The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Unbearable

3.19.08 @ 12:01AM

(Page 3 of 4)

The moral of the story is that Wall Street has created so many exotic financial instruments of dubious quality (otherwise known as financial weapons of mass financial destruction by Warren Buffet), that a large segment of our financial system is now linked together like a daisy chain. A weak link of a major player threatens to reverberate throughout the entire system and the Fed must ride to the rescue.
-- Jerome Brick
Beaver Dam, Arizona

Philip Klein, on the nationalization of Bear Stearns: "Eventually, something has got to give."

Oh, but it already has, hasn't it? It's the taxpaying public that's got to give. Our next installment is due April 15.
-- Paul Kotik
Plantation, Florida

BENEFIT OF CLERGY
Re: Jeffrey Lord's Obama and the Bombmaker's Church:

With "clergymen" like these, who needs terrorists?

Now we know where al Qaeda came from -- outsourcing.
-- Martin Owens
Sacramento, California

Great Scott! This article reads like a Who's Who. No wonder both Obama and Hillary urge the public to "look to the future." There's far too many skeletons in the past. Did I say "Great Scott?" Perhaps "Good, Lord" would be more appropriate.
-- Stan Welli
Aurora, Illinois

Mr. Lord's column is very revealing (and disturbing) -- so revealing (and disturbing) that the question has to be asked: Why is Mr. Lord still a member of such a hateful, violent and anti-American church?
-- Robert Martini

SHOT THROUGH THE HEART
Re: Robert VerBruggen's A Clean Shot:

While the questions and comments made by Justices of the Supreme Court during oral arguments in Washington D.C. vs. Heller are not necessarily conclusive as to how they will vote, the lasting impression that any fair minded -- and reasonably alert -- observer would draw from today's pageant, is that under the 2nd Amendment, the right to keep arms is constitutionally protected. That would also be my conclusion, and, after all, in addition to being fair, and reasonably alert, I was also present in the Court.

Part of my premise is based on the good lawyering skills of Alan Gura, a young, and hitherto untried attorney, who was arguing his first case before the Supremes, although he has worked on this case for five years as it worked its way through the lower Federal courts. Peppered with questions, in particular by Justices Stevens, Breyer and Ginsburg, Gura more than held his own, and repeatedly demonstrated that the right of an individual to keep arms, and the right to bear arms in a state militia, were not coupled, something that the judicial triumvirate sought to establish.

But from the opening question by Chief Justice Roberts, and the follow up inquiries by Justices Kennedy and Scalia, and, occasionally, Justice Alito, to the Washington D.C. government's advocate, former Acting Solicitor General, Walter E. Dellinger, it became evident that the D.C. law that banned, not as Mr. VerBruggen incorrectly states, "virtually banned," all handguns, would be examined under the "strict scrutiny," something Dellinger and his bidders knew would not allow the total ban to stand.

Another impressive advocate was the current Solicitor General, Paul Clement, a former law clerk of Justice Scalia, who was in the unenviable position of asking the Justices to rule against the Circuit Court's decision that the D.C. ban was totally unconstitutional because it was too broad a judgment. Obviously, the Bush team was not reading from the same script on this matter: Vice President Cheney, in a gesture that I've never heard of before, filed a separate amicus curiae (friend of the Court) petition saying that the D.C. ban should be struck down... period!

Clearly, there is more to be said on this matter, but in the last analysis I believe that there may be more of a consensus on the 2nd Amendment constitutionally protected right to keep arms than was previously thought possible. As Justice Scalia pointed out, even the right of free speech is limited, by libel laws, for example, and so may be gun possession, such as licensing, but, in my opinion, the overarching question of the inherent right of an individual, under the U.S. Constitution too keep firearms, was affirmed. Allow me one more observation: today was a good day for the conservative cause.
-- Vincent Chiarello
Reston, Virginia

The language that is both frightening and foreboding is this: "the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state regulated militia."

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, Hillary Clinton, Mainstream Media, Economics, Business, Social Security, Hollywood, Constitution, Law, Russia, Conservatism, Oil, Medicare