October 2

Blog #123 – Debate over the 2nd Amendment

While we study the making of the Constitution and the creation of the Bill of Rights (BOR), I wanted to spend some time examining an application of this infomation in the real world.  The debate over the right to bear arms has been a contentious one ever since mass shootings began to increase in frequency beginning in the late 1990s.  There were a few major gun regulations passed in the 1990s – The Brady Bill in 1993 (a mandatory waiting period for buyers of hand guns along with background checks) and an assault weapons ban in 1994 (which expired in 2004), but nothing major has been passed since.  Probably within the past six years or so, the debate over gun control, gun-owners’ rights, and the causes for the numbers of mass shootings have been hotly argued.

Here is the text of the 2nd Amendment:

“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.”

In 1995, the Supreme Court decided a pivotal case, U.S. v. Lopez.  Alfonso Lopez was a senior who took a concealed gun into his high school.  The state charges against him were dropped, and he was tried on federal charges of violating the Gun Free School Zones Act.  His lawyers challenged his guilty verdict because schools are normally controlled by state and local governments, not the federal government.   The conservative majority of the Court found that Congress cannot make gun laws using its Commerce Clause powers, fearing the spread of unregulated federal power.

For most of American history, the 2nd Amendment had been interpreted by the Supreme Court that gun ownership had been allowed as long as the owner was part of a local or state militia (as established in U.S. v. Miller, 1939).  In 2008, the Supreme Court disconnected gun ownership’s link to a local or state militia in the case, D.C. v. Heller.  In the District of Columbia, the district had passed a law that required hand gun owners to either lock their hand guns in a safe or keep them unloaded and disassembled in a person’s home.  In Heller, the Supreme Court felt that laws that prevented guns being owned by the mentally ill, carried in schools and churches, and laws on the sale of firearms were all allowed.  However, D.C. v. Heller “held that the Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm in the home for self-defense, and struck down the handgun possession ban as well as the safe storage law (which had no exception for self-defense).”   Essentially, an individual’s right to gun ownership has nothing to do w/ a person’s membership in a militia (an outdated notion by 2008).

Within the past 2 months, sparked by the two mass shootings on a Saturday in August, there has been a great tumult over the availability of assault weapons for the general public.  Democratic presidential candidate, Beto O’Rourke, has even gone so far as to say that if he were elected president, he would institute a mandatory buy-back of AK-47s and AR-15s, common assault weapons owned by some Americans.

Here is the history of the 2nd Amendment, done by the History Channel:

Here is a video on gun control from the liberal perspective:

And here is a video on gun control from the conservative perspective:

Your job:

  1. First, provide your initial views on gun control.
  2. Watch the 3 videos, take notes on each of their arguments and assertions, and then make your own determination.
  3. Has your view changed now knowing the history of the 2nd Amendment and hearing from both sides of the gun debate?  Why or why not?

Minimum 400 words total.  Due by class on Friday, October 4.  

Category: Blogs | 72 Comments on Blog #123 – Debate over the 2nd Amendment
October 11

Blog #102 – FDR’s 2nd Bill of Rights

As part of his State of the Union address on January 11, 1944, President Roosevelt presented the nation with a 2nd Bill of Rights – economic rights that the government would have to guarantee for all Americans once the laws were passed.  Take a look at the following video:

Some of the key passages are as follows:
“It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence…People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
1. The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation (since only 2-3% of the nation are farmers and less than 20% are in industry, this would have to change if this BoR / laws were implemented);
 
2. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
 
3. The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living (since so few of us are farmers now, this might change);
 
4. The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
 
5. The right of every family to a decent home;
 
6. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health (did we just achieve this in 2010 with the passage of ObamaCare?);
 
7. The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
 
8. The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.  For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.”
Image result for fdr 2nd bill of rights

He listed 8 things that would bring economic security to our nation and hopefully, by extension, to the rest of the world.  At the point that he gave this address in history, America was NOT planning on a Cold War with the Soviet Union or stockpiling tens of thousands of nuclear missiles or spending billions on a military budget every year.  None of the 46 years of futility vs. the Soviet Union was set in stone, nor the explosion and entrenchment of the military-industrial complex in our national economy like it is today.

However, America was coming out of the war w/ its biggest national debt in its history (having borrowed $200 billion from the American people in war bonds – $170 billion held by U.S. taxpayers – and from American banks + $100 billion in income taxes).  Congressmen were wary of spending huge amounts of money on peace time programs, especially for FDR, because his New Deal programs had had such a mixed track record of success and failure.

The reason I bring this issue up is b/c I think that the country has spent the next 73 years (and may continue) to try to achieve his goals.  As we progress through the school year, we’ll return to these eight core principles and examine how we have failed and / or succeeded.

Your questions to answer: 
1. Out of the 8 new rights listed above, which of them do you believe have been addressed in some way or another since 1944?  Try to pick at least 2 and explain our country has tried to address them (if you choose #6, please try to do some research and not repeat misinformation that you might have heard on talk shows, i.e., it’s going to save billions, death panels, it forces everyone to buy insurance, etc.)

2. Which of these 8 rights should be the one that is immediately addressed or fixed by our Congress and President?  Why?

3. Which one of these seems the least likely to be enforceable / possible to make an economic right (please don’t pick the farming right – it doesn’t affect too many people)?  Why?

350 words minimum total for all three answers.  Due Monday, October 16th by class.    

Here’s Glenn Beck’s take on FDR’s 2nd Bill of Rights.  Here.

Further reading:
To read a book review entitled: “FDR’s 2nd Bill of Rights: A New New Deal” click here.
A response to this book from Forbes magazine who say that only one Bill of Rights is quite enough. click here.
Here’s an analysis of how the 2nd Bill is going so far: Click here.
An article about how the 2nd BoR violates the Constitution, click here.

Category: Blogs | 63 Comments on Blog #102 – FDR’s 2nd Bill of Rights
November 5

Writing Contest – Bill of Rights Foundation

This is from an email I received over the weekend. 

Hi Geoff,

I am excited to tell you about our BRAND NEW Scholarship Contest for high school students. The We The Students Scholarship Contest runs through November 16, 2012, so encourage your students to enter today.

Students will grapple with the questions: What role do the ideas of the Constitution have today?  What rights should the government protect?

This is similar to the VFW contest that you were asked to do in Blog #41.  The details of the essay are below.  It’s longer and a lot more detailed (20 points max extra credit). 

To participate in the contest, high school students will answer three questions around the ideas of the Constitution and the role of government. One $4,000 prize will be awarded for first place, one $2,000 prize for second place, and one $1,000 prize for third place. Two $500 prizes will be awarded for honorable mentions. 

At the Institute, we know your impact on students’ lives is invaluable – but in an effort to support your hard work, we have set up the contest with teacher prizes. When your students win, you win! The teachers of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place winners will each receive a $100 cash prize.

For more information, visit the We The Students Scholarship Contest page.

– Veronica

Veronica Burchard
Vice President for Education
Bill of Rights Institute
200 North Glebe Road, Suite 200
Arlington, VA 22203

Questions to answer for the essay:

1.  Abraham Lincoln once said, “Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution.  That must be maintained for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.”  Please analyze and discuss how ONE of the Founding principles (choose from the list below) found in the Constitution helps preserve liberty, and why that principle is still important today.  (up to 500 words)

  • All men are created equal
  • Limited Government
  • Private Property
  • Representative Government

2.  Most high school students are too young to vote.  However, that doesn’t mean that – as citizens – they can’t actively help to shape our world today.  Based on your beliefs about being an involved citizen, how would you convince an apathetic classmate that they should take an active role in shaping their community and the nation.  Feel free to use personal examples.  (up to 500 words)

3.  Read the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights, and the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

(a) Please provide a critical analysis comparing the United States’ Founding documents and the UN’s Universal Declaration in regard to ONE of the following three categories:  (up to 500 words)

  • The origin of rights
  • The role of government
  • The treatment of property

(b) After comparing the documents, which do you think best protects individual liberty?  Defend your view.  (up to 300 words)
Category: Contests | LEAVE A COMMENT