Red Dress Presses, 20 April 2007

Progressive Historians:

The historic purpose of the "right to bear arms" is therefore not in protection of the individual against another individual nor, as is often assumed, to protect the country against an external enemy. It is so that the citizens can revolt against the oppressive power of their own government. (Link)

The Rude Pundit:

So, in the face of no data, the Supreme Court affirms that Congress has the right to decide what behavior is moral, based on majority notions of morality: "No one would dispute that, for many, D&E is a procedure itself laden with the power to devalue human life. Congress could nonetheless conclude that the type of abortion proscribed by the Act requires specific regulation because it implicates additional ethical and moral concerns that justify a special prohibition."

Beyond abortion politics, the breadth of that idea is stunning. It's some profoundly scary shit. Kennedy is saying that Congress can decide that "moral concerns" can "justify a special prohibition" on an act. Not to get all slippery-slop, domino-effect here, where does that end, once you stick morality into the equation? Are there First Amendment moral concerns that would require a special prohibition? Like saying and printing that some Supreme Court decisions are "models ... that seem as if they were written by mad geezers ..."? For all you right-wingers proudly declaiming "Victory" today, ..., are there Second Amendment moral concerns that might result in a ban on certain kinds of guns?

...

Anti-abortion activists always want pro-choice people to remember the gruesome details of what happens in an abortion. But they don't want to think about the implications of the government making laws abridging freedoms. (Link)