The Supreme Court: All the Way to the Right!
American gun sellers have good reason to be happy. In a five-to-four decision, the Supreme Court of the United States has declared that the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees the right of every individual to bear arms, applies to both state and local jurisdictions. In their explanation the judges emphasize, under the guise of justification and taking care to not tread on the constitutionality of the laws of states where the ownership of pistols and rifles is prohibited, that the right to defend oneself is at the heart of the American conception of “ordained” liberty.
In doing so, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court leaves to lower courts the task of determining if the ban of firearms, which were prohibited in 1983 in Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois, is constitutional or not. The mayor of Chicago, Richard Daley, has expressed his deception in recalling — rightly so — that the ruling in 1983 had saved hundreds of lives. It’s important to know that, in the United States, there are more firearms in circulation than citizens. It’s also equally important to know that no fewer than 60,000 people are killed or injured by firearms each year.
Most of all, it’s important to know that, when the 2nd Amendment was written, the Founding Fathers still had fresh memories the war of independence against Britain. In writing the text, the founders of this young republic wanted each man to be a “citizen-soldier.” But why were there no bans? A strictly financial fact: at the time, a rifle easily cost a year’s salary. What’s more, as the industrial revolution had not yet happened, rifles didn’t have the murderous capacity that they have today. Therefore, the number of firearms in circulation was quite small compared to now.
By chance, the Supreme Court has unveiled its conclusions at the moment when, simultaneously, the senators on the Justice Commission began confirmation hearings for President Obama’s new candidate for the court, Elena Kagan, who is an ex-solicitor general.
Nevertheless, when the choice of Kagan was announced, President Obama had insisted on the fact that the nature of this choice — the reasoning — is as follows: as a counterweight to the conservative activism that the 5 magistrates in the majority continue to pursue. On what fronts? Principally, gay marriage, abortion, gender equality and … gun control.
On all subjects, Republicans have engaged themselves in vigorously questioning Elena Kagan in order to determine, as a former Obama appointee, whether she has an elaborate political agenda based on that of the White House. In a word, we will see a conflict — a war whose trenches include militants from the Tea Party, the far-right current of the Republican Party, who promise an anti-Kagan campaign conceived through the teaching of ferocity.
In doing so, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court leaves to lower courts the task of determining if the ban of firearms, which were prohibited in 1983 in Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois, is constitutional or not. The mayor of Chicago, Richard Daley, has expressed his deception in recalling — rightly so — that the ruling in 1983 had saved hundreds of lives. It’s important to know that, in the United States, there are more firearms in circulation than citizens. It’s also equally important to know that no fewer than 60,000 people are killed or injured by firearms each year.
Most of all, it’s important to know that, when the 2nd Amendment was written, the Founding Fathers still had fresh memories the war of independence against Britain. In writing the text, the founders of this young republic wanted each man to be a “citizen-soldier.” But why were there no bans? A strictly financial fact: at the time, a rifle easily cost a year’s salary. What’s more, as the industrial revolution had not yet happened, rifles didn’t have the murderous capacity that they have today. Therefore, the number of firearms in circulation was quite small compared to now.
By chance, the Supreme Court has unveiled its conclusions at the moment when, simultaneously, the senators on the Justice Commission began confirmation hearings for President Obama’s new candidate for the court, Elena Kagan, who is an ex-solicitor general.
Nevertheless, when the choice of Kagan was announced, President Obama had insisted on the fact that the nature of this choice — the reasoning — is as follows: as a counterweight to the conservative activism that the 5 magistrates in the majority continue to pursue. On what fronts? Principally, gay marriage, abortion, gender equality and … gun control.
On all subjects, Republicans have engaged themselves in vigorously questioning Elena Kagan in order to determine, as a former Obama appointee, whether she has an elaborate political agenda based on that of the White House. In a word, we will see a conflict — a war whose trenches include militants from the Tea Party, the far-right current of the Republican Party, who promise an anti-Kagan campaign conceived through the teaching of ferocity.