Happy Independence Day.

Tomorrow is the anniversary of the stated intent to become free of a ruler who did not respect those living on this continent.

We ended up with laws that were very much flawed. For example, slavery was legal and women could not vote.

Today is the anniversary of the end of the battle at Gettysburg, the end of reasonable expectation that the rebellious states might succeed. For many, this defeat is something they mourn. It was a battle of federal rights versus states' rights. Neither side was fighting for individual rights. The side that lost was fighting, in part, to protect the right of one human being to own another. In other words, fighting to keep individuals from having rights. We should rejoice at the defeat of such a barbaric idea. The side that won did not do anything to put an end to the same practice until after the war was over. So maybe not so much to rejoice over, either.

But what about the Emancipation Proclamation?

This only freed slaves in states that were not under the control of the Union. It was a bribe. Come back and you may keep your slaves. A not so pretty speech, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing. It came before Gettysburg, so the outcome was much more dubious. The need to weaken to opposition was still great. This was "Come back and all is forgiven."

One of the most dramatic moments at Gettysburg is described at William The Coroner’s Forensic Files in the post Joshua Chamberlain. Not your typical American, but the kind of person who did make this country possible, a truly impressive leader. This is not meant to ignore the bravery of all of those who fought with him or against him, but his action was pivotal.

As weak and pathetic as the Emancipation Proclamation was, the follow up to the battle was not. The Gettysburg Address was a momentous speech - brief, motivating, memorable.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

.

The Kritocracy of Justice Stevens

SCOTUSblog has the full decision of the court available at Heller Opinion.

Let's start with a quote from the dissent of Justice Stevens to District of Columbia v. Heller.

I do not know whether today’s decision will increase the labor of federal judges to the “breaking point” envisioned by Justice Cardozo, but it will surely give rise to a far more active judicial role in making vitally important national policy decisions than was envisioned at any time in the 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries.

The Court properly disclaims any interest in evaluating the wisdom of the specific policy choice challenged in this case, but it fails to pay heed to a far more important policy choice—the choice made by the Framers themselves. The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons, and to authorize this Court to use the common-law process of case-by-case judicial lawmaking to define the contours of acceptable gun control policy. Absent compelling evidence that is nowhere to be found in the Court’s opinion, I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice.

For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

His statement, "The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons," demonstrates a profound ignorance of the origins of the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights was not something proposed by the Framers. The Bill of Rights was forced on the Framers, because of the distrust of the power of government. The citizens of this country decided that they would only accept a government with these limitations on the government.

His bias blinds him.

.

A Bit of History And Then I Rant About the Bill of Rights

From Wikipedia's June 22 page. I found the following interesting.

June 22:
1812 - Napoleon declares war on Russia and invades.

June 22:
1815 - Second abdication of Napoleon.

Apparently the invasion of Russia was not one of his better ideas, but it does have a great soundtrack.

June 22:
1941 - Germany invades the Soviet Union in Operation Barbarossa, one of the most dramatic turning points of World War II.

Has Hitler never seen The Princess Bride?

"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia."

On the anniversary of Napoleon's invasion!

Yes, Hitler died in 1945 and the movie came out in 1987, 14 years after the book, but Hitler was into all of that predestination, divination, Nostradamus stupidity. Therefore, he should have known. :-)

June 22:
1942 - Erwin Rommel is promoted to Field Marshal after the capture of Tobruk.

So, even the blind nut occasionally makes a good move. Fortunately, he did not do this too often. Rommel was the one guy who might have stopped, or slowed Patton, but Hitler prevented this last real chance he had at survival because of his superior intellect. And people still worship this poster child for destruction - his self destruction not coming soon enough.

June 22:
1969 - The Cuyahoga River catches fire, which triggered a crack-down on pollution in the river.

It looks like William Goldman is going to be supplying my quotes today. "Think ya used enough dynamite there, Butch? "

When you are dumping your garbage just outside your door you don't notice it, maybe because the air is too thick with smoke, you might have a problem. When your garbage catches fire and it is not in an incinerator, you might have a problem. It's this kind of idiotic management of waste that gives global warming acolytes ammunition.

But the earliest event is probably the most significant.

June 22:
1633 - The Holy Office in Rome forces Galileo Galilei to recant his scientific view that the Sun, not the Earth, is the center of the Universe.

Galileo is supposed to have said, under his breath, "Eppur si muove!"

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

This has been translated as, "And yet it does move!" Not a translation that works for me. The translation that has so much more going for it is:

"Still, it moves."

A physics pun from one of the giants of physics. Something that provides a visual concept, rather than just a statement. If there is any truth to the legend of his statement, then "Still, it moves," is what I would expect from Galileo. Not even an exclamation mark needed on the end.

Still - The earth/church is still, stationary, unmoving, calm, free from discord, unchanging, silence.

It moves - The earth does move, tradition cannot halt progress, minds continue to explore new ideas, the attempts to cover up knowledge will fail.

This is not isolated to Catholicism, or religion, or science. This is about what makes the US Constitution such a great document. The respect for ideas. You may disagree with me, but you may not silence me. I may disagree with you, but I may not silence you. Truth does not come about with censorship.

Still, we give up this right, little by little - fighting words (as if we are animals and incapable of restraint), hate speech (as if someone's feelings should be more protected than speech), the expansion of copyright limitation (something to appease the Disney corporation, one founded on the production of modified public domain material), and the inevitable return of attempts to prevent flag burning (often by the very religious creating a modern golden calf in the flag).

Preventing flag burning is not the answer. Preventing the continual erosion of protected speech is far more important. Silencing Galileo did nothing to prevent his ideas from getting out. Cover ups do not work. Stifling flag burners does nothing to stop their access to other forms of expression, but does give them something to speak about.

Secrecy is another area of concern. When it is exaggerated, the attempts to make everything secret end up decreasing the protection of legitimate secrets. More is better sounds good to a lot of people, just not to a lot of smart people.

Why are we surprised at the continual narrowing of the scope of other rights protected by the Bill of Rights?

Protecting my speech means I need to protect the right of someone else to do the same, as unpleasant as I may find that expression. When we place limitations on this right, just to make ourselves feel better, to be less offended, we give up too much of our own right. The Bill of Rights is not a feel good document. It is an uncomfortable compromise that helps all of us in the long run. It helps protect us from those who would lie to us to lead us to further restrictions on our rights.

.