More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Dennis Santiago

Dennis Santiago

Posted: July 2, 2010 09:09 PM

Why the Supreme Court's Ruling Was a Long Overdue Victory for Civil Rights

What's Your Reaction:

This weekend we celebrate our Declaration of Independence, the birthday of a Nation still struggling to explore the meaning of equality and liberty for a plural people so disparate in origin that an entire planet is awestruck that it can hang together at all. Yet on Sunday one of the world's youngest cultures adds another candle to being the oldest contiguous government on Earth.

As the weekend begins I find myself compelled enough to speak out to my fellow Americans to take time to read the Supreme Court Decision 08-1521, MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL. I'm troubled because I believe a deeper meaning is being usurped by the rhetoric of the day and something we should all be celebrating is passing us by.

Depending on accounts, on Easter Sunday April 13th of 1873 in the town of Colfax, Louisiana somewhere between 62 and 150 Americans died defending the thought that all of us were created equal. The victors called it a riot. Historical records describe a massacre. But it's what followed that brings us to this week in our history. The murderers got away with it you see. In a convoluted series of legalities designed ultimately to enable the interests of the elites of the day to prevail, the case United States v. Cruikshank held that the United States could not enforce the 14th Amendment to avenge the dead or protect others in the future. It carved away the protections of the Bill of Rights from Americans deemed unworthy. Historians note that this incident short circuited Reconstruction and enabled the perpetuation of state and local segregation for almost another century. As it turns out, it is also one of the pillars of legal theory upon which gun control is based in this Nation. That for the convenience of state and local governance, due process and fundamental rights can be set aside.

This week the U.S. Supreme Court basically said that's bunk. It took one more step in repairing a damage done to our Nation by saying that - convenient or not - the totality of our Bill of Rights and what they represent is of interest to us all beyond the myopia of our conveniences. Whether you like guns or not, on this Independence Day our dead from Colfax shall rest better in their graves in a Nation whose protections are again closer to the dream they died for.

Long live the United States of America!

 

Follow Dennis Santiago on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DennisSantiago

 
 
  • Comments
  • 330
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
03:35 AM on 07/05/2010
Historically the Civil rights movement and progressive movement were AGAINST gun control. It was the conservatives who wanted it since they hated the idea of ordinary citizens having their own guns to oppose their armed and paid for thugs. Gun control was the rule in most of the South where a person had to have the permission of the local sherrif to own a firearm. Of course, blacks were naturally denied such permission. White had no problem getting such permission.

It is only recently that city dwelling liberals who do not hunt or use firearms at all have changed the liberal postion in many places. Here in Texas most liberals own, and use guns for hunting, sport shooting, and the like. It is time for ALL liberals to return to our original roots and support individual gun ownership.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Rooster Coburn
Less Gov't + More Responsibility = A Better World
10:16 AM on 07/05/2010
Try Googling "the racist roots of gun control" to learn more.
Hint: with the right browser setup this kind of thing can be practically automated.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:10 AM on 07/06/2010
You are crazy if you really believe that. Gun control has been a PLANK of the liberal democrat party since the gun control Act of 1968. Conservatives were for gun control? Ha!
12:07 PM on 07/06/2010
Umm, yes. From the New York Sullivan Law, intended to keep guns out of the hands of those with the "wrong" ethnicity and political affiliation, to the South's Jim Crow gun control designed to make gun ownership difficult for people of color, to California's Mulford Act (aimed at disarming the Black Panthers and signed by Gov. Ronald W. Reagan---perhaps you've heard of him), to the original "assault weapon" fraud concocted by arch-right-winger William J. Bennett and instituted as an executive order by George H.W. Bush (later codified by Congress into 18 USC 922).

Sure, a few liberals here and there supported new gun bans---as did a few conservatives---but it was not until the 1990's that the Democratic Party made banning popular civilian guns a party plank, and even then it was driven by the "Third Way" DLC centrists and not by the Left.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/benEzra/2

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/benEzra/2
09:00 PM on 07/04/2010
so what? The supremes sold us to the plutocrats.
09:22 PM on 07/04/2010
Really? - at least if you don't like it you can still grab a gun and protect yourself from those evil Plutocrats. You have liberty still. That is the gift promised to your forefatehrs and thankfully restored to you by the 5 who can read.

A farmer without a gun is a slave waiting for his master.
09:35 PM on 07/04/2010
I'm for citizen gun ownership. Gandhi was for it, the liberal founding fathers were for it.

But you really think you will stand a chance against the plutocratic Blackwater mercenaries?

This is the battle between Conservatism and Liberalism.

"America, the first modern liberal state was founded, without a monarch or a hereditary aristocracy."

"Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment, rejecting many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

The US founders loved " The Enlightenment" of the people. that's part of the general welfare. You need to feed cloth and shelter people before you can educate them, and hopefully Enlighten them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism

Bush, Cheney, the GOP, the very flower of the conservative movement, shredded the constitution, bankrupted the economy, abused the truth, tortured, war mongered, let the poor die.

The DLC is conservative: "George McGovern's massive loss to Richard Nixon in 1972, the CDM was dismayed by two presidential election losses and the organization's

goal was to steer the party away from the New Left. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

Grayson, Dean, Kucinich and much of the Progressive Caucus ARE real founding father type liberals.
Vote liberal in the Primary, and democrat in the election.”
05:05 PM on 07/04/2010
Dennis,
Could you please elucidate on the Colfax reference, I have never heard of it. Your article seems to assume that everyone knows the backgound and I have no idea what you are talking about. Could you please expand your article and fill in the blanks for those of us who are not supreme-court-rulings-ophiles?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:45 PM on 07/04/2010
The Colfax Massacre was one of the most outrageous instances of racially inspired bloodshed in American history. The details are described in Wiki as follows:

"The Colfax Massacre or Colfax Riot (as the events are termed on the official state historic marker) occurred on Easter Sunday, April 13, 1873, in Colfax, Louisiana, the seat of Grant Parish during Reconstruction, when white militia attacked freedmen at the Colfax courthouse. Three whites and 80-150 freedmen died in the confrontation.... In the wake of a contested election for governor of Louisiana and local offices, a white militia, armed with rifles and a small cannon, overpowered freedmen and state militia (also black) trying to control the parish courthouse in Colfax, Louisiana. White Republican officeholders were not attacked. Most of the freedmen were killed after they surrendered, and nearly 50 were killed later that night after being held as prisoners for several hours.... Federal prosecution and conviction of a few perpetrators at Colfax under the Enforcement Act led to a key Supreme Court case, United States v. Cruikshank. In this 1876 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that protections of the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply to the actions of individuals, but only to the actions of state governments. Thus, the federal government could no longer use the Enforcement Act of 1870 to prosecute actions by paramilitary groups, private militias such as the White League, which had chapters forming across Louisiana beginning in 1874."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colfax_massacre
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:36 AM on 07/04/2010
Interesting analysis, one that has been otherwise overlooked.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cdub1991
Seek first to understand, then to be understood
11:19 AM on 07/04/2010
IRA? Irish Republican Arm...? No--that can't be right. Oh--Institutional Risk Analysis. Slick way to troll for new customers for your investment rag, dude.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Dennis Santiago
Asymmetric Provocateur
02:56 PM on 07/04/2010
You have greatly misjudged me my friend. My devotion to my country and commitment to good citizenship far exceeds whatever trivia I may do for a living. I have a gift of being able to see through noise to find strategy. I can think of no higher purpose to apply it to than the betterment of my nation. My best wishes to you on this 4th of July.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
RevJimIII
Open Carry Oklahoma!!
10:56 PM on 07/04/2010
Well written, thank you. Happy Independence Day.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Talossa
Not all liberals are silly.
11:15 AM on 07/04/2010
SCOTUS says: "Well-regulated militia" = masked vigilantes with machine guns in pickup trucks.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tresco
Sistagirl Laughin' Thingy Award Winner!
11:27 AM on 07/04/2010
There are alot of average looking Joes and Jills in Priuses, minivans, and silver-gray sedans that are armed too. Don't think it's just pickups with NRA stickers.
11:35 AM on 07/04/2010
A lot of liberals too.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Dimensio
I just don't know what went wrong!
02:29 PM on 07/04/2010
The United States Supreme Court has issued no such statement. For what reason are you lying?
09:31 PM on 07/04/2010
He is only spewing what he has been told. Liberals/Democrats/Socialists don't really know how to read. That is why:

None of them have bothered to read the AZ Immigration law.

and

None of them have bothered to read the Constitution.

so in keeping with consistancy,

None of them have read the Macdonald opinion of the SCOTUS.

Because none of them can read, they just make up insanely wild stuff and lies - they think it hides thier inability to reason properly, but most of us see right through them. I really think that this Liberal Reading and Comprehension disability needs to be addressed. How many more minds can the NEA destroy before they are stopped?
03:57 AM on 07/04/2010
The state can regulate the power to kill another citizen. You can't automatically have machine guns. You can't automatically take guns into schools. The issue about regulate infuriates the NRA members who are like spoiled kids who think they have rights that can't be restricted for the common good. I say to them: grow up.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tresco
Sistagirl Laughin' Thingy Award Winner!
10:57 AM on 07/04/2010
You lost me at "think they have rights that can't be restricted for the common good." The words "for the common good" have been used to do some pretty evil things. I'll keep my guns and I'll be keeping an eye out for your common good lest it come my way.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
RevJimIII
Open Carry Oklahoma!!
10:53 PM on 07/04/2010
Until I commit a crime or act against another citizens rights, I should be allowed to do as I please. Innocent until proven guilty.

"The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the few or the many." - Spock
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
HANNIBAL1066
I've written on the Tea Party movement at politica
03:55 AM on 07/04/2010
The Supreme Court's McDonald decision was a very good decision for the Bill of Rights.

My only complaint was that the majority used the Due Process clause rather than the "privileges and immunities" clause. But, this decision firmly incorporates the Bill of Rights, that is, the first nine amendments, down to the local level. It is a victory for gun rights advocates and for progressives.

Now, if only the Supreme Court would overturn the 1873 Slaughterhouse decisions that gutted the Fourteenth Amendment's clause "No state shall...abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

That clause was intended to ensure that the newly freed slaves were afforded all their constitutional rights. That clause trumps the Tenth Amendment regarding the first nine amendments.

Of particular importance to progressives is the Ninth Amendment--the unenumerated rights of the people. Those unenumerated rights are natural rights that have not been claimed--like the right to medical care, or a living wage, or other progressive rights.

The McDonald decision is important for progressives. Like guns or not, the Second Amendment right is an individual right dating back to the 12th century in England.

It is up to progressives to build on the McDonald decision and expand our Ninth Amendment rights.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:47 AM on 07/04/2010
Well said.
01:20 PM on 07/04/2010
""particular importance to progressives is the Ninth Amendment--the unenumerated rights of the people. Those unenumerated rights are natural rights that have not been claimed--like the right to medical care, or a living wage, or other progressive rights.

Try as I might I can't understand how I have a "right" to things. I have the right to work and earn them myself but not to have them given to me at my demand.

As a nation we will and do assist those that are in need but this should come from compassion for our fellow citizens.

Personal responsibility has fallen by the wayside for too many of us.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
HANNIBAL1066
I've written on the Tea Party movement at politica
02:17 PM on 07/04/2010
The Ninth Amendment protects either natural or positive rights. Natural rights are pre-existing, while positive rights, according to James Madison, are rights that result from a social compact (that is, our Constitution).

The Lockean notion of "happiness" includes both liberty and property. Property was not just material things but also rights--a distinction lost on us moderns. The right to happiness in our Declaration of Independence is a natural right--yet clearly undefined and awaiting further refinement from debate.

Leonard Levy, noted constitutional scholar, wrote in his book, Origins of the Bill of Rights, that the Ninth Amendment covered, for example, students and police contesting length of hair regulations; "citizens eager to preserve the purity of water and air against environmental polluters, and homosexuals claiming a right to be married." Levy noted that the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th amendments led to the "right to privacy," particularly in the bedroom and for contraception.

You have the right to work, but one could also argue that human beings also have the right to organize as workers; that workers have the right not to be killed or injured at work due to lack of proper work conditions; that every person able to work should have a job; everyone has a right to medical care.

What these natural or positive rights are is a matter of debate. Our Founders left it to future generations to expand these unenumerated rights. The genius of our Constitution allows us to expand our rights.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Rooster Coburn
Less Gov't + More Responsibility = A Better World
12:41 AM on 07/04/2010
Victory Lap: McDonald vs. Chicago:

This Supreme Court ruling is binding on all states and local governments, and immediately renders some of Wisconsin’s current laws unconstitutional. Therefore, in keeping with my oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, I hereby declare that this office will no longer accept law enforcement referrals for violations of the following statutes:

Section 167.31, prohibiting uncased or loaded firearms in vehicles;
Section 941.23, prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons, including firearms;
Section 941.235, prohibiting the possession of firearms in public buildings;
Section 941.237, prohibiting the possession of firearms in establishments where alcohol
may be sold or served; and,
Section 941.24, prohibiting the possession of knives that open with a button, or by gravity, or thrust, or movement.

All of these statutes constitute unjustifiable infringements on the fundamental right of every law-abiding American to arm themselves for self-defense and the defense of their loved ones, co-workers, homes and communities. This change also invalidates Jackson County Ordinance Sections 9.01 (firearms in public buildings) and 9.29 (CCW).
http://www.examiner.com/x-5103-Wisconsin-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m7d2-Wisconsin-firearms-laws-fall-in-Jackson-County--will-others-follow
photo
E4B32787
US Gov: The best that money can buy.
01:03 AM on 07/04/2010
Actually, I think the decision means that the state/local government can regulate, but can't forbid.

In any event, in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v. DICK ANTHONY HELLER, the court noted "There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008)."

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

So, I'm going to have to wait for Sarah Palin to be elected, and nominate Supreme Court justices before I can get myself a Lars rocket, or an AC 130 Gunship. I want to hunt deer with these weapons.
photo
OdinsEye
Korean-Latino cop and combat vet
02:18 AM on 07/04/2010
Lars rocket? Perhaps you mean LAW rocket? The Germans did have a vehicle mounted rocket system called LARS, but I don't think that is what you were envisioning.

Regardless, the term "arms" as used in the Second Amendment refers to what are known as "small arms", which can be maintained, transported, served, and operated by an individual, are descretely targetable not area effect, are suitable for one on one combat, and are of common use.
photo
E4B32787
US Gov: The best that money can buy.
12:28 AM on 07/04/2010
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

I'm surprised at saying this, but Justice Thomas (and Hugo Black before him) concurring opinion is the one I buy into, that the provisions of the 14th that say "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" is the governing doctrine. A "privilege" as a U.S. citizen is the rights conferred by the 2nd amendment.

That's not what's being used, either in the decision, or the dissent. They're saying something about the "due process" clause and lengthy interpretation. That sounds like a lot of malarkey, with the court giving themselves a license to legislate from the bench. It's the 2nd today, tomorrow, the 5th?

That said, it's my feeling that the gun violence we have is a symptom, whereas the root cause for much of it is the government's policy of maximizing black market drug cash flows. Apparently, we can't learn from the prior prohibition. I'd have to see policies that minimize black market cash flows, such as legalization of marijuana, and maintenance prescriptions to already addicted users so that there is no recurring cash flow to dealers before deciding how much of a gun problem we really have. This fight over the cash flow is certainly causing problems in Mexico.

Hate to say it, but the collective stupidity is what give politicians like Sarah Palin hope.
photo
OdinsEye
Korean-Latino cop and combat vet
02:20 AM on 07/04/2010
The Second confers no right. Same for the First, Third, Fourth, etc. They recognize pre-existing rights. A privilege is a power given to a person by society or by the government. The right to arms exists without society or the government.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jcaunter
Profile: schizoid, INTJ, IQ145
12:18 AM on 07/04/2010
That's right.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and we all most abide by it. Now let's put Bush and Obama in jail for violating our civil rights by illegally spying on American citizens, violating our 4th amendment rights, and then giving the telecom companies immunity to hide the fact that they spied on us.

Until those criminals are put in jail for their crimes we are a nation of hypocrites who live only for the moment's political convenience.
12:07 AM on 07/04/2010
Too bad the courts undermined everything else in the constitution over the years. But at least we get to keep our guns for a bit longer. Lets hope the court strikes down othe rlimitations like...machine gun bans so we arent limited to second rate gear when it comes time to fight the corporate facists when the gov sieves control.
11:54 PM on 07/03/2010
The Battle of Athens is a prime example of the need for the Constitution to protect not just the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms, but all out pre-existing rights that don't need to be enumerated . . .

THE BATTLE OF ATHENS
by Lones Seiber

The GIs came home to find that a political machine had taken over their Tennessee county. What they did about it astounded the nation . . .

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1985/2/1985_2_72.shtml
04:58 AM on 07/04/2010
THANK you for posting the American Heritage article. I am a history buff but had never heard of this independent-armed action against a corrupt, machine-ruled city in Athens, Tennessee by returned GIs in 1946. I am concerned when I read crazy posts by far right extremists arming themselves for some impending overthrow of our government, our President and the Constitutional rule of law. If the Supreme Court upholds the right of individuals to bear arms, then I sure as hell don't want these ultra conservative nutwings to have the only guns. I live in Virginia and I will now consider buying a weapon to defend my home and nation from any violent insurgency. Before, I was for the banning of guns and I never thought I would think this way -- but I refuse to be intimidated by their ugly threats. Today is the 4th of July and I am proud to be an American -- and proud of my government! It's the best in the world.
photo
JimInHouston
Arma virumque cano...
10:55 AM on 07/04/2010
Welcome aboard.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JDShipley
I drink coffee, therefore I am.
08:48 PM on 07/04/2010
Progressives for the Second Amendment.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Talossa
Not all liberals are silly.
11:18 AM on 07/04/2010
I had no idea Tennessee was really that much like Somalia.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:09 PM on 07/03/2010
I expected a ruling that individuals have a right to own weapons.

That right is not unlimited.
photo
OdinsEye
Korean-Latino cop and combat vet
02:21 AM on 07/04/2010
No one feels that the right is unlimited. None of our rights are unlimited.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jim Pasterczyk
Banned!
09:57 PM on 07/03/2010
Sorry but I just don't see the right to carry around handguns in bars as being on par with the right to free speech, freedom of the press, the right to assemble, to petition government, of religion and from any particular religion. The overwhelming bulk of those handguns used in crime are stolen from lawful owners or obtained through straw purchases. And the limits of state's rights was defined in 1865.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tresco
Sistagirl Laughin' Thingy Award Winner!
11:10 AM on 07/04/2010
I think you expect too little of your fellow citizens. This country requires it's citizens to live up to their responsibilities in order to work. We all have duties as citizens. It's the flip side to having rights. Think of US citizenship as being like driving a car. Operating a car is not like riding a bus. You have control over where and how fast you go. You don't pay someone else to get you to where you want to go safely. You need to be responsible, pay attention and make good decisions. If you drive the thing into a ditch it's your fault.
07:12 PM on 07/04/2010
I would say that the right to effective self defense ranks at least as high as free speech and the rest of your list
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jim Pasterczyk
Banned!
11:20 PM on 07/06/2010
Why then does the 2nd Amendment specifically say "well regulated militia" and "necessary for the defense of a free state" but omit any mention of personal self defense in the home or handguns? As I understand it one of the tenets of originalism in Scalia's jurisprudence is adhering to the words in the text, yet here he is making wholesale substitutions which if done by the left would be called "making the law" or "judicial activism" or some other similar scathing term the right normally uses when it wishes to attack a result it doesn't agree with. It's a blatant double standard.