I've waited for a while now, just waiting for something from Caroline Kennedy to justify or remove her from consideration in replacing Senator Hillary Clinton. Mind you that I am not sorry to see Senator Clinton gone from office, as I am tired of her excuses on the broken promises that mark her time in New York. Though I am greatly saddened to see her working anywhere near the Executive Branch. But long-term readers know that, and this is about Kennedy.

Up til now there can be no question that Caroline Kennedy has zero qualifications for the Senate. She is a lawyer, like much of Congress. She is a Democrat, which at the moment gives her a boost. And she is the daughter of a revered dead President. Because if we are honest, that is the only reason any of us know her name.

Since she has never been politically active, which is a problem for me with anyone that would be Senator, we need to look at other aspects of this woman. She is part of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, which I personally like but is not enough. She has worked for 2 years, 2002-4, and rose $65 million in private funds for schools in New York which is great. The job was only 3 days a week though and one must wonder how much money she could have raised if she worked a full 5 days, the schools in NY could have used the extra effort.

Still none of this is a qualification. Yes she helps people, and is a committed Democrat. But what can she do? And what does she plan to do to help the state in this very critical time? The New York Times and other news media had the same question and asked her just that on several issues. The answers reveal quite a bit.

Mrs. Schlossberg is shrewd, having given a total of $7300 to Clinton before she switched to Obama in September of that year and gave him $2300. At the same time she has not voted in numerous Primaries since 1988. So we can understand she is willing to let her money vote for her.

In addition we now know that she supports same-sex marriage, which 68% of the nation opposes - even in California and New York. Something that neither Clinton nor Obama support. Which makes me believe she is even more liberal than the former most liberal member of Congress - President Obama.

It also seems that she opposes any restriction on abortion. This is another far-left Democrat policy stance. It includes, and Kennedy defered to not answer about, partial birth abortions. Even those in favor of abortion have issues with that. But seemingly not Kennedy, though she prefers to avoid having to make polispeak about such a position.

And in a hat tip to the Pelosi led Congress, she supports the mandating of public vote at unions. Thus taking away the normal right of secret ballots, and forcing workers to deal with peer pressure and criticism for co-workers and management. How kind.

And of course she is in favor of the auto bailout. Something that all Democrats are pushing to advance, though none have answered a simple question. When the auto industry came back to Congress after using up $25 billion in bailout money in one month, they stated that they HAD to have $50 billion or they would fail. Congress is trying to provide $15-35 billion instead, with a "car czar" (otherwise known as more government interference resulting in another Barney Frank). Since this is not $50 billion, and thus means the auto industry will fail and/or come back for more money, why does she support the lesser amount? No Democrat has a good answer for that, though they have been very good at avoiding the question.

And we know that Kennedy is anti-gun, which places her at odds with most of the state - except New York City. And it is the City that NY politicians proffer to.

Speaking of which, surprisingly she backs her uncles plan to make illegal immigrants (otherwise known as undocumented workers - the missing document is a greencard and reason to be in the U.S.) citizens. Pay a fine and swear in. We might as well make citizenship available on eBay.

But in a question that hits the pockets of the people in the state Kennedy is mum about capping property taxes. Or on taxing the higher income brackets more (which still would not make up the shortfall that the new spending creates).

So all in all what can we surmise? Kennedy is a liberal the likes of which we have not had in this state as far back as I can remember. She is more liberal than Clinton, and Obama. And if you wonder why might that be a bad thing recall this. Senator Clinton PROMISED to bring 200,000 jobs to New York State if upstate New York voted her in. We have lost over 30,000 jobs as of 2007, long before the current crisis hit.

Do you believe a more liberal, pro-illegal immigrant, anti-second ammendment, spend and tax, lawyer with no experience in politics would be a good Senator? Without the last name, the answer can only be no. But what Gov. Patterson decides will happen. Sadly.

Labels: 2nd Amendment, Abortion, auto industry, Caroline Kennedy, Congress, Democratic Party, Gov. Patterson, illegal immigration, mortgage bailout, New York State, Senator Clinton, Senator Edward Kennedy

With the impending Presidential election less than 2 months away there are discussions across the nation about issues many Americans hold dear. The media has emphasized some of these issues, like alternative energy, education, and nationalized (standardized) healthcare. But there are other issues that are as important and not nearly as well covered.

The 2nd Amendment provides for the Right to bear arms. Many liberal politicians seek to restrict the scope and definition of this Right. Some conservatives seek to expand it. But to fully understand this Right, as it exists today it is important to understand the laws and Court rulings in place currently that affect it.

One of the most important and recent would be District of Columbia v. Heller. This case dealt with the right of an American citizen to own a handgun, and to be able to have a rifle or shotgun that is owned to be loaded and/or assembled or unbound by a trigger lock. What was also at issue was something not written, whether an individual had a right to arms or was it that only state militias that had this right.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that individuals do have that right, can own handguns, and have the ultimate decision on how that firearm is maintained in their home. Justice Scalia stated

“In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense ... We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.”

It was further stated that it

“should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

In essence that further supports existing law. The combination of these comments, and this ruling in general, has helped to ensure that the Right to bear arms continues to live as it did when the Constitution was made.

But if some liberals were to have their dreams, then it may have been possible that this landmark decision could have gone 4-5 against. As such ALL Americans would have faced the potential of losing the right to own handguns currently in their possession, and the encroachment of the Government into their homes to ensure compliance.

Of the candidates looking to be elected as either President or Vice President, the clearest proponent of Heller would be Gov. Sarah Palin.

The only other relevant case would be the 1939 United States v. Miller. This case looked at the right of an individual to own various types of firearms, particularly short-barreled rifles and shotguns and fully automatic firearms. What Miller resolved is hard to understand as many interpretations exist.

Perhaps the best answer is this which came from the abovementioned Heller

“Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment.”

Whatever the interpretation the Court found in Miller that sawed-off shotguns were not included in the 2nd Amendment. It also made clear that the Government had the right to regulate certain types of firearms, which includes fully automatic firearms.

The ambiguous nature of Miller was purposive. And Heller intentionally did not interfere with its ruling.

That is the full breadth of the Supreme Court on the 2nd Amendment. Considering that Heller was just handed down this year, it will likely be faced with challenges and lawmakers that favor or oppose this ruling. The manner in which the Government reacts to these future challenges, and/or the selection of future members of the Court will rest firmly on the shoulders of our next elected Executives.

Labels: 2nd Amendment, Constitution, District of Columbia v. Heller, Gov. Sarah Palin, handgun, Justice Scalia, Presidential election race 2008, Supreme Court, United States v. Miller