Category Archives: Second Amendment

Letters submitted by BDN readers are verified by BDN Opinion Page staff. Send your letters toletters@bangordailynews.com.

Maine needs Reagan Paul!

Paul is a 23-year-old, no-holds-barred Christian woman who loves God, is guided by His principles, loves her country, state, and Maine people. She is smart, holds two bachelors degrees, is enthusiastic, hard working, creative and owns her own business! We need her in Augusta to help set our state on the straight path to personal liberty and prosperity.

A gem like Paul is rare and stands for what Maine needs. Things like school choice, the Second Amendment, limiting government, and meeting the needs of families at every life stage.

Shes running a traditional campaign which means she is not dependent on our government (so-called clean elections) for money. This is our opportunity in House District 37 towns of Winterport, Prospect, Stockton Springs, Searsport, and part of Frankfort to support a terrific candidate financially, or contact her to find other ways to help get Reagan Paul elected.

Bob and Barbara Merriam

Stockton Springs

More articles from the BDN

Read the rest here:
Letter: Reagan Paul will help set Maine on path to liberty and prosperity - Bangor Daily News

Running for state attorney general is often seen as a stepping stone to higher office. To the point that political wags quip the "AG" role stands for "aspiring governor."

But brewing fights over state abortion laws, how to conduct elections, and other hot-button issues have turned attorney general races into top-tier midterm elections contests.

There are 30 attorney general seats on the ballot in 2022, and several are attracting media coverage and candidate spending traditionally reserved for statewide contests such as senator and governor.

Voters are hiring their top law enforcement figures not just for traditional roles such as bringing lawsuits to stop corporate monopolies and trying to institute or fight environmental regulations. And Republicans say they're primed for pickups in attorney general races. Particularly with persistently low approval ratings for President Joe Biden amid the worst inflation in 40 years and high gas prices.

As weve seen over the last two years, Republican AGs are the only thing standing between Americans and the radical progressive agenda including defunding the police and overreaching government mandates that affect everything from education to energy being pushed by President Biden and Democrats in Congress," Peter Bisbee, executive director of the Republican Attorneys General Association, told the Washington Examiner.

BLACKBURN SEEKS ACTION AFTER DOCTOR TOUTS PROFITS OF TRANSGENDER SURGERIES ON VIDEO

But Democrats contend the Supreme Court's June 24 Dobbs decision is now front and center in many attorney general contests. The ruling declared that there is no constitutional right to abortion and sent the issue back to the states to decide.

"Abortion is a top issue in many of our races. We have several Democratic incumbents working to protect reproductive rights and abortion access," Geoff Burgan, communications director for the Democratic Attorneys General Association, told the Washington Examiner.

The abortion issue has helped put the Georgia attorney general's race on the national radar, in September earning a "competitive" rating from Sabato's Crystal Ball, out of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. Republican Attorney General Chris Carr is drawing criticism from Democrats for working to enforce Georgia's six-week abortion ban. On Nov. 8, Carr faces Democratic nominee Jen Jordan, a state senator and attorney.

The attorney general race is likely to draw a heavy turnout as Georgia voters are also making choices for governor, senator, secretary of state, and other races.

Jordan "is running a really strong race in that campaign, and Carr is on the defensive," Burgan said.

Beyond public policy issues, the way that elections are conducted also has become a central issue in attorney general races. Former President Donald Trump's baseless claims that the 2020 election was "rigged" or "stolen" have seeped into several attorney general contests.

In Michigan, Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson is defending her seat against Republican nominee Matt DePerno, a western Michigan attorney and first-time candidate who was involved in efforts to overturn Bidens 2020 win in the Wolverine State.

In Arizona, the attorney generals office is open because incumbent Mark Brnovich is term-limited. But Brnovich is a cautionary tale for Republicans who cross Trump over election fraud claims. Brnovich lost a Senate GOP primary bid on Aug. 2 after becoming a Trump target for being insufficiently aggressive, in the former presidents view, about rooting out voter fraud and other irregularities in 2020 balloting. A report Brnovich issued on April 6 found no evidence of widespread voter fraud or irregularities in Maricopa County, Arizonas population base and the central locale for election-related conspiracies by Trump supporters.

The Republican attorney general nominee is attorney Abe Hamadeh, a former prosecutor in the Maricopa County District Attorney's Office. Hamadeh has firmly aligned himself with Kari Lake and Mark Finchem, the Arizona GOPs nominees for governor and secretary of state, respectively, who have both repeatedly rejected the results of the 2020 election. Hamadeh has also pledged to prosecute the crimes of the rigged 2020 election if elected and has seemingly endorsed efforts to decertify his states 2020 presidential electors.

Hamadeh is locked in a tight contest, according to polls, with Democratic nominee Kris Mayes, a former state corporation commissioner. Mayes is touting her bipartisan appeal, having been a member of that regulatory body as a Republican from 2003-2011 who also worked for former Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

"Arizona is a very independent place," said Burgan, from the Democratic attorneys general group. Hamadeh's "extreme Trump brand of politics does not win in Arizona."

Bisbee, the Republican attorneys general group head, said voters in those contests are likely to vote on other issues.

The woke Left wants to limit our Second Amendment rights, Washington bureaucrats are pushing unconstitutional environmental regulations, and Big Tech companies are censoring free speech," Bisbee said. "But rest assured, in the new year, Republican AGs will continue their pursuit to protect Americans from these harmful policies and practices.

Read more from the original source:
Abortion and election rule fights amp up attorney general races - Washington Examiner

LINCOLN A contentious race for a seat on the University of Nebraska Board of Regents is being marked by claims that the top issue is whether the NU leadership is too liberal and must be replaced.

One candidate for the post, State Sen. Matt Williams of Gothenburg, said recent attacks against his campaign from a PAC funded by Gov. Pete Ricketts are ultimately aimed at replacing Ronnie Green, the chancellor of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, as well as his boss, NU President Ted Carter, two leaders he supports.

They want to stack the board and get rid of them, Williams said.

His opponent, Kathy Wilmot of Beaver City, a past member of the State Board of Education, called that crazy.

Wilmot said she had yet to work with Carter or Green to determine if they should be replaced. But, she said, there are some courses at NU that are liberal leaning.

Thats the kind of indoctrination I hear about, that kids go off to the university and come back with liberal ideas, Wilmot said. (But) to me this isnt about an individual, or a couple of individuals.

Williams and Wilmot, both registered Republicans, are squaring off to

represent the western two-thirds of Nebraska on the eight-member Board of Regents, which determines university policy and NU leadership.

They are running for a seat vacated by Bob Phares of North Platte, who opted against seeking a fourth term on the board.

Williams, a 73-year-old banker who earned undergraduate and law degrees from UNL, outpolled Wilmot, a 72-year-old former training officer at a Kansas state prison, by about 1,800 in a three-way primary race for the nonpartisan post.

Both Williams and Wilmot are registered Republicans, and both consider themselves conservatives, though the state GOP which was recently taken over by a more conservative faction of the party has endorsed Wilmot.

Two top GOP leaders, Ricketts and the gubernatorial candidate he has funded and endorsed to succeed him, Jim Pillen, are divided on the race.

Ricketts, who cannot run again for governor because of term limits, has endorsed Wilmot and has contributed $20,000 to her campaign, whilePillen, a current member of the Board of Regents, has endorsed Williams and donated $5,000 to his effort.

The race heated up even more this week after it was reported that Ricketts, whose family owns the Chicago Cubs, poured $314,000 into a political action committee that has funded a series of advertisements attacking Williams. Among other things, the ads claim he is a Republican in Name Only (RINO).

Ricketts, whose family are major GOP donors nationwide, has never been shy about using his wealth to oppose or support political causes. In 2016, he donated $300,000 to the campaign to restore the death penalty and financially backed three candidates who ousted a trio of legislative incumbents who had disagreed with him.

Ricketts has made no bones about his dislike of Green. Eleven months

ago, the governor said he had lost all faith in the UNL chancellor, who Ricketts said had blindsided him about the universitys plan to address racial inequities.

The plan had won the vocal support of Carter, a retired Navy vice admiral who has led the NU system for almost two years. Green, who previously was head of UNLs Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, has held the top job at the states flagship university since 2016.

Ricketts, in an email response, did not address whether the governors support was about electing Regents that would replace Green and Carter, but he stated that he supported Wilmot because shes a trusted conservative.

And I know Kathy will take those values to the Board of Regents, the governor said. Matt Williams record in the Legislature proves hes not a conservative.

Ricketts noted that he disagrees with his wife, Susanne Shore, a registered Democrat, on whom to back in political races.

Pillen, who was endorsed by Ricketts and aided by more than $1 million in ads attacking his primary opponents, said hes known Williams for years.

Hes a conservative who has done a good job for his community and state, said Pillen in a text.

Its not the first time that Pillen, a pork producer from Columbus, has disagreed with Ricketts in a political campaign. In 2014, Pillen backed former Attorney General Jon Bruning in the GOP gubernatorial primary instead of Ricketts. In 2006, Pillen supported U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson when he was challenged by Ricketts.

In the Regents race, both Williams and Wilmot have impressive lists of endorsements.

Besides Pillen, Williams is backed by five other NU regents Phares, Paul Kenney, Barb Weitz, Rob Schafer and Tim Clare as well as former Regent Howard Hawks. Williams was also endorsed by former NU football coach and U.S. Rep. Tom Osborne, State Treasurer John Murante and five state senators: Mike Hilgers, John Stinner, Myron Dorn, Tim Gragert and Mark Kolterman.

Theres no comparison on their credentials, said Kolterman, who called Wilmot a single-issue candidate.

Kolterman noted that Williams has been on the board at UNLs Innovation Campus since it was launched and served as national president of the American Bankers Association.

Williams, who has raised about $96,000 for his race, touted his accomplishments in the Legislature, including obtaining $25 million in funding for a USDA facility at Innovation Campus in Lincoln, which he called a game changer, and getting legislation passed to increase workforce housing in rural communities, which is a barrier to hiring new employees.

He defended his votes to override Ricketts vetoes on bills concerning drivers licenses for participants in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA participants are here legally, Williams said) and an increase in the states fuel tax. While Ricketts opposed the tax hike, he has used the extra funding to accelerate highway improvements in the state.

In eight years in the Legislature, I voted to reduce property taxes, reduce income taxes, reduce taxes on Social Security and was hard-line pro-life and on the Second Amendment, Williams said. Tell me thats not conservative.

The biggest issue in the race has become whether to maintain the current NU leadership or to elect Wilmot, whom Williams suggested wanted both Green and Carter replaced.

Wilmot, who has raised about $50,000 for her campaign, has been endorsed by two former governors, Kay Orr and Dave Heineman, as well as five state senators:Rita Sanders, Joni Albrecht, Steve Erdman, Dave Murman and Steve Halloran.

Wilmot said that she has a proven record as a true conservative and that Williams rated a modest, 60% approval rating from the American Conservative Union two years ago.

She said she sees shortcomings in the preparation of students at NU to enter the workforce and wants to assure that teachers are ready to teach when they graduate.

The thing I hear when I talk to people in the district is that they want education, not an indoctrination, Wilmot said.

She said one of her main objections to Williams is that he didnt sign onto a letter, signed by 30 other state lawmakers, objecting to new sex education standards proposed by the State Board of Education standards that Wilmot testified against and were that eventually dropped amid controversy.

Williams, she said, also declined to sign a letter opposing the teaching of critical race theory at NU, which Wilmot said divides and tore down people instead of uniting them.

Williams said he didnt sign the two letters because he doesnt think its right for one elected body, the Legislature, to tell another elected board, the State Ed Board, what to do.

Regardless, the senator said, he made his objections known directly to the university about CRT and about the sex-ed standards to State Education Board members.

I was in the same place, Williams said. I was taking my own action,

Nebraska Examiner political reporter Aaron Sanderford contributed to this report.

View original post here:
NU Regents race is spiced by charge that campaign is aimed at replacing top university leaders - Nebraska Examiner

After Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY, was shouted down at her own town hall, Congresswoman Lauren Boebert, R-CO, piled on the criticism by accusing her of being "part of the machine" and for ignoring her constituents.

"On the rare occasions that @AOC actually spends time with her constituents, she is reminded that she has sold them out at every turn," Boebert said on Twitter Thursday.

She added: "She campaigned as an outsider and has now just morphed into Sandy Pelosi."

A split photo of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY, on December 7, 2021, in Washington, D.C., and Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-CO, in Dallas, Texas, US, on Saturday, Aug. 6, 2022.

Several hours later, AOC responded to the quip and claimed Boebert was the sellout.

LAUREN BOEBERT: ONLY WAY REPUBLICANS LOSE IN NOVEMBER IS IF THEY START ACTING LIKE DEMOCRATS

"Hey Boebert, you seem to have us confused," The "Squad" lawmaker said. "I have attended and hosted [hundreds] of community events, hold regular town halls, [and] dont take a dime in corporate cash."

READ ON THE FOX NEWS APP

"You are bankrolled by corporate PACs [Political Action Committees], Big Ag, and Oil," AOC continued. "[You] are too scared to hold regular town halls open to all."

Boebert fired back in a tweet early the following day.

"I have governed as I campaigned. You sold out your supporters," said the Coloradan.

WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 08: U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-CO, attends a House Second Amendment Caucus press conference at the U.S. Capitol on June 08, 2022 in Washington, DC.

"I notice you took a screenshot of my tweet instead of sharing the original one with the video of you getting completely ripped to shreds by your own constituents," she added.

"Just own it. Youre the machine now," Boebert also said.

AOC ROASTED ON TWITTER AFTER BEING HECKLED BY ANTI-WAR ACTIVISTS AT HER TOWN HALL

Videos from Ocasio-Cortezs original town hall show several people in the audience heckling her and accusing her of pushing the ongoing fighting between Ukraine and Russia.

"You voted to send arms to Ukraine," one person at the town hall can be heard yelling to the Democrat.

WASHINGTON, DC - DECEMBER 08: U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY, speaks during a news conference at the U.S. Capitol December 8, 2021 in Washington, DC.

"You ran as an outsider, yet youve been voting to start this war in Ukraine. Youre voting to start a third nuclear war with Russia and China," another shouts.

AOC took to Twitter to address some of these criticisms, including comments from others claiming she was using her office to increase her net worth.

Story continues

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"My financial disclosures are public. I still owe ~$18k in student loans. Not everything on the internet is true," she wrote.

Boebert, a vocal Trump supporter, was sworn into office last year and has since become an outspoken critic of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders.

See more here:
Lauren Boebert sparks feud with AOC after town hall heckling: 'Ripped to shreds by your own constituents' - Yahoo News

In a press conference defending the states new restrictions on concealed carry permit holders, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, told reporters last month: This whole concept that a good guy with a gun will stop the bad guys with a gun, it doesnt hold up. And the data bears this out, so that theory is over.

With all due respect to the governor, she clearly hasnt actually looked at the data.

Almost every major study on the issue has found that Americans use their firearms in self-defense between500,000 and 3 milliontimes annually, according to the latest report on the subject by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Just this year, a more comprehensive study concluded thatroughly 1.6 million defensive gun usesoccur in the United States every year.

For this reason, The Daily Signal each month publishes an article highlighting some of the previous months many news stories on defensive gun use that you may have missedor that might not have made it to the national spotlight in the first place. (Read other accountsherefrom 2019, 2020, 2021, and so far in 2022.)

The examples below represent only a fraction of the news stories on defensive gun use that we found in September. You may explore more by using The Heritage Foundations interactiveDefensive Gun Use Database.(The Daily Signal is Heritages multimedia news organization.)

As these recent cases show, the reality of armed citizens defending life, liberty, and property never has been more relevant, or more supported by the available evidence.

Restricting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans doesnt make them safer. It just hinders their ability to protect themselves and others, making them even more vulnerable to attacks by criminals who know their victims are defenseless.

This piece originally appeared in The Daily Signal

The rest is here:
Yes, Democrats, Sometimes a Good Guy With a Gun Does Stop the Bad Guys. Here's Proof. - Heritage.org

Editor, Daily Press:

Conservatives cannot have it both ways. They like to talk about original intent regarding the Constitution and laws. However, this doctrine only seems to apply when it agrees with their views.

Take, for instance, the reasoning for the recent Supreme Court ruling, which erased 50 years of progress and has returned women to the status of second-class citizens by overturning Roe v. Wade. They then turn around and want unfettered access to all kinds of guns, claiming the Second Amendment gives them that right. All of a sudden, the doctrine of originality is tossed out the window. Just read the wording.

Contrary to Thomas Sanco's allegation that the Secondnd Amendment was adopted to allow armed insurrection against the U.S. government, it was intended to allow people to possess firearms as part of a "well-regulated militia" to facilitate defense against enemies of our new nation. Right-wing radicals conveniently ignore the words "well-regulated militia." Then there is the fact that assault rifles did not exist at the time the Second Amendment was adopted. These gun absolutists are guilty of intellectual dishonesty at the least, and at worst are destroying the pillars of the rule of law and of our representative democracy.

In the Sept. 20 issue of the Tahlequah Daily Press, Thomas Sanco stooped to the old device of setting up a straw man to knock down. He portrayed President Biden as a fear mongering opponent of all guns in opposition to "pro-gun Americans." He falsely claimed to be supporting his argument with facts.

Fact No. 1: The president of the United States is not anti-gun and has stated so on numerous occasions. Fact No. 2: Assault weapons were utilized in nearly every single mass murder incident in this country. Fact No. 3: When assault weapons were banned, there were many fewer mass shootings than before the ban and since the ban was ended. He also cites FBI statistics on weapons used in murders. Yet he fails to mention those statistics are incomplete at best, since his crowd has been successful at disallowing requirements to report gun violence.

The bottom line is, Sanco does not understand or chooses to ignore the original intent of the Second Amendment, which was the law of the land until a recent conservative Supreme Court used twisted logic to give credence to the false assertion that the intent was to allow unfettered and unregulated access to firearms by every American. Our nation cannot survive if the absurd assertion is accepted that Americans have an "inalienable" right to possess guns to attack our own government.

David Nagle

Tahlequah

Go here to see the original:
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Second Amendment has been misinterpreted - Tahlequah Daily Press

Iowa would have some of the most extensive gun rights guarantees in the nation under a constitutional amendment for voters to decide on Nov. 8.

Why it matters: A "yes" vote would mean all gun restrictions under the Iowa amendment would be subject to "strict scrutiny," the highest legal hurdle for legislation to clear if challenged in court.

Catch up fast: Iowa is one of six states that doesn't recognize Second Amendment rights in its state constitution.

What they're saying: The proposal goes much further than the Second Amendment, placing gun access ahead of safety and potentially blocking policies that limit them in places like school settings, Connie Ryan, executive director of Interfaith Alliance of Iowa, tells Axios.

Of note: Amendments like the one proposed in Iowa have only been adopted by three states Alabama, Louisiana, and Missouri and each was approved between eight and 10 years ago according to research published by the Iowa Law Review.

Yes, but: Gun rights advocates have already succeeded via a U.S. Supreme Court decision in June that struck down New York's concealed carry law, Richard Rogers, a board member of the Iowa Firearms Coalition, told Axios.

The intrigue: Both sides tell Axios they believe public opinion is generally on their side.

More:
Iowa residents to vote on adding gun rights amendment to state constitution - Axios

Wyoming voters will decide the fate of two constitutional amendments in Novembers general election. One proposes to change the retirement age for certain judges, while the other would allow municipalities to invest in stocks in the same manner the state does.

Changing the Wyoming Constitution involves a lengthy process originating with the Legislature. Both amendments began as legislation and received the required two-thirds supermajority in both the House and the Senate. That move sent them to the ballot for voter consideration.

Cities, counties and towns currently have the ability to make low-risk, fixed income investments, such as certificates of deposit, federal agency bonds and U.S. Treasurys.

If voters approve Amendment A, those municipalities would have the option to invest in equities, like the stock market, just as the state does.

Rep. Pat Sweeney (R-Casper) brought a bill to the Legislature earlier this year to get the amendment on the ballot. He introduced the legislation following the sale of Wyoming Medical Center, for which Natrona County received more than $100 million. The Board of County Commissioners then agreed to invest those funds rather than spend them.

However, because the countys investment options are limited, the funds are yielding very minimal returns, according to Paul Bertoglio, a Natrona County Commissioner and proponent of the amendment. If properly invested and managed for long-term returns, the funds could provide additional revenue for local governments without any additional taxes, he said. With decreases in coal and oil and gas production, Bertoglio expects the state to be under increasing pressure to cut, including funding for local governments.

At some point, theyre going to have no choice but to start cutting back what they give us, and that is the value of this it gives us an independent revenue stream that offsets some of those cuts, he said.

The Wyoming County Commissioners Association has endorsed the amendment, but with the expectation that the Legislature will create rules requiring long-term investing by municipalities be done by professional portfolio managers instead of local officials.

The Wyoming County Treasurers Association, meanwhile, opposes the amendment.

The volatility of the market means that losses are inevitable, and county treasurers believe any loss of the funds entrusted to us is unacceptable, the association wrote in an open letter to the public.

While investing in equities would indeed provide higher yields, it would also come with unacceptable risk, according to the treasurers.

The investment of public funds is rooted in a system of trust, and we are very aware of your expectations. To that end, the safety of your money should be the priority, over yield and other political considerations, the letter stated.

The amendment mirrors one from 2016 that granted the state the ability to invest in equities.

The second amendment on the ballot faces no apparent, organized opposition.

If approved by voters, Amendment B would change the required retirement age for Wyoming Supreme Court justices and district court judges from 70 to 75.

Mandatory judicial retirement at age 70 has resulted in the loss of many eminently qualified Justices and Judges in Wyoming, according to a fact sheet from the Wyoming Judicial Branch. If the mandatory retirement age were extended, not only could these members of the judiciary continue to meaningfully contribute to the law in Wyoming, longer service would also result in a net savings for the state.

Wyoming is one of 17 states that has a mandatory judicial retirement age of 70, according to the fact sheet.

As a Judiciary Committee bill in the Legislature, the proposal faced little opposition. In the House, it passed third reading 54-5 with one excused. In the Senate, it passed 20-10.

Sen. Tom James (R-Green River) voted against the amendment because he opposes extending appointments for any position which has decisions over the peoples Constitutional rights, he wrote in an email to WyoFile. He added that he believes judges should be elected, not appointed.

Since 2000, some 20 constitutional amendments have appeared on the ballot in Wyoming, according to secretary of state records. Twelve of those were approved, including one in 2012 guaranteeing citizens the right to make their own healthcare decisions, which is now at the center of a lawsuit involving Wyomings abortion trigger law. The other eight amendments were defeated by voters. Early voting in Wyoming is currently underway. The general election is Nov. 8.

View post:
Election 2022: What to know about constitutional amendments - WyoFile

I teach Second Amendment classes and have comments regarding The Baltimore Suns recent ghost gun editorial (In Delaware, a worrisome challenge to ghost gun restrictions, Sept. 28). The editorial omitted critical considerations related to Judge Maryellen Noreikas recent decision blocking enforcement of Delawares law banning possession and distribution of ghost guns.

The Sun may have not cared for the holding, but Judge Noreika is a careful and deliberate jurist. She did what was required of her by the recent United States Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol v. Bruen. She is not entitled to make up the law or follow her personal bias whatever that may be.

Junes New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen case was a sea change decision for the Second Amendment. It held that when the Second Amendments plain text covers an individuals conduct the Constitution protects that conduct. To justify the restriction, Delaware was required to demonstrate to the court that the enacted ban is consistent with the nations historic tradition of firearms regulation. The Delaware attorney general failed to make that showing and the judges hands were tied. She had to, and did, follow New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. In other words, to enforce this law she had to find that Delawares ban was consistent with a historic tradition of regulation as it existed at the time of the founding. The judge cant be faulted for doing her job. Had she not followed this very recent Supreme Court precedent, she would be called an activist judge.

Judge Noreikas decision is not binding on any court sitting in Maryland, but Bruen binds Maryland courts, and Maryland will face this same challenge when it seeks to enforce its ghost gun ban. Perhaps Maryland will take its cue from the Delaware decision and will be prepared to tie historic tradition of regulations that existed at the time of the founding or soon after into its ghost gun restriction. If it is unable to do so, it will fail.

James B. Astrachan, Baltimore

Add your voice: Respond to this piece or other Sun content by submitting your own letter.

Read the original here:
Delaware ghost gun decision followed the law | READER COMMENTARY - Baltimore Sun

A terrible trio of Supreme Court cases from last term illustrates the need for judicial reform, which can occur through several options.

In a single week in June 2022, at the close of its last term, the U.S. Supreme Court undermined its own political legitimacy through three decisions: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization, and West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency. Each of these decisions strikes at a core justification for any government: the need to protect the lives of its people.

Conservative and liberal political theories of different stripes agree that a foundational purpose of government is to preserve the lives and assure the safety of its citizens. They agree that government is justified by the need to preserve civil order through law, ideally through democratic processes, to protect the unalienable right to life.

Protecting the right to life is a primary justification for the consent of citizens to the authority of government in the social contract tradition of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, which informed revolutions establishing democratic republics in the United States and Europe. Since then, long-standing questions have persisted about whose lives matter and who counts as citizens. A foundational principle, however, remains that government must protect the right to life of its citizens to remain politically legitimate.

For this reason, it is shocking to see the Supreme Court acting contrary to the right to life of millions of Americans with respect to gun safety, reproductive health, and climate damage. The Courts self-inflicted political illegitimacy demands immediate reform.

To begin with some conceptual background, legitimacy is an essentially contested concept in social theory. For purposes here, one can distinguish the following kinds of legitimacy: legal legitimacy, empirical political legitimacy, and substantive political legitimacy.

Legal legitimacy refers to whether the enactment of laws and their application follow agreed standards of rationality and interpretation. The frequent and arbitrary interference of an authoritarian leader in particular cases, for example, would void legal legitimacy.

Empirical political legitimacy refers to whether citizens in a specific government believe law-making and law-applying processes accord with their fundamental values, including, for example, following democratic procedures and trusting judges to act fairly.

Substantive political legitimacy refers to whether a legal and political system adheres to a minimum standard of moral coherence and normative justification of political authority. A regime that deprives a large mass of its citizens of vital rights loses this kind of legitimacy.

Owing to its decisions at the end of its last term, the Supreme Court has lost legitimacy along all three dimensions. Most decisively, the Court has lost its substantive political legitimacy by preventing the government from protecting the right to life of millions of Americans against gun violence, reproductive health risks, and degenerative climate consequences.

My argument that the Court has wrongly decided these cases is not simply a legal or constitutional one. It is an argument based in political and democratic theory that the current Court has lost its substantive political legitimacy, thus mandating its structural reform.

The first instance of the Courts misfiring came in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The Court in this case overturned a century-old New York state gun licensing statute through an expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment. In an earlier decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court had previously struck down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home as a violation of the Second Amendment. But in Bruen, the Court went further to require any gun licensing regime to give citizens a right to meet objective criteria to carry a gun in public.

Purportedly grounded in history, Justice Clarence Thomass majority opinion in fact flies in the face of hundreds of years of the government regulating dangerous weapons to keep people safe in their homes, on the streets, in their schools, and in their workplaces. Thomas argues that the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to carry arms following a tradition going back to the first kings of England. The true history shows a gradual empowering of the state to restrict the public carry of weapons. As one historian explains, Thomass opinion is rambling and adopts an almost childlike caricature of historical method.

More than the bad history and bad law, Bruen is politically illegitimate because of its predictable consequences. It will exacerbate gun violence by impeding federal, state, and local governments from enacting common-sense gun safety regulations to preserve many human lives. Striking down the licensing statute in New York also overturned similar laws in six other states and the District of Columbia, and has thrown into doubt other important gun safety regulations.

The Court has done so at a time when doctors describe gun violence as an epidemic. Justice Stephen Breyers dissent provides the grisly details. Simply reciting the names of places of recent gun massacresPhiladelphia, Uvalde, Buffalo, Atlanta, Dayton, Orlando, Charleston, Aurora, Newtown, and morerecalls a toll of many innocent lives lost, including many children. Since 2010, gun-related deaths have increased more than 44 percent. Gun-related deaths now exceed 45,000 annually, surpassing car accidents as a cause of death. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that 48,832 gun deaths in 2021 is the highest number of gun deaths in 30 years.

The Courts majority in Bruen is oblivious to the carnage. Justice Samuel Alito, in a concurring opinion, repeats a gun lobby trope about anecdotal cases of good guys with guns who foil public assaults. But he fails to grapple with the grim nationwide statistics. Studies show that the good guy with a gun is a statistical unicorn.

Bruen compounds the Courts misinterpretation of the Second Amendment in Heller by announcing what is essentially a new constitutional right of vigilantism. The Court refuses to give credence to the post-Heller test developed by eleven Courts of Appeals that balanced the governments interest in preventing gun violence against Second Amendment rights. Last week, a federal judge illustrated the destructive scope of Bruen by striking down provisions of New Yorks post-Bruen gun safety legislation, including the prohibition of guns in sensitive areas such as museums, theaters, stadiums, libraries, bars, and even child care facilities.

No modern government can maintain its political legitimacy without keeping its citizens safe from an epidemic of gun violence. As the philosopher Amanda Greene reasons, legitimacy is not possible while there is open conflict and threat of violence.

If Bruen threatens the safety of all Americans wherever they may go in public, a second legitimacy-shattering decision endangers the lives of many women.

In Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization, the Court struck down the 50-year old precedent of Roe v. Wade. Whatever one may think of the morality of abortion, the problem for the Courts political legitimacy is that its radical decision will inevitably cause the deaths of many pregnant persons. This choice is ironic, given the Courts intention to protect prenatal life.

The Court heard evidence that reversing Roe and its precedents would cause many deaths from lack of professional medical attention, a return to unclean or improvised abortions, and forcing mothers with serious health risks to give birth. The Courts majority did not care. Justice Alito, writing for the majority, noted impassioned and conflicting arguments about the effects of the abortion right on the lives of women, but then ignored the evidence.

In dissent, Justices Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan observed that Roe and its precedents allowed states to prohibit abortions after fetal viability, so long as the ban contained exceptions to safeguard a womans life or health. Dobbs now frees the states to adopt any legal restriction beginning at conception, including criminal penalties against mothers and doctors. It recognizes no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, nor for fatal birth defects or complications that risk a mothers life.

Speaking plainly, the Court has condemned many women to death. Women who carry a pregnancy to term are 14 times more likely to die than when abortion terminates a pregnancy. They are 75 times more likely to die in Mississippi, the state where Dobbs arose. Moreover, researchers have estimated that a ban on abortions increases maternal mortality by 21 percent, with white women facing a 13 percent increase in maternal mortality while black women face a 33 percent increase. The Courts majority has the blood of these women on its hands.

It is one thing to bestow a new constitutional right. It is quite another to withdraw a preexisting, settled right knowing that the decision will kill many people who have relied on it.

At oral argument, Justice Sotomayor asked: Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts? I do not see how it is possible. She is right.

Last but not least, the Courts decision in West Virginia v. EPA impedes governmental power to address the most difficult and threatening problem that humanity has ever faced: global climate disruption. Once again, the Court undercuts the ability of government to preserve the right to life of present and, in this case, future generations.

The climate emergency is here. As Justice Kagan observes in her dissenting opinion, many deaths are already occurring from an increasing severity of heatwaves, droughts, wildfires, storms, and floods. By the end of the century, human-caused climate disruption may account for as many as 4.6 million excess yearly deaths. The Courts majority simply shrugs off the scientific facts of these dangers.

The majoritys arrogance in West Virginia is astonishing. It reaches out to review a moot Obama-era Clean Power Plan, and then creates an entirely new major questions doctrine to restrict governmental authority. As Justice Kagan writes, this doctrine appears magically as a get-out-of-text-free card to prevent agencies from doing important work, even though that is what the U.S. Congress directed.

Professor Richard Revesz confirms that the new major questions doctrine announced in West Virginia, and effectively applied in an earlier case National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, casts an ominous pall over the nations regulatory future. Even though Congress acted in August to re-empower the EPA by adopting a statute overturning the effect of West Virginia with respect to the agencys authority to regulate greenhouse gases, the new major questions doctrine will continue to impede effective climate and other health-related policies.

As in Bruen and Dobbs, the Courts new doctrine announced in West Virginia will kill people. Taken together, the cases count three strikes against the Courts political legitimacy by preventing the political branches from acting to protect the basic right to life of its citizens.

One may also assess the legal legitimacy of these decisions as egregiously wrong. Bruen extends a wrong-headed originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment and adds historical errors. Dobbs lacks any coherent legal analysis on the merits and violates the principle of stare decisis, overturning the 50-year old precedent of Roe as well as the 30-year-old precedent on precedent of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. And West Virginia conjures a brand new major questions doctrine to prune the authority of the administrative state.

My argument here, however, does not focus on the weaknesses in the Courts constitutional interpretation or legal methodology. A deeper, unifying feature of these cases is that they are politically illegitimate because they subvert the governments authority to protect citizens lives with respect to gun violence, reproductive health, and climate damage.

Not surprisingly, these decisions are unpopular with the public, eroding the Courts political empirical legitimacy as well. Public opinion polls show the Court at its lowest approval ratings on record. In the latest Gallup survey, a record low of only 47 percent of Americans say they trust the judicial branch headed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Only 40 percent approve of how the Court is doing its job.

The Courts loss of both substantive and empirical political legitimacy means that the quality assent of citizens needed to justify it has vanished. A major political structural adjustment is therefore required. A Supreme Court that has lost its political legitimacy must be reformed. Otherwise, our government as a whole could lose legitimacy, tilting the political world toward chaos.

Although it is rare, this is not the first time in history that the Court has launched itself into political illegitimacy. And the political branches, Congress and the President, have corrected the Courts course before.

There are two important historical precedents. The first followed the Courts worst decision ever, Dred Scott v. Sandford, which held that no enslaved or free black person had federal constitutional rights. Dred Scott sparked the Civil War, and its breach of legitimacy was repaired only by the recognition of rights in the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, along with the federal civil rights statutes adopted in the 1960s.

Another low moment for the Court occurred when it repeatedly struck down many statutes passed in the early days of President Franklin D. Roosevelts New Deal.

In these previous moments of lost judicial legitimacy, the political branches responded. During the Civil War, Congress increased the number of Supreme Court justices to ten, giving President Abraham Lincoln another appointment, and Congress then reduced the number to seven to prevent President Andrew Johnson from appointing justices to undo Reconstructionwhich, unfortunately, later occurred anyway.

Responding to the Courts evisceration of the New Deal, President Roosevelt threatened to appoint as many as six additional justices, depending on how many sitting justices reached the age of 70. This threat encouraged the switch in time that saved nine when a few justices changed their tune and upheld New Deal legislation.

The United States faces another constitutional legitimation crisis today. Fortunately, there is a menu of choices available to address it. The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States issued a report in December 2021 examining options for reform.

In reviewing the options, any reform should meet two conditions. First, statutory interventions rather than constitutional amendments are needed because there is no time for a constitutional amendment. Second, any reform when adopted must dislodge the current majority that is acting illegitimately.

Here are three specific options that could be adopted singly or in combination.

1. Expand the Court to 13 justices. The power of Congress to alter the number of justices on the Court is long established as constitutional. The number of justices has fluctuated historically between a minimum of five and a maximum of ten, and the Commission determined that there is widespread agreement among legal scholars that Congress has the constitutional authority to expand the Courts size. Law professors and former judgesincluding Michael Klarman, Mark Tushnet, Nancy Gertner, and Lawrence Tribesupport expanding the membership of the Court.

Expanding the Court to 13 justices would counter the Machiavellian machinations of Senator Mitch McConnell. As Majority Leader, McConnell refused even to hold hearings on President Barack H. Obamas appointment of Merrick Garland. McConnell later rushed through a confirmation of President Donald J. Trumps appointment of Amy Coney Barrett, thus arguably stealing two appointments for Republicans. Giving President Joseph R. Biden the power to appoint four justices would rebalance the Court to a seven-six Democratic-to-Republican ratio.

Other justifications to expand the Court include increasing the number of justices to handle an increasing workload, returning to a tradition of one justice for each court of appeals, and conforming to the numbers of judges on the highest courts of other democratic governments in the world, which range from seven to 18.

2. Establish 18-year term limits for justices. Federal judges have a constitutional right to lifetime appointment, but this does not mean that Congress cannot set term limits specifically for the Supreme Court. As the Commission on the Supreme Court recognizes, rotation systems are possible. Retroactively imposing an 18-year term limit would require Justice Thomas to retire immediately, Chief Justice John Roberts in 2023, and Justice Alito in 2024.

Two thirds of Americans favor terms limits for the Courts justices, according to a recent poll.

3. Set a mandatory retirement age of 75. Following the same logic that lifetime judicial appointments do not necessarily entail lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court, Congress could set a retirement age of, say, 75. Retired justices could remain active as senior judges by special designation to lower courts or as special masters. Setting a retirement age of 75 would require Justice Thomas to retire next year, Justice Alito in three years, Justice Sotomayor in seven years, and Chief Justice Roberts in eight years.

The Commissions report reviews other alternatives as well, including jurisdiction stripping, a supermajority requirement for constitutional review of statutes, legislative overrides, a mandatory code of judicial ethics, and recusal rules for conflicts of interest. Other creative options include a Supreme Court lottery that entails randomly drawing Supreme Court panels for each case from a pool of all appellate judges, and a balanced bench comprising five justices appointed by Democrats, five by Republicans, and five by the ten politically appointed justices.

One might argue that rejiggering the structure of the Court may also have detrimental consequences for its legitimacy, causing it to become even more political or politicized. The United States, however, stands very far away today from dreams of neutral principles. The Courts illegitimacy has become not just legal or even political; it is now existential.

At a conference last month, Chief Justice Roberts said, I dont understand the connection between opinions that people disagree with and the legitimacy of the Court. He confuses legal legitimacy and political legitimacy. The problem is not just that the Court is getting the law wrong. Worse even than acting as politicians in robes, the Courts current majority is taking an axe to a foundational root of the political legitimacy of government: the power to protect the right to life of its people.

Because the Court has become the most dangerous branch, arrogantly heedless of the human and environmental consequences of the jurisprudence it so ruthlessly imposes, it must be stopped. Congress and the President must determine the exact mode of reform, but some effective change of the Courts structure is essential to restore its political legitimacy.

Eric W. Orts is the Guardsmark Professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

Link:
Supreme Illegitimacy - The Regulatory Review