that have punished any state that tried to hold a primary in January. Instead of selecting from the full slate of candidates available at the start of 2008, today's voters have to pick one of four "front-runners"; by the time the polling places open in North Carolina, there will only be one viable candidate in each party, making my vote irrelevant.

It amazes me that both parties have chosen to alienate voters in key swing states like Florida and Michigan in order to preserve a status quo that puts the entire nomination process in the hands of people who think The Old Man of the Mountain was an breathtaking monument. If you're trying to win control over an entire branch of the U.S. government, wouldn't you want to be sure that you're nominating someone who has the broadest appeal? This seems like an air-tight argument in favor of a national primary. Alternatively, we could conclude that the first votes should go to states like California and New York, states that offer a more complete representation of the American electorate. Either change would enhance the presidential election process by ensuring that more voices were heard before the field was winnowed.

Super Tuesday indeed.

Labels: culture, law, narcissism

Apparently, the leaders in our executive and legislative branches have come to agreement with regards to saving the economy: they will courageously tackle our massive deficits, incalculable debt, and dismal growth by giving everyone $600. There are so many things wrong with this plan that I didn't even know where to begin; I had to go outside and throw rocks at the house for an hour until my anger subsided and I could write this post without breaking the keys off my keyboard. Let's look at the facts.

The main goal of the economic stimulus plan is to put cold, hard cash into the hands of normal Americans, who will take their unexpected bounty to the mall so they can buy presents and dine out; proponents say that this increase in consumer activity will boost payrolls, calm Wall Street, and save us from certain recession. The original version of the proposal (drafted by the House and endorsed by the president) would grant a $300 tax rebate to the dirt poor, $600 to taxpayers making less than $75,000 per year, and a few extra bones to people with kids; if you make between $75,000 and $87,000 per year, your rebate would decrease as your income increased, eventually bottoming out at $300. Six-figure breadwinners need not apply.

The Senate modified this proposal by doubling the maximum income levels so that wealthier individuals could get in on the super fantastic rebate action. It is not yet clear which version of the proposal will "win", but it looks fairly certain that all lower and middle class families will be getting a check for $600 just in time for those Memorial Day shopping extravaganzas.

Now, on the surface, this is encouraging: politicians managed to agree on a policy and enact a law in a matter of days, with an immediate result for the American public. Finally, a win for the middle class! Right?

Wrong.

Well, sort of. I'm sure that the extra $600 won't hurt middle class taxpayers, but the good feelings it creates will be short-lived; considering the deep financial hole that we are sitting in as a country, I think it would behoove us to consider the long-term impacts of this plan. This kind of inspection is not nearly as immediate or satisfying as the idea of giving everyone $600, but I am going to do it anyway.

The first thing that's wrong with this plan is that it confuses public sentiment with its original goals. Giving a few C-notes to middle class families on the brink of a recession may brighten their day, but it won't lead to concrete economic growth, which means that it won't really improve their lives. By most accounts, American families are in much the same situation as their government: they are in severe debt and find themselves robbing Peter to pay Paul, all to live the American Dream that is sold to them on TV. This means that the average person will use their $600 in one of three ways:

1. Payment of credit card debt, overdue bills, or loan principals.
   


2. Savings for emergencies, retirement, or education.
   


3. Purchase of new clothes, music, or other things they don't need.
   

The first two options are obviously the more responsible ones for someone who has incurred a lot of debt or has not made a practice of planning for the future. That may sound good from the perspective of someone who wants to help average Americans, but remember: the goal of the plan is to revive economic growth. I will try to explain why I think these things are in conflict without sounding like a heartless bastard, but I can't guarantee anything. Just so you know.

In the first scenario, the person is paying off debt for things that he bought in the past. The debt is still very real to him, but in the eyes of financial analysts and corporate executives, it's ancient history; when John Q. Public bought that new iPod with his credit card last year, the bank that issued the credit card paid his debt to Apple Computer in full, and that payment was recorded and celebrated during the same fiscal quarter. The fact that John is beholden to his lender at an 18.9% APR does nothing to advance the state of the national economy; paying down his debt is a good thing when it comes to his blood pressure, but it's not going to register as new economic activity.

The second scenario is even more optimistic and hopeful than the first, but it will also cause us to miss our target. I sincerely hope that the majority of Americans will save their rebate money, but I also realize that this will be discouraging because money in the (individual's) bank has no impact on our economic growth rate.

Given our history as consumers, and the fact that so many of our citizens came into debt by shopping and over-extending themselves, it is likely that many people will give in and go along with our third scenario. This is exactly what politicians are hoping for, but even this will not "save" us. The Experts concede that even if everyone spends their rebates on shiny new gadgets, the growth that we'll see next quarter will be 1-2%; now, 1-2% of the American economy is an incredibly large amount of money, but it will be overshadowed by the negative effects that we will see in subsequent quarters. If people don't do the responsible thing and pay down their bills, then they are only making their situation worse, and it will take them even longer to pay back this "free" rebate. Do we really want to encourage this kind of irresponsible spending? This is how we got in a hole to begin with!

Sending money to people who are in debt and don't have savings sounds nice, but it won't give us the results that our politicians want. If the recipients use it to pay bills or create savings, the economy will continue to stagnate; if they use it to buy more stuff, they are just digging themselves a deeper hole. Everyone will be excited for a couple of days in May, but we'll be back in a rut by June. Mission: not accomplished.

If we really wanted to increase economic growth by a few points this summer, we would give the $600 to those who make more than $75,000 per year because they are more likely to have disposable income. Now, let me be clear: I do not feel that the goal of temporarily increasing economic growth by 1-2% warrants giving a tax break to upper class taxpayers. Additionally, I do not need $600 from the government, nor will I feel any hostility if, when the final numbers are released, it turns out that I lost the tax rebate sweepstakes. I'm fine. Really. This is not sour grapes from someone who has a comfy job at the largest IT company in the world.

That said, people with disposable income tend to... dispose of it. They go out to eat and buy things they don't really need, all of which fuels the job market and salary numbers that have so concerned our dear leaders. The growth caused by such disposal of income would still be temporary, but it would happen. If this is the goal, the tax rebates should go to the upper middle class: those wealthy enough that they don't have unmanageable debt but not so wealthy that $600 is a drop in the bucket.

Of course, you cannot, in an election year, tell middle class voters who are financially strapped that the answer to their problems is a tax rebate for people who don't have any problems. I understand that. But I would hope that our leaders would understand the points I have raised and not make the proposal in the first place, thus avoiding the debate entirely.

The second thing that is wrong with this plan is that our government cannot afford to give us a tax rebate right now. We have not had a balanced budget in almost a decade. Our national debt makes me want to throw up under my desk. Our 401k money and future business plans are riding on the hope that large Asian countries will continue to buy our bonds. We are in a war that, whether you approve of it or not, costs billions of unbudgeted dollars per year. And despite all of this, the government wants to return part of its yearly income? If this idea were any more stupid, the amount of stupidity would cause some kind of cosmic integer overflow and make the whole thing brilliant.

Put another way: if the government were a person, he would have nothing to his name. He would have his credit cards taken away, his car repossessed, and his belongings sold at auction after settling in bankruptcy court. If such a person offered you $20 because he knew you were a little short on cash this month and couldn't afford to meet the gang for drinks, would you take it?

No?

Well, that's the situation we find ourselves in right now: we're handing out rebates like its 2001 despite a massive increase in debt. I'm a fairly libertarian guy, which means that I normally perk up when people mention tax cuts; the fact that I'm saying the government should keep our money should clarify just how bad I think our balance sheet is. It's never fun to pay taxes, but when your leaders overspend their budget multiple years in a row, you either have to increase their income (taxes) or boot them out of office. You can't Reagan-omics your way out of a $400 billion deficit. You certainly can't do it seven times.

In summary, this plan is a joke. In the best case, tax rebates for lower and middle class people will not generate economic growth, and in the worst case, it will generate a small bump in growth but increase the deficit and weaken the dollar. It's a lose-lose situation. Frankly, I have trouble believing that anyone involved with this plan would pass a second grade arithmetic test.

Fail.

Labels: culture, law, narcissism

Those who follow the Supreme Court have been buzzing with anticipation since the justices announced that this term's docket would include DC vs. Heller, a case that will determine the constitutionality of our capital district's handgun ban. The SCOTUS blog has a good summary of the two positions being argued in the case, as well as the implications it has for other laws that restrict gun ownership. The hearing won't happen until March, but that hasn't stopped people on both sides of the argument from setting their propaganda machines to HIGH and doing everything short of calling the justices at home.

But despite all of the excitement over the Court's decision to tackle this controversial issue, the fact is that the ruling in Heller will not have the conclusive, clarifying effect that everyone is looking for. Because D.C. is a federal entity, the ruling will only affect the federal government's ability to limit gun ownership - it doesn't say anything about state or municipal legislatures, which is where most of the controversial gun laws are authored. At best, the ruling in Heller will inspire new appeals focused on state laws, but it will not have a direct effect on those laws.

I know it's hard for those at the center of the Second Amendment debate to do so, but I wish we could just admit that this case is not as groundbreaking as it has been portrayed and start talking about the real cause of this conflict, which is the irrelevance of gun laws written in 1789. No matter which side you're on, I think it's safe to admit that the Second Amendment suffers from limited imagination and poor grammar. Here is the text:

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.

Ignoring the awkward and unnecessary comma after Arms, this sentence has two reasonable but opposing interpretations:

1. All individuals should be able to own guns in order to protect themselves and participate in government-sponsored militias. The weapons may be used for national defense, self-protection against criminals, or revolution against the government. Since threats against the individual exist today, this right is still valid.
   


2. All individuals should be able to own guns in order to participate in government-sponsored militias. These militias were not wealthy or well-organized enough to provide soliders with weapons, and allowing citizens to own guns ensured that they would be equipped to fight when called upon. Because our country now has a very wealthy and powerful military, this right is no longer valid.
   

The tricky thing about the second interpretation is that it still doesn't restrict the right to own private guns - it simply says that the need for a militia is no longer a valid argument. The complexity of this statement is seemingly endless, which is why I find the hoopla over Heller so frustrating. Trying to make a real constitutional decision based on the Second Amendment is putting lipstick on a pig: either way you go, it's not very impressive. The vague text and lack of judicial precedent means that future justices could easily overturn your decision. The Second Amendment provides no real guidance in 2007, which is why I think it should just be repealed. This idea is not as radical as it sounds.

If the Second Amendment were stricken from the Constitution tomorrow, the Tenth Amendment ensures that we would be in a similar situation to the one we face now: state laws would govern who could own what kinds of guns. The only new possibility would be for a state to ban private guns all together; since the people doing the banning are subject to popular elections, I think it is unlikely that more than a few states would go through with a full ban. There is enough diversity of opinion in most states to prevent politicians who favor gun restrictions from going "too far". States like Oregon and Connecticut will probably ban guns immediately, but so what? You can still go to Kentucky and pick up a handgun and a carton of milk in the same trip. Right-leaning folks have proposed this same solution in the debate over Roe vs. Wade, and I don't think gun ownership is any less significant.

That said, I don't think that anyone who is invested in this debate could ever process the idea of repealing the Second Amendment as rationally as I have written it, so here is an alternative idea: nullify the Second Amendment by writing a new amendment. This is the same idea used by the authors of the Twenty-first Amendment, which made obsolete the alcohol prohibition of the Eighteenth Amendment. The new amendent could spell out the nation's policy on individual gun ownership, taking into account all of the technological and social advances that have occurred in the last two hundred and eighteen years. It could also respect the rules for using commas.

It's unlikely that George Mason could have imagined the kinds of weapons that humans would build in the years after the Constitution was ratified, nor could he imagine a world where a a miltiary superpower did not have to draft its male citizens. Even if you are a card-carrying member of the NRA, I don't think you could dispute that the Second Amendment does not take these things into account. It is incredibly naive about the role of guns in society. We simply cannot know what would have been written had Mason known that, in 2007, individuals would have access to weapons that kill dozens of people per minute, or that a rifle is no longer an adequate tool for revolution. Rather than waste time debating poorly-worded text written two centuries ago, we should amend the Constitution to clarify exactly what the country wants.

Proposing this new amendment would generate endless hype and debate, and getting Congress to agree on the exact text would be a monumental task. But hey, that's why they make the big bucks. This is a hard problem, and it's pretty clear that the original guidance given to us in the Second Amendment is not working. There shouldn't be this much controversy over one sentence. The right to keep and bear arms shouldn't hinge on a prepositional phrase that sounds more like musing than declaration. If we want to settle the debate and the majority is not willing to take the easy route (repealing the Second Amendment and delegating to the states per the Tenth Amendment), then a clarifying amendment is a must. Everything else is a waste of oxygen.

Labels: culture, law, narcissism