RoR: Forum

Sotomayor doesn't want to think so.

She doesn't believe in an individual's right to life (which means an individual's right to defend one's own life; aka self-defense). The reason I post this so long after it was said -- it was said in her committee hearing -- is because I think she thinks that while an individual doesn't have a right to life, that a State does have a right to life (which means a State's right to defend itself). Recently, regarding Israel, Obama said that "every state has the right to self-defense."

And what is a State except for a bunch of individuals, and all-too-often a largely self-appointed oligarchy?

Where is the "self" that is getting defended when a State practices self-defense?

It is all-too-often the largely self-appointed oligarchy.

On the one hand, there is supposedly no right to life for an individual but, on the other hand, when you bring a bunch of individuals together into a collective tribe, then rights spring into existence ex nihilo! What a contradiction!

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 6/05, 9:30am)

Post 1

Saturday, June 4, 2011 - 1:07pm

I think it all boils down to a sense of entitlement on the part of elites who want to rule. The way you can tell that it is about ruling and not so much what they say they are trying to rule in favor of, is to notice that they will change or compromise on the content, but not on the "right" to rule.

It is the cry that they have the right to do what they want even if it is contradictory. And from that emotional demand they derive the "right" to make the decision, and that the state that enforces their will has the right to do so, and therefore the right to exist, and of course there can't be any rights among the masses because that would oppose the rights of the elite.

Post 2

Saturday, June 4, 2011 - 7:33pm

Steve,

I think it all boils down to a sense of entitlement on the part of elites who want to rule.

I agree that it boils down to the moral character flaws of "elites" -- the ambitious whim-worshippers who purposefully evade the humanity of their potential "subjects." It's difficult to reason with someone who thinks he should rule you.

Ed

Post 3

Saturday, June 4, 2011 - 8:00pm

1930
============
Under the species of syndicalism and fascism there appears for the first time in Europe a type of man who does not want to give reasons or to be right, but simply shows himself resolved to impose his opinions.--Jose` Ortega y Gasset
============

Post 4

Saturday, June 4, 2011 - 10:29pm

Everyone has the right of self-defense, but one should delegate that right to the government, unless one needs to defend oneself in order to escape immediate harm or danger. Otherwise, the police should be called in and the matter handled by an impartial investigation and arbitration. That may be what Sotomayor is talking about.

Post 5

Sunday, June 5, 2011 - 12:28am

I should think that the 9th and 10th Amendments would make it clear that one has the right of self-defense. And it would be absurd to ignore the Declaration's statement that we are endowed with inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but we can't defend that life. Also how could it make any sense that we have freedom to exercise the practice of religion, free speech, press and freedom to assemble (1st Amendment), the right to bear arms (2nd Amendment), probable cause (4th Amendment), and so forth, but not have the right to defend ourselves.

Sotomayor is one of those who believes that if a right isn't specifically mentioned in the constitution then it doesn't exist (I don't know how she rationalizes the meaning of the 9th and 10th). When something in the constitution doesn't match a progressive agenda, the just get creative with language. If there is a power they want for government, but it isn't explicit in the constitution, they have no problems stretching concepts till they sort of fit what they want.

One of my favorites in this vein is Wickard V. Filburn. Here is a description from a Constitutional Law course given by Henry Mark Holzer: "In 1938, the Agriculture Adjustment Act was passed. One reason for its enactment was to avoid food surpluses [too much food?] and shortages by establishing government control of the amount of production, and thus to support the price of farm commodities�an anti-free market, command economy scheme par excellence.

Every year, the federal bureaucrats used their crystal balls to determine how much wheat would be needed the next year. They then set production quotas.

Filburn was a small Ohio dairy and poultry farmer who also raised a small amount of winter wheat. Some he sold locally, some he fed to his own animals, some he milled into flour for his own consumption, and the rest he kept for the following year�s seeding on his own land.

In 1940, based on the act, its regulations, and what the clairvoyant bureaucrats predicted, the government told Filburn that his 1941 wheat crop could occupy no more than eleven acres, with a harvest yield of no more than about twenty bushels per acre.

Recklessly throwing caution to the wind and willing to risk violating federal law, Filburn sowed and harvested an extra twelve acres. When the government assessed a penalty for his 'farm marketing excess,' he sued.

Eventually, the case reached the Supreme Court where Filburn argued, essentially, that the wheat marketing quota provisions of the Act were unconstitutional because they didn�t constitute regulation of interstate commerce.
...
Filburn wanted to know how Congress could regulate wheat which would never leave his farm."

Their argument was that his paltry 12 acres by not being sold might have kept Filburn from buying in the market, and that if the price had gone high enough, he might have decided to sell and that either way it might have effected the price of wheat and that would constitute an effect on interstate commerce. "The answer he received was that �It is the essence of regulation that it lays a restraining hand on the self-interest of the regulated and that advantages from the regulation commonly fall to others.� And it was pursuant to an indefensible interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause that the Court justified Congress�s socioeconomic allocation of those benefits and costs."
--------------

If Obama can force us to buy federal health insurance, and Filburn could be told that he didn't have any right to grow wheat, then Sotomayor may find at least 4 other justices to agree that the right to defend one's life isn't in the constitution.
--------------

Busting up the constitution is one of the primary goals of progressivism... because it is seen as a serious barrier to redistribution of wealth and increasing executive power.

Post 6

Sunday, June 5, 2011 - 7:32am

William speculated: "Everyone has the right of self-defense, but one should delegate that right to the government, unless one needs to defend oneself in order to escape immediate harm or danger. Otherwise, the police should be called in and the matter handled by an impartial investigation and arbitration. That may be what Sotomayor is talking about."

That might be what you and I would be talking about. I would not guess what the Justice intends. If you look at her rulings both on the primary bench and as an appeals court justice, you might find that you agree with many and disagree with as many. What may be lacking (or not apparent from the outside) is the moral standard she uses.

Just start with Wikipedia and scroll down to Notable Rulings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor
Dig deeper via the legal databases - Oyez or FindLaw, for instance - if you wish.

In this example, I would guess that she finds no specific wording for self-defense. Of course, she is as likely to interpret any other wording as widely as needed if it meets some standard she brings to this.

Steve asked rhetorically: "I should think that the 9th and 10th Amendments would make it clear that one has the right of self-defense. And it would be absurd to ignore the Declaration's statement that we are endowed with inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but we can't defend that life. Also how could it make any sense that we have freedom to exercise the practice of religion, free speech, press and freedom to assemble (1st Amendment), the right to bear arms (2nd Amendment), probable cause (4th Amendment), and so forth, but not have the right to defend ourselves. "

If you understand the English Bill of Rights upon which the American is based, then you see why those rights are enumerated in the First Amendment. They did not want a National Church. However, the states had official churches. Massachusetts collected taxes for the Congregational churches until 1841. The same applies to "gun control" (so-called). The federal government was prohibited from doing what any township could. And so on down the line.

Other rights are specified in subsequent amendments on the same basis.

The Ninth and Tenth rest on a different foundation. The Founders all largely read or were aware of Enlightenment jurists. We look to Locke and Hobbes as the poles of thought. I am not sure what their actual influences were compared to many others. However, it is clear that the Bill of Rights was intended as the strictest possible limitation on the government. If you compare and contrast the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution, you can see the obvious line of development toward as they said, "a more perfect union." However, the internal operations of the government were not intended to curtail the rights of the people.

I do point out, also, that all of the Founders spoke of "the people" in the plural - all men are created equal. They did not base the government on "individual rights" as we understand that.

From The Bill of Rights -

"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Individualism as we understand it is not in the document; and neither is the liberal interpretation of "interstate commerce" that you cited above. Like Talmudic scholars, we read into this what we bring to it.

There is no Constitutional right to travel. So what? Does that mean that the right does not exist, or that the Constitution is flawed? I think it means that if the government were to clamp down on travel, you would point to the 9th and 10th and Justice Sotomayor would point to the Interstate Commerce Clause.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 6/05, 7:55am)

Post 7

Sunday, June 5, 2011 - 11:11am

Are you guys saying that if a person were attacked on the street and fought off his attackers, Sotomayor would argue that he overstepped his bounds and should have let his attackers continue to assault him and possibly kill him when he could have prevented it by defending himself? Seriously? The law today states that you do have the right of exigent self-defense; you just don't have the right to retaliate after the fact. I doubt very seriously that Sotomayor would disagree.

Post 8

Sunday, June 5, 2011 - 11:47am

Michael,

I disagree with your statement that individualism is not in the document. When the the constitution says "people" it clearly means each and every individual. Free speech is not something that is only applicable when all the people attempt to speak at once, it is for each and every individual.

Michael, when you talk about being created equal, you must shift into the plural because you are doing a comparison. This isn't one hand clapping. If the word "individual" had been used they would still have had to say all "individuals" are created equal.

My discussion of the Interstate Commerce clause was to show how badly it has been misinterpreted.
---------------------

Bill,

I don't know what Sotomayor would say. I'd hope that she would recognize an individual's right to defend themselves, but I don't know, and I don't expect to see many good rulings from her.

"Here is a line of questioning between Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Sonia Sotomayor:

Coburn: As a citizen of this country, do you believe innately in my ability to have self-defense of myself � personal self-defense? Do I have a right to personal self-defense?

Sotomayor: I�m trying to think if I remember a case where the Supreme Court has addressed that particular question. Is there a Constitutional right to self-defense? And I can�t think of one. I could be wrong, but I can�t think of one

Coburn: But do you have an opinion, or can you give me your opinion, of whether or not in this country I personally, as an individual citizen, have a right to self-defense?

Sotomayor: I � as I said, I don�t know."

[From the web site Ed linked to for this thread]

Post 9

Sunday, June 5, 2011 - 4:50pm

William, I do not know what the other guys are saying. The inherent, natural right to self-defense is not at question here. The point of contention is whether the US Constitution mentions it. Like the right to travel, it may well be interpreted. My point is that in this one example, Sotomayor sounds like an irrationally strict constructionist. But, as I warned, in the next case or the next, she may well find interpretive meaning.

I do point out, though, that while the Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from unwarranted searches and seizures, it does not grant you the right to resist an officer of the law. I say that for a reason, as an example of something more basic to our discussion here. That is to say that generally speaking both modern libertarians and modern progressives have read into the Constitution their own philosophies of government. In both cases, they can point to other writings by the Founders that support their views. But what is in the Constitution is either literal or it is not. And modern libertarians also interpret the Constitution while claiming to be strict constructionists.

Post 10

Tuesday, June 7, 2011 - 6:47pm

I can't stop gawking at the question.

Post 11

Tuesday, June 7, 2011 - 11:28pm