Whatever Happened to Constitutional Amendments

            Since the signing of the Constitution, 17 September 1787, there have been twenty-seven amendments, providing additional instructions to government, amending previous instructions, or abolishing previous instructions. Of course, most People recognize the first 10 as The Bill of Rights.

            Interestingly, yet unrelated to the topic at hand, the last was submitted for ratification in 1789, with the first state doing so that year. Although, the 38^th state, required to attain the 3/4 threshold, did not ratify until 1992. By the way, that amendment established congressional pay raises, passed into law by congress, are not effective until after the next congressional elections are held.

            The amendment process has been used to resolve such pivotal and highly contentious issues as the abolition of slavery. The 14^th was very momentous in that it nullified the Supreme Court’s decision prohibiting citizenship for African-Americans. Additionally, and also related to the issue of slavery, the 14^th prohibited the states from infringing on the “privileges and immunities” afforded citizens of the United States and extended to them the due process and equal protection clauses.

            Four of them (15, 19, 24 and 26) concerned the right to vote, extending it to persons of all races, women, and those at least 18 years of age, as well as prohibiting a poll tax.

            The 18^th enacted the prohibition of alcohol, which, partially due to the prevalence of alcohol available through underground channels and the high public demand for it, was repealed only 11 years later. Although, one could argue the decision was most likely a matter of states’ economics, rather than public demand.

            Historically, the government has deferred to the amendment process in matters, which many would consider trivial, such as establishing the number of electors for the District of Columbia. The 20^th included a section changing the date for Congress to convene, even though Article I Sec. 4 clearly allowed for that to be done simply by passing a law.

            Then there is everyone’s favorite… the 16^th, which graciously bestowed upon us, or rather cemented, the federal income tax.

            All of this was not intended as a history lesson, but rather as a prelude to this question. Whatever happened to Constitutional Amendments? They have been proven to be possible, even in the most controversial of circumstances. They have been used in seemingly trivial matters. So, why does the modern government avoid that process in approaching such highly volatile issues as gun control?

            It has become common practice to merely proclaim the support of “the majority of Americans” and enact legislation, or more alarmingly, by edict of executive order. It’s not exclusive to one party, either. President Bush issued 290 executive orders, in his 8 years, while President Obama has amassed 145 in 4 years, exactly proportionate to his predecessor. Previous presidents, from both parties, have reached similar numbers, regardless of the fact the executive order lacks specific constitutional authority.

            Even though two sections of the Constitution ensure Americans “due process of law” and “equal protection”, both Lincoln and G. W. Bush (Patriot Act) signed legislation suspending habeas corpus, while Obama has signed equally controversial legislation, in the form of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). If “the American People” supported each of those actions, why evade the constitutionally authorized amendment process?

            And, here we are again. Gun control. If those seeking to enact legislation or encouraging the use of executive orders, to restrict the private ownership and/or transfer of any types of firearms, accessories or ammunition, truly believe “the majority of Americans” support such extensive gun control measures, why not propose an amendment to the Constitution? Why not subject those measures to the test of attaining the approval of 2/3 of the Senate and House of Representatives? Why not then put it to the test of attaining the approval of 3/4 of the states?

            These questions I leave to you, the reader.

Yeah, It's Gun Control... Again

            In a press briefing, five days after the murders at Sandy Hook Elementary School, President Obama said of the ongoing debate on gun violence and gun control, “But this time, the words need to lead to action.” He went on to say, “A majority of Americans support banning the sale of military-style assault weapons.  A majority of Americans support banning the sale of high-capacity ammunition clips.  A majority of Americans support laws requiring background checks before all gun purchases, so that criminals can’t take advantage of legal loopholes to buy a gun from somebody who won’t take the responsibility of doing a background check at all.”

            First of all, isn’t it always interesting to hear both Republicans and Democrats, while debating a particular issue, claim to know that “the majority of Americans” want a certain thing? How is it possible for “the majority of Americans” to simultaneously support opposite sides of an issue?

            It’s not and the fact is, neither Democrats nor Republicans can lay claim to having that knowledge, much less any sort of mandate from The People. In the 2012 presidential election, 72% of eligible voters did not vote for Barack Obama and 73% did not vote for Mitt Romney, which means 45% didn’t vote for either. That’s correct, the president was selected by only 23% of eligible voters; not even close to “the majority of Americans”.

            The president used the phrase “words need to lead to action”. More appropriately, “words” need to be parsed and actions need to be justified by facts, not rhetoric. So, what are the facts?

            One progressive website cites 29 “mass” murders, as evidence in support of the types of gun control measures being offered up by Obama, Biden, Feinstein and others. The author included murders of 2 or more in the list, dating back to the massacre at Columbine High School in 1999. Five of them, including Columbine, occurred in the midst of the previous “assault weapons ban”.

            When those 29 events are broken down, so-called “assault weapons” were used in only 6 and in one of those the killing continued, although the semi-auto rifle failed to function and was abandoned. In another, an AK47 style semi-auto rifle was in the murderer’s vehicle, but had not been used. At Columbine, which is often used as the standard for gun control, autopsies indicate a shotgun was used to kill most of the victims. Two were used; one double-barreled and one pump action. So, “assault weapons” were used in only 20% of these events, yet are the prime target of the gun control movement.

            Included in the president’s list above, is what is referred to as the “gun show loophole”. The phrase actually refers to an individual selling a personally owned firearm, to another individual. So, “closing the loophole” will necessarily require the registration of all privately owned firearms and their transfers, which will in no way affect those who steal guns to commit crimes.

            Another important set of data in this debate is the numbers of violent crimes in the U.S. According to FBI Uniform Crime Reports, the rate of violent crime between 1994 and 2004 averaged 561.9 per 100,000, annually. Remember, this was the term of the previous “assault weapons ban”. Unfortunately for the gun control advocates, the rate of violent crime has actually decreased since the expiration of the ban, to 443.1 per 100,000.

            Of course, all of that is trivial, when you consider there are some who are advocating actually repealing the 2^nd Amendment and others passing local bans of certain types of firearms. In order to successfully debate that issue, one should be careful with how they refer to the 2^nd Amendment. Too often, People argue it is the 2^nd, which gives them the right to private ownership of firearms. The problem with doing so is that by authorizing government to give you a “right”, you also give it the authority to take it away. Actually, the Constitution doesn’t permit the People to do anything. But, it does tell government what it must and must not do. Your right to defend yourself, by whatever means necessary including firearms, preexists the Constitution. It preexists any government. It is, in fact, one of the unalienable rights, natural to each and every human. Unalienable meaning it cannot be taken from you, nor given away by you.

            The founders of this country recognized this and acknowledged it within the Declaration of Independence. Words are important and one should read those carefully. It says that all men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” As to the right of self-defense, how else can a man enjoy his life, liberty and property, without the ability to protect it? Notice also, the authors used the specific words, “among these”. It means to not limit the rights of the individual in any way and to affirm individual rights are not derived from governments. They wanted to ensure whatever form of government was established, honored the natural rights of the People and its predominant purpose was to protect them. This was subsequently added to the Constitution, as the 9^th Amendment. I will not provide that text here, because I think it is important for everyone to reread our founding documents and a great place to do so is www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/. 

Actual School Security, Not Emotional Reactions

            When I was given the opportunity to produce a column for the Bulletin, I decided to mostly spin off of Wednesdays’ “Capital Highlights” column, addressing how those items might impact our area. Sadly, this week’s leading topic was prompted by the heinous criminal act of a deranged individual in Newtown, Connecticut.

            The reactions to the taking of those young, innocent lives and the teachers of Sandy Hook Elementary School have been as varied as is humanly possibly. Everywhere, there are speculations as to where blame should be placed; guns, video games, violent movies, bullying, inadequate security, failings of the mental health system… Emotions have been high and understandably so, however, acting solely on those emotions seldom results in beneficial change.

            Wednesday’s edition of “Highlights” quoted Gov. Perry asking all Texas schools to reevaluate their security measures and cited a 2005 law requiring Texas schools “adopt and implement a multi-hazard emergency operations plan”. Fortunately, the state recognized one plan is not suitable to every school district, leaving our local administrators to determine the most effective and efficient measures, in association with local law enforcement. To this end, the law mandates a periodic audit and report to the local board of trustees and to the Texas School Safety Center. Which brings me now to the topic of this column.

            Whenever an incident occurs, like that on December 14^th, many begin to question whether or not their children are safe at school and it only takes a spark to send emotions soaring. Case in point, Granbury ISD. Apparently, on Friday, rumors began to spread of threats to students. Over the weekend, hundreds of comments were posted to the school’s Facebook page, perpetuating the rumors and questioning the perceived failures of the administration in informing parents of “the facts”. The Facebook activity, which often contained third hand or further removed information, produced an increasing panic, which no amount of facts would quell.

            According to statements released by the Granbury Police Department and the school on Monday, rumors of a gun found at the school were false, as was the supposed presence of newly written graffiti threats and practically everything else that had been discussed in the social media forum. However, a significant amount of damage had already been done and some parents withheld students from school, on Monday.

            I do not mean to judge them for that, as I’m sure they did what they believed to be in the best interest of their children. But, there are a few things parents should consider, before being drawn in to hysteria, unnecessarily. To begin, school administrations are not going to, and shouldn’t be expected to, comment on every bit of information they receive. That only provides more fuel to already rampant rumors and will likely impede their and law enforcement’s investigations. Additionally, it takes time to sort through the massive amounts of information that comes forth in these events and time is extremely important.

            Next, our schools’ administrations are not going to provide details on all of their security measures and operational plans, in public forums. Understand that doing so would undermine the whole purpose of developing the plan. Often, the most vital and most effective security measures are unseen, by design. Respect that and they will remain effective for a long time.

            The last thing I urge all parents to consider is perhaps the most compelling reason to avoid spreading rumors and publicly doubting the efforts of your school’s administration. Stop to think how many teachers, administrators and support staff have children of their own in their schools. Isn’t it likely they have the same desire to protect their children as the rest of us? Isn’t it likely these teachers would address security concerns with the administration and call them to task, if the response was inadequate?

            The superintendents of Brownwood and Early ISDs have posted statements on their respective district’s websites, extending invitations for questions. I just ask that you keep the preceding suggestions in mind, when formulating your questions and acceptable replies. Specifically, I spoke to Dr. Reece Blincoe on Tuesday, who said “We have been visiting with each of the principles, asking that they seek input from the teachers on their campuses.” Dr. Blincoe said the results of those discussions will be presented in an administrative meeting, before the students return from the Christmas break. He wished to assure parents the Brownwood schools “always put safety first”.

            The murders of the children at Sandy Hook Elementary is a chilling reminder that it is impossible for any of us to guarantee the safety of our own, apart from locking them away from the rest of the world. There are certain risks, which must be accepted if our lives are to have any meaning at all. The most we can do is minimize them through awareness and not allow emotions to dictate our responses.

Gun Control v. 2nd Amendment cir. 2013

             In a press briefing, five days after the murders at Sandy Hook Elementary School, President Obama said of the ongoing debate on gun violence and gun control, “But this time, the words need to lead to action.” He went on to say, “A majority of Americans support banning the sale of military-style assault weapons.  A majority of Americans support banning the sale of high-capacity ammunition clips.  A majority of Americans support laws requiring background checks before all gun purchases, so that criminals can’t take advantage of legal loopholes to buy a gun from somebody who won’t take the responsibility of doing a background check at all.”

            First of all, isn’t it always interesting to hear both Republicans and Democrats, while debating a particular issue, claim to know that “the majority of Americans” want a certain thing? How is it possible for “the majority of Americans” to simultaneously support opposite sides of an issue?

            It’s not and the fact is, neither Democrats nor Republicans can lay claim to having that knowledge, much less any sort of mandate from The People. In the 2012 presidential election, 72% of eligible voters did not vote for Barack Obama and 73% did not vote for Mitt Romney, which means 45% didn’t vote for either. That’s correct, the president was selected by only 23% of eligible voters; not even close to “the majority of Americans”.

            The president used the phrase “words need to lead to action”. More appropriately, “words” need to be parsed and actions need to be justified by facts, not rhetoric. So, what are the facts?

            One progressive website cites 29 “mass” murders, as evidence in support of the types of gun control measures being offered up by Obama, Biden, Feinstein and others. The author included murders of 2 or more in the list, dating back to the massacre at Columbine High School in 1999. Five of them, including Columbine, occurred in the midst of the previous “assault weapons ban”.

            When those 29 events are broken down, so-called “assault weapons” were used in only 6 and in one of those the killing continued, although the semi-auto rifle failed to function and was abandoned. In another, an AK47 style semi-auto rifle was in the murderer’s vehicle, but had not been used. At Columbine, which is often used as the standard for gun control, autopsies indicate a shotgun was used to kill most of the victims. Two were used; one double-barreled and one pump action. So, “assault weapons” were used in only 20% of these events, yet are the prime target of the gun control movement.

            Included in the president’s list above, is what is referred to as the “gun show loophole”. The phrase actually refers to an individual selling a personally owned firearm, to another individual. So, “closing the loophole” will necessarily require the registration of all privately owned firearms and their transfers, which will in no way affect those who steal guns to commit crimes.

            Another important set of data in this debate is the numbers of violent crimes in the U.S. According to FBI Uniform Crime Reports, the rate of violent crime between 1994 and 2004 averaged 561.9 per 100,000, annually. Remember, this was the term of the previous “assault weapons ban”. Unfortunately for the gun control advocates, the rate of violent crime has actually decreased since the expiration of the ban, to 443.1 per 100,000.

            Of course, all of that is trivial, when you consider there are some who are advocating actually repealing the 2^nd Amendment and others passing local bans of certain types of firearms. In order to successfully debate that issue, one should be careful with how they refer to the 2^nd Amendment. Too often, People argue it is the 2^nd, which gives them the right to private ownership of firearms. The problem with doing so is that by authorizing government to give you a “right”, you also give it the authority to take it away. Actually, the Constitution doesn’t permit the People to do anything. But, it does tell government what it must and must not do. Your right to defend yourself, by whatever means necessary including firearms, preexists the Constitution. It preexists any government. It is, in fact, one of the unalienable rights, natural to each and every human. Unalienable meaning it cannot be taken from you, nor given away by you.

            The founders of this country recognized this and acknowledged it within the Declaration of Independence. Words are important and one should read those carefully. It says that all men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” As to the right of self-defense, how else can a man enjoy his life, liberty and property, without the ability to protect it? Notice also, the authors used the specific words, “among these”. It means to not limit the rights of the individual in any way and to affirm individual rights are not derived from governments. They wanted to ensure whatever form of government was established, honored the natural rights of the People and its predominant purpose was to protect them. This was subsequently added to the Constitution, as the 9^th Amendment. I will not provide that text here, because I think it is important for everyone to reread our founding documents and a great place to do so is www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/. 

This was published in my weekly column in the Brownwood Bulletin newspaper, 10 January 2013.