Happiness is a Warm Gun

As a former member of the NRA and the ACLU (I resigned from the NRA when they endorsed cop-killer bullets, over-the-counter machine guns, and guns without child safety locks when children were present, and I resigned from the ACLU when they represented too many Nazis while ignoring more meritorious causes), I was glad to see the Supreme Court put meat on Second Amendment bones. The opinion itself was as intellectually dishonest as many watershed decisions, e.g., Roe v. Wade, but no matter, individual rights were expanded. Shocked I would drag Roe through the mud? Just because I'm a progressive doesn't mean I have to be a hypocrite! Liberals take notice, examine your own hypocrisies:



Political and social conservatives have railed against unelected judges legislating from the bench, substituting their judgment for the legislative process. While conservatives would narrowly construe the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments, somehow their "pet" Second Amendment escapes strict constructionist scrutiny. Their silence is no less deafening than the indoor report of a 44 magnum.

"Talking" Money is Protected Speech

The Supreme Court recently overturned the so-called millionaire campaign finance law which placed dollar limits on candidates' contribution to their own campaigns. While Bill O'Reilly and conservative pundits don't seem to object to this decision, Mr. Bill (Desert Sun, June 29)thinks it unfair that Obama, who has millions of $10 donors, will have more campaign cash than McCain.



It seems the First Amendment protects, as "speech," anti-social, undemocratic spending; fat cat cash is speech. The court must have 1) eaten some kind of mushroom, 2) asked Alice when she's ten feet tall, 3) shared the same audio hallucination, and 4) heard money talk. Does money talk backwards like the white knight?

Bottom line for Bill and his fellow conservatives: big money is protected speech, fair and square, but grass roots, $10 donors somehow cheat the system. Oh! I've got to run, George Washington's miffed that he's worth $99 less than Ben Franklin.

Democracy Fetish Strips Constitutional Rights

California social conservatives unleashed their new weapon against same-sex relationships, democracy. They take issue with "undemocratic" judges who afford constitutional protections to same-sex relationships, and want to democratically amend the constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage; basically, democratic usurpation.

Should the constitution, designed to protect liberty, now be used to limit individual rights in the name of democracy? A short history lesson: the later-repealed Eighteenth Amendment which subverted the federal constitution into a criminal statute outlawing alcohol, exemplifies democratic excess. Interestingly, the only other amendment used to restrict the body politic relates to election law; the Twenty Second Amendment creates a two-term limit on the presidency.

Furthermore, an independent judiciary is inherently undemocratic; federal judges are appointed for life and California Supreme Court judges are first appointed by an independent commission then elected to 12-year terms. Freedom is not a popularity contest.

"Democratic" social conservatives embrace both undemocratic, autocratic leadership in Washington, and the very "undemocratic" judges who protect their gun rights and private property from an overzealous body politic. They should rejoice in any undemocratic expansion of freedom. Lynch mob "justice" is singularly democratic, but manifestly unjust.

Here is a gay Iranian couple at democracy's "alter."