Here's a copy of a letter I sent to Pejmanpundit and to Jane Galt on Live from the WTC about the Second Amendment:
ear Pejman,
Great article in FoxNews. I thought you might be interested in my powers-based argument below. Why don't people argue from basic principles any more, or have I just not been looking in the right places?
About the wording of the Second Amendment: The possible
dependency of the second clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" on the existence or necessity of a "well-regulated militia" seems irrelevant to what, if any, powers the Amendment is reserving to the Federal government. That's of
course
one of the major stumbling blocks for interpretation. The Bill
of
Rights does not create or even define rights. It, like the rest
of
the Constitution, only defines the legitimate powers of the
Federal
government. The Amendment makes it clear that the right to keep
and
bear arms resides with the people, and that no state or Federal
government has the power to infringe that right. The definition
of what "keep and bear arms" means should depend on the original
Constitution, not the Second Amendment. Otherwise, why would this
amendment have been added?
The Second Amendment grants no powers whatever to the Federal
government, especially and particularly not the power to infringe
the
people's right to keep and bear arms. The Ninth and Tenth
Amendments
nail that down. The only reason for the addition of this
amendment
can have been to clarify that the Federal government did not have
this power. The Founding Fathers must have feared that some other
section of the Constitution might have been interpreted to give
this
power to the Federal government.
It is absurd, therefore, to say that the amendment's restriction
of
the Federal government's power to control individual keeping and
bearing of arms was conditional on the need for a militia. The
Federal government had and has no such power, or at least
certainly not from the Second Amendment. The contention that it
does, and that with the withering away of the need for a militia
the
inherent power springs into existence full-grown, reflects the
mistaken view that the Federal government has every conceivable
power
unless the Bill of rights tells us it doesn't have that power.
It's
just the other way around. In order to give the Federal
government
the power to infringe the people's right to keep and bear arms,
the
Second Amendment would have to be repealed by another amendment
which
specifically gives the Federal government that power. That ain't
gonna happen.
Robert Speirs
Tallahassee, Florida
PS You might be interested to know that in a speech to the
Constitutional Convention on June 8, 1789, James Madison suggested
the Second Amendment, among others, but in this speech the
"militia"
clause came after the "shall not infringe" clause. Here's the
URL:
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/jm4/speeches/amend.htm
It's my personal opinion that the "militia" clause was thrown in
as
one possible justification for not meddling with the right of each
individual to keep arms. That makes it at most an explanation,
not
a condition. RS
Saturday, May 25, 2002
It is the new millennium and I can't wait for the next big thing
How do I know it's a new era? At Wal-mart this morning I bought "Cheese Spam"! It's my two favorite things in one can! Not only that, but as all we spamophiles know, the opening of the can involves now only the pulling of a ring. That's too bad. It was fun to pry the little tool off the bottom and twirl the metal strip at the top. You could make bets with your friends on whether you'ld really need a transfusion or not. But then they'd just say the doctors were trying to get rich. You should have known better than to try and be friends with collectivists. But capitalism marches on, today cheese spam, tomorrow, what, macadamia beer?
How do I know it's a new era? At Wal-mart this morning I bought "Cheese Spam"! It's my two favorite things in one can! Not only that, but as all we spamophiles know, the opening of the can involves now only the pulling of a ring. That's too bad. It was fun to pry the little tool off the bottom and twirl the metal strip at the top. You could make bets with your friends on whether you'ld really need a transfusion or not. But then they'd just say the doctors were trying to get rich. You should have known better than to try and be friends with collectivists. But capitalism marches on, today cheese spam, tomorrow, what, macadamia beer?
Thursday, May 23, 2002
Arab insecurity
Just finished "Paper Money" by Adam Smith, written in 1981, just after the oil crises of the Seventies had made some of the Arabs filthy rich. Smith (or Goodman or whatever his REAL name is) assumes in 1981 that by 2000 the Arabs will pretty much own the whole world. It struck me that the Arabs probably thought they would, too. That feeling must have produced some heavy-duty letdown when the Berlin Wall came down, the Soviet Union broke up and prosperity, low interest rates and massive new oil discoveries broke the Arab near-monopoly. The Arabs in 1981 were really in the position that the DeBeers diamond monopoly may be in right now, if these stories ( I wish I had saved the link to them) about huge diamond discoveries in Canada are true. I suppose it would have made me go nuts with frustration if I were a twenty-something Saudi princeling named Bin Laden and I saw the power position my country had obtained go by the boards slowly but surely and the hated Americans gradually gather back into their hand all the good cards. Why, it might make me resort to fundamentalist Islam to compensate for my lost dream of bossing around the entire industrialized world. I might blame the Saudi hierarchy, as well as all the other not-sufficiently-fundamentalist regimes in the area. Now if I am alive at all, I'm hiding in a cold dirty cave somewhere in the mountains of southern Afghanistan or northern Pakistan, hunted like the dog I have turned into. Also, after thumbing my nose at the fool Clinton for eight years, bombing and murdering at will, this junior Bush has to come along and have the gall to declare all-out war not only on me but on my ideas and my lust for glory. Why, it's enough to make me fly a plane into a building!
Just finished "Paper Money" by Adam Smith, written in 1981, just after the oil crises of the Seventies had made some of the Arabs filthy rich. Smith (or Goodman or whatever his REAL name is) assumes in 1981 that by 2000 the Arabs will pretty much own the whole world. It struck me that the Arabs probably thought they would, too. That feeling must have produced some heavy-duty letdown when the Berlin Wall came down, the Soviet Union broke up and prosperity, low interest rates and massive new oil discoveries broke the Arab near-monopoly. The Arabs in 1981 were really in the position that the DeBeers diamond monopoly may be in right now, if these stories ( I wish I had saved the link to them) about huge diamond discoveries in Canada are true. I suppose it would have made me go nuts with frustration if I were a twenty-something Saudi princeling named Bin Laden and I saw the power position my country had obtained go by the boards slowly but surely and the hated Americans gradually gather back into their hand all the good cards. Why, it might make me resort to fundamentalist Islam to compensate for my lost dream of bossing around the entire industrialized world. I might blame the Saudi hierarchy, as well as all the other not-sufficiently-fundamentalist regimes in the area. Now if I am alive at all, I'm hiding in a cold dirty cave somewhere in the mountains of southern Afghanistan or northern Pakistan, hunted like the dog I have turned into. Also, after thumbing my nose at the fool Clinton for eight years, bombing and murdering at will, this junior Bush has to come along and have the gall to declare all-out war not only on me but on my ideas and my lust for glory. Why, it's enough to make me fly a plane into a building!
Tuesday, May 21, 2002
Wolfram and Kamen
What is it about these guys, Stephen Wolfram and Dean Kamen, that enables them to get so much publicity, for very little? I am tempted to throw in Stephen Hawking, Bobby Fischer and Nietzsche, but no. I just ordered Wolfram's new book about a "New Science" - fifty dollars! Dean Kamen is selling his scooters that don't go any faster than a bicycle for $8,000. What is it? The press must be desperate for heroes. The word "genius" scatters itself liberally when any of these boys appear.
I should say, too, that I am extremely unlikely to buy a Segway, but since I've already plumped for Wolfram's book, I hope it has more substance to it. I've always been intrigued by cellular automata, fractals and all that. Maybe you could put the program that produced the universe on a 3.5" floppy. Making it produce anything would be the hard part, since everything is already deeply involved in becoming something else. As den Beste may have mentioned, at least one would hope that the program was well written. But that brings up another thought. What if it isn't all that good and can be easily improved? Would we be duty-bound to improve it and start the better version off with a little seed matter and step back and see what happens? This could be better than cloning.
What is it about these guys, Stephen Wolfram and Dean Kamen, that enables them to get so much publicity, for very little? I am tempted to throw in Stephen Hawking, Bobby Fischer and Nietzsche, but no. I just ordered Wolfram's new book about a "New Science" - fifty dollars! Dean Kamen is selling his scooters that don't go any faster than a bicycle for $8,000. What is it? The press must be desperate for heroes. The word "genius" scatters itself liberally when any of these boys appear.
I should say, too, that I am extremely unlikely to buy a Segway, but since I've already plumped for Wolfram's book, I hope it has more substance to it. I've always been intrigued by cellular automata, fractals and all that. Maybe you could put the program that produced the universe on a 3.5" floppy. Making it produce anything would be the hard part, since everything is already deeply involved in becoming something else. As den Beste may have mentioned, at least one would hope that the program was well written. But that brings up another thought. What if it isn't all that good and can be easily improved? Would we be duty-bound to improve it and start the better version off with a little seed matter and step back and see what happens? This could be better than cloning.
[5/19/2002 7:13:22 AM | Robert Speirs]
Not us
Just finished listening to Fox News Sunday. Tony Snow got the whole war thing together in ten words: "We have met the enemy, and he is NOT us."! Take that, Pogo! What a great summary of the enlightenment that has - finally - come over this country after decades of self-loathing and guilt tripping. Makes me confident and happy. It also makes a fitting memorial to the thousands who died on Sept. 11.
OK, OK, I know, this blog is supposed to be about puzzles. I did finish the quasi-cryptic by Lewis in the Nation, dated May 20, number 2846. The Nation is a weekly, I guess. I wouldn't subscribe to it on a bet. But the weekly pressure does perhaps explain the sketchy nature of the cryptic puzzle. Lewis doesn't bother with any fancy "distort the solution before you enter it into the diagram" business. All the entries are the same as the clue solutions. Some other differences appear from the usual Cox/Rathvon and Maltby puzzles. Lewis is addicted to multi-word answers, therefore to very long answers, and to spilling entries over from one numbered slot to the next, sometimes to three or more. Every other letter is unchecked. That makes it difficult to guess words. The occasional obscure clue - this puzzle had one extreme obscurity - could remain unfilled-in even when all the cross-checked letters have been entered. Luckily, I knew enough about Ethiopia to figure out this one. Next time, who knows?
I enjoyed this one more than I expected to, but don't seem to be impelled to rush out and acquire each puzzle as it comes out, as I do for the other cryptics. Nevertheless, Lewis does offer a change of pace from the monthlies. Most entertaining clue? 6 down, but then I'm a sucker for - well - conundrums!
[edit]
[5/17/2002 2:59:19 PM | Robert Speirs]
Another good one
Yesterday, I finished the June 2002 Atlantic puzzle, "Layers" by Cox and Rathvon. It was one of the cleverest yet. The words are all entered conventionally into the diagram. The diagram, however, has two separate parts, an outside layer and a core, with one square in the middle. The clues are arranged so that some of the answers from the outside layer, when arranged according to the numbering scheme given, provide the clues for the core layer. Not only that, but the diagram entries from the core layer are entered in numbered squares. Then you enter each letter in a crostic-like row to give you one final clue, which tells you how to complete the final center box. So it is indeed "layered". Quite an achievement. The clues were challenging, although there was a good proportion of three and four-letter entries, which tend to be easier. This I find excusable, given the intricacy of the overall scheme. The cross-clues in the diagram were quite helpful, with the desirable balance pleasingly maintained.
As I went through this puzzle, I felt a keen sense of anticipation, thinking, "I wonder if they're really going to be able to carry it through?" They did not disappoint. This is a definite nine out of ten. That brings up an interesting point. How should puzzles be rated, for difficulty, cleverness, entertainment value? What should the standards be? I'll be pontificating on this in future posts and solicit any comments anyone may have.
Most entertaining clue: 12 Down. Yes, I know it's easy, but I found it fun anyway.
[edit]
[5/15/2002 7:02:58 PM | Robert Speirs]
Not us
Just finished listening to Fox News Sunday. Tony Snow got the whole war thing together in ten words: "We have met the enemy, and he is NOT us."! Take that, Pogo! What a great summary of the enlightenment that has - finally - come over this country after decades of self-loathing and guilt tripping. Makes me confident and happy. It also makes a fitting memorial to the thousands who died on Sept. 11.
OK, OK, I know, this blog is supposed to be about puzzles. I did finish the quasi-cryptic by Lewis in the Nation, dated May 20, number 2846. The Nation is a weekly, I guess. I wouldn't subscribe to it on a bet. But the weekly pressure does perhaps explain the sketchy nature of the cryptic puzzle. Lewis doesn't bother with any fancy "distort the solution before you enter it into the diagram" business. All the entries are the same as the clue solutions. Some other differences appear from the usual Cox/Rathvon and Maltby puzzles. Lewis is addicted to multi-word answers, therefore to very long answers, and to spilling entries over from one numbered slot to the next, sometimes to three or more. Every other letter is unchecked. That makes it difficult to guess words. The occasional obscure clue - this puzzle had one extreme obscurity - could remain unfilled-in even when all the cross-checked letters have been entered. Luckily, I knew enough about Ethiopia to figure out this one. Next time, who knows?
I enjoyed this one more than I expected to, but don't seem to be impelled to rush out and acquire each puzzle as it comes out, as I do for the other cryptics. Nevertheless, Lewis does offer a change of pace from the monthlies. Most entertaining clue? 6 down, but then I'm a sucker for - well - conundrums!
[edit]
[5/17/2002 2:59:19 PM | Robert Speirs]
Another good one
Yesterday, I finished the June 2002 Atlantic puzzle, "Layers" by Cox and Rathvon. It was one of the cleverest yet. The words are all entered conventionally into the diagram. The diagram, however, has two separate parts, an outside layer and a core, with one square in the middle. The clues are arranged so that some of the answers from the outside layer, when arranged according to the numbering scheme given, provide the clues for the core layer. Not only that, but the diagram entries from the core layer are entered in numbered squares. Then you enter each letter in a crostic-like row to give you one final clue, which tells you how to complete the final center box. So it is indeed "layered". Quite an achievement. The clues were challenging, although there was a good proportion of three and four-letter entries, which tend to be easier. This I find excusable, given the intricacy of the overall scheme. The cross-clues in the diagram were quite helpful, with the desirable balance pleasingly maintained.
As I went through this puzzle, I felt a keen sense of anticipation, thinking, "I wonder if they're really going to be able to carry it through?" They did not disappoint. This is a definite nine out of ten. That brings up an interesting point. How should puzzles be rated, for difficulty, cleverness, entertainment value? What should the standards be? I'll be pontificating on this in future posts and solicit any comments anyone may have.
Most entertaining clue: 12 Down. Yes, I know it's easy, but I found it fun anyway.
[edit]
[5/15/2002 7:02:58 PM | Robert Speirs]
Sunday, May 19, 2002
Not us
Just finished listening to Fox News Sunday. Tony Snow got the whole war thing together in ten words: "We have met the enemy, and he is NOT us."! Take that, Pogo! What a great summary of the enlightenment that has - finally - come over this country after decades of self-loathing and guilt tripping. Makes me confident and happy. It also makes a fitting memorial to the thousands who died on Sept. 11.
OK, OK, I know, this blog is supposed to be about puzzles. I did finish the quasi-cryptic by Lewis in the Nation, dated May 20, number 2846. The Nation is a weekly, I guess. I wouldn't subscribe to it on a bet. But the weekly pressure does perhaps explain the sketchy nature of the cryptic puzzle. Lewis doesn't bother with any fancy "distort the solution before you enter it into the diagram" business. All the entries are the same as the clue solutions. Some other differences appear from the usual Cox/Rathvon and Maltby puzzles. Lewis is addicted to multi-word answers, therefore to very long answers, and to spilling entries over from one numbered slot to the next, sometimes to three or more. Every other letter is unchecked. That makes it difficult to guess words. The occasional obscure clue - this puzzle had one extreme obscurity - could remain unfilled-in even when all the cross-checked letters have been entered. Luckily, I knew enough about Ethiopia to figure out this one. Next time, who knows?
I enjoyed this one more than I expected to, but don't seem to be impelled to rush out and acquire each puzzle as it comes out, as I do for the other cryptics. Nevertheless, Lewis does offer a change of pace from the monthlies. Most entertaining clue? 6 down, but then I'm a sucker for - well - conundrums!
Just finished listening to Fox News Sunday. Tony Snow got the whole war thing together in ten words: "We have met the enemy, and he is NOT us."! Take that, Pogo! What a great summary of the enlightenment that has - finally - come over this country after decades of self-loathing and guilt tripping. Makes me confident and happy. It also makes a fitting memorial to the thousands who died on Sept. 11.
OK, OK, I know, this blog is supposed to be about puzzles. I did finish the quasi-cryptic by Lewis in the Nation, dated May 20, number 2846. The Nation is a weekly, I guess. I wouldn't subscribe to it on a bet. But the weekly pressure does perhaps explain the sketchy nature of the cryptic puzzle. Lewis doesn't bother with any fancy "distort the solution before you enter it into the diagram" business. All the entries are the same as the clue solutions. Some other differences appear from the usual Cox/Rathvon and Maltby puzzles. Lewis is addicted to multi-word answers, therefore to very long answers, and to spilling entries over from one numbered slot to the next, sometimes to three or more. Every other letter is unchecked. That makes it difficult to guess words. The occasional obscure clue - this puzzle had one extreme obscurity - could remain unfilled-in even when all the cross-checked letters have been entered. Luckily, I knew enough about Ethiopia to figure out this one. Next time, who knows?
I enjoyed this one more than I expected to, but don't seem to be impelled to rush out and acquire each puzzle as it comes out, as I do for the other cryptics. Nevertheless, Lewis does offer a change of pace from the monthlies. Most entertaining clue? 6 down, but then I'm a sucker for - well - conundrums!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)