Assault weapons, terrorist rifles?

The NRA continues to pick and choice the parts of the Constitution that furthers their agenda. When NRA members stockpile assault weapons, the mantra of the "right to bear arms" is wailed ad nausea. I could be misinterpreted this provision, but I believe the founding fathers were concerned about invading armies. They also used their "arms" to hunt for their dinner.

In parts of our country, hunting and simply shooting weapons are sacred pastimes. Do you need an automatic assault weapon to kill Bambi? We do have supermarkets to "hunt" for our food.

Last year I attended an "advisory board retreat" for a not-for-profit supermarket. One of the members brought several automatic weapons. He spent two days soliciting members to shoot these weapons. One member finally succumbed. As he was loading up the weapons on all-terrain vehicle, his excitment was frighteningly palatable. Holding those weapons was more effective than an entire bottle of Viagra.

Jim Zumbo, hunting activist, now former writer for the magazine Outdoor Life, is not entitled to exercise his Constitutional right of "free speech." He made the fatal mistake of referring to assault weapons as "terrorist rifles". Six thousand very angry letters to the magazine later, he tendered his resignation. These, no doubt, are the same folks who continue to give Shrub favorable ratings.

Just like you can't pick and chose parts of the bible to drive home a point, the same rules apply to the Constitution. Our country has become so polarized that by challenging the "norm" rattles our citizens sensibilities. Maybe those screaming the loudest, should spend time reading the entire document.

Good for the Chicks

In 2003, the Dixie Chicks were flambeed for exercising their first amendment rights. The beginning of the demise of all of our constitutional rights. If you are professional entertainer you do not check your basic liberties at the stage door. For them to be told by the far right to "shut up and sing" is outrageous.

I guess when we are imposing a Jeffersonian democracy in the Middle East we are supposed to suspend our rights at home.

The fact that they won five grammys speaks to the sea change in the attitude of the country.

Civil Discourse

The National Constitution Center's program featured visiting scholars Laurence Tribe and Theodore Olson with Jeffrey Toobin as moderator. Tribe and Olson were involved in the infamous Gore v. Bush case.

The Kirby Auditorium welcomed a standing room only crowd. C-Span was on hand to tape the event.

Toobin skillfully moved the discussion to touch upon the following topics: Separation of Powers; Signing Statements; Writ of Habeous Corpus; the pesonality of the Supreme Court; Libby Trial and of course Bush's War.

Both scholars agreed that if the Congress does not exert its rights clearly spelled out in Article I of the Constitution, a strong executive will seize that power. They reiterated that in the Federalist Papers anticipated this type of friction between these two branches of government. Olson cited Jefferson, Lincoln and FDR as strong Presidents who exerted their executive privilege/authority. (I am so offended that he would speak of Bush 2 in the same breath).

After an hour of lively civil discourse, the scholars took questions from the engaged audience for the balance of the program.

Tribe did remind the audience that "contrary to what Bush thinks, we have a Constitution and he is not above the law."

"The strength of the Constitution, lies in the will of the people to defend it."
-- Thomas Edison