Ashleeds’s Weblog

1st Description

I read a discussion on this web-site. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/newspid=20601070&sid=asG.bxxPifXc&refer=home. It was sort of a back and forth interview with Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin and Presidential Candidate Barack Obama. 

Palin made a comment that linked Obama to a terrorist group from the 70’s.  She said: “Obama used to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country.”  Obama’s reply to this was that he would “run a campaign that did not consist of political distractions.”

Obama then attacked Presidential Candidate John McCain saying: “He raised a radical and out of touch health-care plan that would raise taxes.”  McCain’s campaign replied saying it was a “bald-faced lie.”

Republicans and Democrats alike were both very unhappy with the comments that Obama and Palin made about eachother.

If they were actually there together and at the same time when this was going on, this probably would have been a heated debate, however, they weren’t so I would say its neither Dialogue or Debate.

Most of the time, people know who they want to vote for from the start, and they aren’t going to believe the lies that are spread around trying to get your votes for the other candidate.

2nd Description

 The second description I read I found on this site: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/03/america/03debate.php. 

Vice Presidential Candidates Sarah Palin and Joseph Biden Jr. both discussed the problems of our economy system. 

Palin was very polite and mannerly in her replies but definately made her points in a politically experienced way.  Biden remained forceful with his comments, and found it difficult to attack Palin as she very often used Biden’s words against him. 

This was definately an example of debate, as they were back and forth with comments, and both used eachother’s words against the other. 

One thing I learned from this discussion is how experienced each candidate is.  Biden has more years of experience as senator, and also more experience from having tried to run for president himself, twice.  But Palin, also has some years of experience as governor, and also is a mother, so she can actually feel what the citizens of her country feels, and know more of what they want/need. 

I think dialogue is probably more useful in Political discussions because in dialogue, you’re able to hear more opinions from both sides.

II Amendment:  Right To Bears Arms

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.

            I believe that this amendment is important because the innocent citizens of our nation should be allowed to own some form of “effective” self-defense, if a situation demands it.  We also need to be sure we have a well prepared militia if a time arrives to “use it”, (ex: 9/11).

           Supreme Court Case: United States v. Miller (1939)   

 (Sawed Off Shot Gun)

In 1938, two men, Layton and Miller were arrested for transporting an unlicensed shotgun (with a barrell less than 18″ long) across state lines, being engaged in interstate commerce.  This was a violation of the NFA (National Firearms Act). 

Miller and Layton’s property had originally been searched under the suspicion of moonshine.  It was discovered that there was no moonshine, but a shotgun was found in the front seat of Miller’s truck.  In fear of embarrasment for the misunderstanding, Miller and Layton were taken in and charged for not paying taxes on the shortened shotgun. 

At the court trial, the defendent argued that the NFA was an attempt to seize police power of each individual state and is therefore unconstitutional, and comes in conflict with the second amendment. 

This Case became a federal case and was heard by the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.  “The judge there agreed that the NFA was intended to restrict the individual ownership and possession of arms in conflict with the second amendment of the United States of America” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller).  The trial court agreed and the U.S. attorney appealed to the Supreme Court.

In 1939, the Supreme Court heard the case and argued four points,

 1. “The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury”.

2. “The Defendents transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas so they were therefore involved in interstate commerce”.

3.” The second amendment protects only the ownership of “military type” weapons appropiate for use in organized militia”.

4. “The shotgun owned by the defendent was never used in organized militia”.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller)

The defendents never appeared at the Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court declared several different things.  No conflict between the NFA and the II amendment had been established in writing; they could not say if the second amendment guarantees possession of a weapon such as the one that was owned; and that in history the term “militia” was anyone males physically capable of serving for the common defense, and that when these men were called for service, they were expected to appear bearing their weapons which they themselves supplied.

Mr. Justice McReynolds gave his opinion: “An indictment in the District Court, Western District Arkansas, charged that Jack Miller and Frank Layton did unlawfully, knowingly, willfully, and feloniously transport in interstate commerce from the town of Claremore in the State of Oklahoma to the town of Siloam Springs in the State of Arkansas a certain firearm, to-wit, a double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230, said defendants, at the time of so transporting said firearm in interstate commerce as aforesaid, not having registered said firearm and not having in their possession a stamp-affixed written order for said firearm and the regulations issued under authority of the said Act of Congress known as the “National Firearms Act, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the United States.”  (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO.html) 

              Does the National Firearms Act violate the Second Amendment?

               Well, the Supreme court decided that it does NOT violate the II amendment.  I believe that the NFA doesn’t violate it either.  The second amendment states “for the security of the free states, a well regulated militia is necessary, and that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be weakened.”  Arms meaning military-type arms, and the gun that was owned by Miller was not ”military-type”, and was not used for militia purposes.  The second amendment does protect the rights of individuals, including non-militia in the right to bear arms, but the constitutional right was subject to ”reasonable restrictions” designed to prevent ”criminal misuse” and keep guns out of the hands of ”unfit persons.”  (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9802E3D7113DF932A25755C0A9649C8B63)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/Teach/freeResources/LandmarkSupremeCourtCases/

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9802E3D7113DF932A25755C0A9649C8B63

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO.html

http://bp1.blogger.com/_xAgF1JPH6Ac/RjO_Mhs2QMI/AAAAAAAAAF0/assZAFJfNG8/s200/jack+miller.JPG