Suggested Answers to the Second Short Quiz

[johnkarls]

.
Suggested Answers to the Second Short Quiz



NB: The text of U.S. Supreme Court opinions (and “The Independent UK” newspaper article) referenced in this quiz are posted in the “Reference Materials” section of www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org for our 5/16/2018 meeting.



********************
Part I – Questions Relating To “Gun/Knife control (NB: Britain is now banning knives but what about motor vehicles?)”

Question 1

What does the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution say?

Answer 1

Please see Q-2.

Question 2

Although the Second Amendment says in its entirety “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” -- had the U.S. Supreme Court before District of Columbia vs. Heller in 2008 ever considered the question of whether the Right to Bear Arms is an individual right or, instead, merely the right to maintain a Militia which could bear arms?

Answer 2

No.

Question 3

What was “The Shot Heard Around The World” as so described in Ralph Waldo Emerson’s famous poem?

Answer 3

Please read on Q&A-4 through Q&A-8.

Question 4

Who was Paul Revere?

Answer 4

Please read on Q&A-5 through Q&A-6.

Question 5

Who were the famous “Minute Men”?

Answer 5

Please read on Q&A-6 through Q&A-8.

Question 6

Was “The Shot Heard Around The World” the first shot of the American Revolutionary War which, of course, was fired in Concord MA after Paul Revere’s wild midnight ride (“The British are coming, the British are coming”) to warn the American colonists after Paul Revere had patiently waited for the lantern signal from the belfry of The Old North Church (“One if by land, two if by sea - and I on the opposite shore will be - ready to ride and spread the alarm - through every Middlesex [County] village and farm - for the country folk to be up and to arm”)?

Answer 6

Absolutely!!!

Question7

Were “the country folk” in Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s famous poem the famous “minute men” who were famous virtually everywhere throughout the Revolutionary War, for being ready to fight the British on only 60 seconds warning?

Answer 7

Absolutely!!!

Question 8

Would “the country folk” have been ready to fight in 60 seconds if they all had to report first to an Armory in order to obtain weapons???

Answer 8

What do you think???

Question 9

Accordingly, would the Doctrine of “Original Intent” for interpreting the U.S. Constitution have required the conclusion that the Right to Bear Arms was the right of each individual citizen (i.e., each “minute man”) to protect “hearth and home”?

Answer 9

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 10

However, would the Doctrine of “Original Intent” have also required the conclusion that the “arms” that each individual citizen (“minute man”) is entitled to bear are limited to muskets and the hand-gun equivalent of a musket?

Answer 10

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 11

Are we having a bit too much fun with general concepts, rather than adhering strictly to the reasoning of the Majority Opinion in District of Columbia vs. Heller?

Answer 11

What do you think???

Question 12

Did the Majority Opinion hold that the Right to Bear Arms is an individual right to protect hearth and home?

Answer 12

Yes.

Question 13

In a court opinion, what is a “dictum” as distinguished from a “holding”?

Answer 13

A “holding” comprises only the minimum principle or principles which are stated in the opinion and which are necessary to reach the conclusion.

A “dictum” is a principle which is stated in the opinion but which is NOT necessary to reach the conclusion.

Accordingly, a “dictum” has NO FORCE OF LAW. Years ago, including “dicta” in an opinion was heresy!!! Nowadays it has become quite stylish as judges go out of their way to “legislate from the bench” not only on principles required to decide the case, but seemingly on almost “anything under the sun”!!!

Question 14

Did the Majority Opinion in Heller include quite a few “dicta” that were the equivalent of the famous principle that the “Right to Free Speech” does NOT include the “right to yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater”?

Answer 14

Yes.

Question 15

Did the Majority Opinion in Heller include “dicta” regarding whether their opinion should be interpreted as bearing on the Right To Bear Arms (A) by felons and the mentally ill, or (B) in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or (C) comprising machine guns?

Answer 15

(A) Yes.
(B) Yes.
(C) Yes.

Question 16

Did U.K. Home Secretary Amber Rudd announce on 4/7/2018 that the Parliament would shortly enact legislation that would, inter alia, ban the sending of any knives sold online to residential addresses, ban the possession of any “zombie knife” or “knucklebuster,” and ban the possession of any kind of knife on “education premises”?

Answer 16

Yes.

Question 17

Did “The Independent (U.K.)” which broke the story, report that the government crackdown followed a surge of street stabbings?

Answer 17

Yes.

Question 18

Is the U.K. renowned for having some of the world’s strictest gun-control laws which featured, until relatively recently, BRITISH POLICE (aka, “Bobbies”) CARRYING NO FIREARMS?

Answer 18

Incredibly!!!

Especially when British Police Officers WENT UNARMED DURING THE ENTIRE 1922-1969 PERIOD THAT THE IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY (“IRA”) WAS CONDUCTING FREQUENT TERRORIST ATTACKS IN BRITAIN!!!

Question 19

Have American opponents of gun-control legislation constantly argued that such legislation simply takes guns out of the hands of citizens BUT NOT out of the hands of criminals? And that the response time for police to arrive is often too late?

Answer 19

Yes and yes.

Question 20

Accordingly, aren’t the decisions of the U.K. government several years ago to arm many of its law-enforcement personnel and now its decision to impose bans on knives real concessions to the nature of the problems?

Answer 20

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 21

BTW, did U.K. Home Secretary Amber Rudd also announce that the British Government will support the ability of police to “stop and search”? Is “stop and search” the same as NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s famous “stop and frisk” policy that was revoked by current NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio?

Answer 21

Yes and yes.

Question 22

And also BTW, did the U.K. Labour Party’s “Shadow” Home Secretary Diane Abbott say that all of the measures announced by Amber Rudd are “welcome” but that the police’s ability to use them have been “completely undermined” by the reduction in police ranks of 21,000 officers since 2010? [NB: The Tories have been in control of Parliament since 2007.]

Answer 22

Yes.

Question 23

Have there been numerous mass killings in London, France, Germany, etc., using motor vehicles as weapons??? Indeed, wasn’t there even a mass killing in NYC last year using a rented truck???

Answer 23

Yes and yes.

Question 24

Did U.K. Home Secretary Amber Rudd include in her announcement any policy to ban, or curtail the use of, motor vehicles???

Answer 24

No, presumably because even the Brits can’t figure out how to deal with the “weaponization” of motor vehicles.

NB: The Brits did build barricades between traffic lanes and pedestrian walkways on both London bridges that suffered motor-vehicle attacks last year, but a country could go bankrupt doing that for every street/highway within its borders (instead of for a mere two tourist attractions)!!!



********************
Part II – Questions Relating To Campaign Finance

Question 1

Did the “Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002” (aka BCRA and aka McCain-Feingold) provide for PUBLIC FINANCING of a Presidential Campaign for any candidate who agreed to refrain from accepting campaign contributions?

Answer 1

Yes and no.

Such public financing had been available since 1976 and had been used by both Republicans and Democrats in the general elections from 1976 to 2004.

Indeed, minor parties qualified for the financing in the general elections of 1980, 1996 and 2000.

And at least one minor party qualified for the financing in each of the Presidential Primary Elections every 4 years from 1984 through 2016.

It should be noted that the public financing for primary campaigns comprised MATCHING FUNDS, whereas public financing for general elections comprised SOLELY A GRANT REQUIRING RENUNCIATION OF ANY PRIVATE CONTRIBUTIONS.

The reason why the answer is “yes and no” is that BCRA or McCain-Feingold made substantial modifications in 2002 to the pre-existing public-finance legislation -- rather than comprising the sum total of public-finance legislation.

Question 2

Did Sen. Mitch McConnell, at that time Senate Majority Whip and an opponent of McCain-Feingold, challenge the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold?

Answer 2

Yes.

Question 3

Did the U.S. Supreme Court in McConnell vs. Federal Election Commission (2003) uphold the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold in all important respects?

Answer 3

Yes.

Question 4

Did Presidential Candidate Barack Obama pledge in his first Presidential Campaign (2008) to accept public financing under McCain-Feingold and forego accepting any campaign contributions?

Answer 4

Yes.

Question 5

Before the 2008 campaign progressed very far, did Candidate Barack Obama famously announce that he would violate his pledge and accept campaign contributions instead of public financing?

Answer 5

Yes.

Question 6

Did the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission (2010) find that Sec. 203 of McCain-Feingold, which prohibited “independent expenditures” supporting a Presidential Candidate by corporations and labor unions, violated their constitutional “right to free speech”?

Answer 6

Yes.

Question 7

Have Supreme Court opinions held that some constitutional rights apply to legal entities (such as corporations and labor unions) while others apply only to human beings?

Answer 7

Absolutely!!!

And without rhyme or reason, unless it is the result the Court wanted to reach in the first case to reach them for which the question vis-à-vis a particular Constitutional Right, was relevant.

Question 8

BTW have Supreme Court opinions also held that some constitutional rights apply only to U.S. citizens, while others apply to all human beings while located in the U.S., and while yet others apply to human beings anywhere in the world who are under U.S. control (such as POW’s)?

Answer 8

Absolutely!!!

And without rhyme or reason, unless it is the result the Court wanted to reach in the first case to reach them for which the question vis-à-vis a particular Constitutional Right, was relevant.

Question 9

Had the U.S. Supreme Court decided in NAACP vs. Button in 1963 (371 U.S. 415) that legal entities possess the Constitutional Right to Free Speech?

Answer 9

Yes.

Question 10

During the 1963 heyday of the Civil Rights movement, was the NAACP soliciting as legal clients downtrodden African Americans by means of media ads which violated the then-universal legal bans against attorneys soliciting clients?

Answer 10

Yes.

Question 11

And did the Supreme Court in NAACP vs. Button hold that legal bans against attorneys advertising for clients were a violation of the NAACP’s “Freedom of Speech” even though the NAACP was a legal entity?

Answer 11

Yes.

Question 12

Accordingly, could the Supreme Court in Citizens United have simply said -- “We will follow precedent and in the wake of NAACP vs. Button, the proverbial ‘fat lady has sung’”???!!!

Answer 12

Obviously!!!

But Supreme Court justices only pay attention to precedent when it provides an excuse for the conclusion they want to reach!!!

Otherwise, they will look for an excuse to “DISTINGUISH” between the precedent and the case at hand!!!

Or simply IGNORE the precedent if they can’t find an excuse to distinguish it!!!

And here they even chose to IGNORE a precedent that was relevant, presumably because they didn’t want to blame the Civil Rights Movement for having to affirm that legal entities, such as labor unions and corporations, have the Right to Free Speech.

Question 13

Did 5 of the Supreme Court Justices each struggle in his (all 5 of the majority were male) own way to conclude that legal entities possess the Constitutional Right of Free Speech?

Answer 13

Comically -- at least in the non-humble opinion of Yours Truly!!!

[They would have done better and been more honest with a one-sentence opinion that cited NAACP vs. Button and announced “The Fat Lady Has Sung”!!!]

Question 14

In our analysis of Citizens United, did we note that regardless of whether it constitutes good or bad public policy, it is theoretically similar to labor contracts requiring all workers to be members of, and pay dues to, a union?

Answer 14

Yes.

[We have discussed Citizens United on numerous occasions, perhaps the most in depth for our 4/8/2015 meeting which focused on Prof. Zephyr Teachout’s “Corruption in America.”]

Question 15

And that the same analysis applies to how shareholders are forced to bear the financial burden of decisions that are made by their corporation whether or not they agree?

Answer 15

Ditto A-14.

Question 16

Indeed, did we suggest that in the case of possible political contributions by corporations, each shareholder be given the option of receiving her/his proportionate share as a taxable dividend, the net proceeds of which s/he can spend however s/he wants? And as a non-cash but taxable dividend to shareholders who don’t opt out?

Answer 16

Ditto A-14.

Question 17

Are campaign contributions themselves, EITHER bribery of the politicians OR ELSE extortion by the politicians -- according to long-time Washington Post Columnist Dana Milbank’s “Homo Politicus” and former long-time liberal Business Week Columnist Robert Kuttner’s “The Squandering of America” whose books were the twin foci for our 2/14/2008 meeting 10 years ago?

Answer 17

Yes.

Question 18

Since, per Milbank and Kuttner, nothing is done (or not done) in the CESSPOOL known as Washington DC except as the result of campaign contributions, why can’t McCain-Feingold be revived with sufficient funding that the pols would not be tempted by the bribery/extortion?

Answer 18

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

After all, the Supreme Court approved the main provisions of McCain-Feingold it its 2003 McConnell vs. FEC decision which is “still on the books”!!!

And in its 2008 Citizens United decision focusing on McCain-Feingold’s Sec. 203 governing “independent expenditures” of UNRELATED persons/entities, 8 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices approved legislation requiring FULL DISCLOSURE regarding the IDENTITIES of the unrelated persons/entities.

[The issue of FULL DISCLOSURE of IDENTITIES was A “DICTUM” addressed in Part IV of the “Opinion of the Court” -- Justice Clarence Thomas joined in the “Opinion of the Court” EXCEPT AS TO PART IV, and Justice John Paul Steven’s Dissenting Opinion (in which the other three dissenters joined) disagreed with the entire “Opinion of the Court” EXCEPT FOR THE PART IV “DICTUM” PERMITTING THE REQUIRING OF FULL DISCLOSURE OF IDENTITIES.]

So this might be worthy of one of our Six-Degrees-Of-Separation E-mail Campaigns to --

(A) Increase the amount of public financing under McCain-Feingold sufficiently that no Presidential candidate would attempt to engage in her/his own BRIBES/EXTORTION (as Dana Milbank and Robert Kuttner have called ALL Campaign Contributions – please see Q-17 above);

(B) Provide similar public financing under McCain-Feingold for all candidates for the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives; and

(C) Accept the invitation of EIGHT Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United to require FULL DISCLOSURE OF THE ULTIMATE SOURCE of “independent expenditures.”

*****
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) would be the obvious recipient for such an e-mail campaign.

Because he had radical surgery last year for brain cancer.

So there might just be 60 Senators and a majority of Representatives who might be willing to DISOBEY THEIR “OWNERS” (aka Campaign Contributors) and provide Sen. McCain with a “Crowning Achievement” for his career before it is too late!!!

[His bi-partisan co-sponsor of the original legislation, U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) served three terms in the U.S. Senate before losing to Ron Johnson in 2010. In a 2016 re-match, Russ Feingold lost again to Ron Johnson. However, Sen. McCain would be the best judge whether a bi-partisan Democrat co-sponsor would be needed and, if so, who would best fit that role.]

So yes, I admit that such an e-mail campaign would be a Quixotic Quest!!!

And perhaps even “Dreaming the Impossible Dream”!!!

But can any of us think of a more Worthy “Windmill” with which to tilt???

Question 19

Did Milbank and Kuttner describe the legal landscape which requires for criminal conviction of bribery/extortion pols who are so stupid as to explicitly promise a specific action in return for a specific “campaign contribution”?

Answer 19

Yes.

It’s almost as if written agreements aren’t even sufficient -- it’s almost as if they require notarization and two witnesses!!!

Question 20

Didn’t Milbank and Kuttner explain that any pol who is stupid enough to think s/he can violate a “wink and a nod” trading of a specific action in return for a specific “campaign contribution” is “all washed up” because such a pol will be so notorious in the CESSPOOL known as Washington DC that s/he will never get another “campaign contribution”???!!!

Answer 20

Absolutely!!!

Question 21

Is this sad state of affairs the reason why for 10 years after reading Milbank/Kuttner, we have called the U.S. Government “The Best Government Money Can Buy”???!!!

Answer 21

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 22

And recognized that it is controlled by “The Establishment” whom we have always defined as the billionaires (many of whom BTW are foreign) who “own” both political parties, who “own” many, if not most, of the members of the Mainstream Media, and who “own” many members of academia???!!!

Answer 22

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 23

So that it is a forlorn hope that U.S. citizens will ever be able to exert any influence over their government???!!!

Answer 23

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!