Tag Archives: United States Constitution

What’s More Valuable — Money or Life?

It only happened about 3 hours ago, but with how quickly news travels today, you’ve no doubt heard about the school shooting in Connecticut. As I heard some of the coverage (and watched some of the reaction on Twitter — most notably from a fictional Twitter handle: President Bartlet), I couldn’t help but think of something that I shared on Facebook recently.

It was a post about Bob Costas and his mention of gun control on national television — the same weekend where a professional football player took his own life (along with his girlfriend). There were some reactions to my sharing this on Facebook, which precipitated my going and finding an article about what it was like to own a gun in Canada (vs. owning a gun in the US). I’m very aware that there’s a second amendment to the United States Constitution and that it’s probably there for a very good reason, but it’s painful — painful — when there’s a tragedy that may have been prevented if there were better rules/regulations in place.

People who want stronger regulations to own guns are not infringing on citizens’ second amendment rights. Let me say that again: people who want stronger gun control regulations are not trying to take people’s guns away.

There are a few important points from the article detailing the differences between getting a gun in Canada and getting one in the US:

The first step in legally obtaining a gun in Canada is taking the Canadian Firearms Safety Course and Test.  The course is required to obtain a possession and acquisition licence.

Obtaining an PAL does not allow its owner unfettered access to firearms, but instead allows its bearer to obtain a “non-restricted” firearm.  Non-restricted firearms are generally considered to be sporting rifles, shotguns or airguns.

…

The PAL allows Canadians to own and operate “non-restricted” firearms. A “restricted” firearm generally refers to handguns, and requires a separate certification training course, according to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police website.

The people in this class will have to wait several weeks to find out if they pass, but even if they do, there are several more steps before they can actually get a gun.

They still have to apply for a firearms license, which like a driver’s license requires a photo.

There’s a 28-day waiting period for that and the government runs background checks and calls personal references to talk to them to see if they think the applicant can handle a gun.

But that still doesn’t allow the person to buy a handgun and bring it home. There’s a separate license required to take the handgun out of the store.  The Authorization to Transport (ATT) is even required for person to a gun from one location to another in Canada – even to move a gun from a home to a firing range.

The whole process takes months, but for the most part the students in this class don’t mind the restrictions. In fact, they appreciate them. [Emphasis added]

And one last quote that I wanted to share from the article:

“I don’t really consider it going through hoops.  It’s a weekend, a couple hundred dollars,” said one student Paula.  “For the responsibility of carrying around a firearm?  I think that’s more than worth it.  I would like to know that anyone around me who has the ability to use a firearm knows what the hell they’re doing and knows how to do it safely, and knows how to think of me and my family and not just themselves and I want to do this so I’m gonna do it,” she said. [Emphasis added]

These are not unreasonable expectations. A common argument you hear from supporters of gun control: you need a license to drive a car, why wouldn’t you need a license to own a gun? I hear that argument, but I think it incorrectly equates cars with guns (somewhat ironically — both lead to a number of deaths in the Western world).

A far more important argument — in my eyes — is the question of what we value as a society. What does our society value more — money or life? Because that’s what it costs. “Unfettered” freedom with regard to gun control — costs lives. Today’s event wasn’t the first school shooting and if there continues to be such lax gun regulations in the US, it probably won’t be the last.

Yes — regulations cost money. But what’s more important, money or life?

Canadians CAN be President of the United States

I came across an article yesterday that talked about Ted Cruz‘s (Senator-elect for Texas) intentions of running for President. When I first saw the line talking about Cruz’s intentions, I had to re-read it a couple of times — and then I had to double-check the source — it all checks out, which I found as weird: I thought you had to be born in the United States in order to run for President.

Apparently not.

Here’s something I found on Amazon’s Askville:

Here is the exact language of the federal Constitution, Article II, Section 1:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article2

That is all that the constiution has to say on the subject. The reasons for this provision are a bit obscure.

It is thought the origin of the natural-born citizen clause can be traced to a letter of July 25, 1787 from John Jay to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention. John Jay wrote: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” There was no debate, and this qualification for the office of the Presidency was introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without discussion by the Constitutional Convention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen

The issue hasn’t been litigated, so there isn’t any meaningful case law to help our analysis.

All Presidents since and including Martin Van Buren were born in the United States subsequent to the Declaration of Inde pendence. The only issue with regard to the qualifications set out in this clause, which appears to be susceptible of argument, is whether a child born abroad of American parents is ”a natural born citizen” in the sense of the clause. Such a child is a citizen as a consequence of statute. 94 Whatever the term ”natural born” means, it no doubt does not include a person who is ”naturalized.” Thus, the answer to the question might be seen to turn on the interpretation of the first sentence of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, providing that ”[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States” are citizens.95 Significantly, however, Congress, in which a number of Framers sat, provided in the Naturalization act of 1790 that ”the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, . . . shall be considered as natural born citizens. . . .” 96 This phrasing followed the literal terms of British statutes, beginning in 1350, under which persons born abroad, whose parents were both British subjects, would enjoy the same rights of inheritance as those born in England; beginning with laws in 1709 and 1731, these statutes expressly provided that such persons were natural-born subjects of the crown. 97 There is reason to believe, therefore, that the phrase includes persons who become citizens at birth by statute because of their status in being born abroad of American citizens. 98 Whether the Supreme Court would decide the issue should it ever arise in a ”case or controversy” as well as how it might decide it can only be speculated about.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/03.html#1

Bottom line:  It seems that the phrase in question means that you were a citizen at the time that you were born, rather than acquiring it later.

So — if I understand this correctly, even though I was born in Canada — I could run for President of the United States. Who knows what the future holds…