Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (4121)	7/4/2001 5:14:36 AM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

Yours is a preposterous assertion backed up by an article describing the preposterous assertions of people with an agenda. <<The Supreme Court. It appears that our newly appointed Attorney General disagrees with this notion>>

To: jttmab who wrote (4121)	7/4/2001 10:01:11 AM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 93284

Disagreeemtns over the interpretation of the Constitution are not new. The Supreme Court has interpreted the right to bear arms in differing ways, both as an individual and collective right. Ashcroft happens to feel it is an individual right and there is precedent to support the notion. Nothing subversive about it. Another totally ridiculous post on your part (being nothing new of course). JLA

To: jttmab who wrote (4121)	7/4/2001 4:06:00 PM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 93284

I saw the article from The Washington Post. Ashcroft's Letter to NRA Prompts Ethics Complaint From 2 Groups By Dan Eggen Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, July 3, 2001; Page A17 An excerpt from that article: "His public expression of this position directly contradicts the United States' stated legal position in pending litigation," said the complaint, signed by Brady Center President Michael D. Barnes and Common Cause President Scott Harshbarger. "We believe that Attorney General Ashcroft has violated numerous ethical guidelines that govern his conduct toward his client, the United States of America." Two advocacy groups plan to file an ethics complaint today against Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, arguing that a recent letter from Ashcroft to the National Rifle Association improperly undermines the government's position in a pending court case. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Common Cause are asking that the Justice Department's inspector general and the D.C. Court of Appeals' Board of Professional Responsibility open investigations into Ashcroft's statements, according to a copy of the complaint obtained by The Washington Post. Ashcroft wrote in a May 17 letter to the NRA that he "unequivocally" believes the Constitution protects the right of individuals to own guns. In a Texas case, the U.S. government has argued the opposite, maintaining that the right to own a gun contained in the Second Amendment is a collective, not individual, right. "His public expression of this position directly contradicts the United States' stated legal position in pending litigation," said the complaint, signed by Brady Center President Michael D. Barnes and Common Cause President Scott Harshbarger. "We believe that Attorney General Ashcroft has violated numerous ethical guidelines that govern his conduct toward his client, the United States of America." Ashcroft said in his letter that he "cannot comment on any pending litigation," but the complaint argues that the rest of his comments have the effect of undermining such litigation. Justice Department spokeswoman Mindy Tucker said Ashcroft's views on the Second Amendment will not affect the case in Texas because the government will still argue that the defendant, Timothy Joe Emerson, violated federal law by owning a gun while under a restraining order. Ashcroft, Tucker said, "believes there's an individual right to own a gun, but there are also reasonable restrictions. The two are not mutually exclusive." The ethics complaint reflects an escalating attack by gun control advocates on the policies emerging from the Justice Department. Last week, the Brady Center and other groups derided Ashcroft for slashing the amount of time that records will be kept on instant background checks for gun buyers, from 90 days to one day. The relatively few court decisions pertaining to the Second Amendment over the last century have generally interpreted gun ownership as a collective right. But in his letter, Ashcroft cited numerous earlier decisions concluding the opposite, joining many legal scholars who have recently argued that the older rulings have greater merit. The matter could be put to a test in the case of Emerson, a San Angelo, Tex., physician accused of displaying a gun in front of his daughter and wife, who had filed a restraining order against him. The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 forbids anyone under a restraining order from owning a gun. A federal judge threw out the charges against Emerson last year, ruling that "a textual analysis of the Second Amendment supports an individual right to bear arms." The case is on appeal. © 2001 The Washington Post Company

To: jttmab who wrote (4121)	7/4/2001 8:27:29 PM
From: Tom Clarke	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

I wonder how it came to be that the Supreme Court came to be the most powerful branch of government. They're supposed to be equal to the other two branches. You know, checks and balances and all that. I think it was somebody on this thread who mentioned Andrew Jackson's famous quote, "John Marshall has made his ruling, let's see him enforce it!" I disagree with Jackson on the issue he was referring to, which was moving the Cherokee tribe out of Georgia which resulted in the Trail of Tears, (what do you expect from a Democrat?) but I like the principle.