The Libertarian Lawyer Behind Heller

In March, 2007 the Washington Post carried a story about Robert Levy, the person behind perhaps the most important Supreme Court case since Brown vs. Board of Education. Levy doesn't own a gun. His basis for filing the suit was the restoration and defense of personal liberties :

To Levy the libertarian, though, the effectiveness of the law -- its success or failure in curbing crime -- isn't the core issue. What matters most to him is whether the statute unjustly infringes on personal liberties. He doesn't dispute that "reasonable" gun controls are permissible under the Second Amendment. But the District's law amounts to "an outright prohibition," Levy said, and "that offends my constitutional sensibilities."
Read the full article here.

In June, 2008 prior to the Court's decision, Levy downplayed in the Washington Times the effect of Heller:

Does the right to keep and bear arms belong to us as individuals? Does that right extend to private use of arms? Or does the Second Amendment simply authorize the states to arm the members of their militias? The court will have to answer those threshold questions before deciding whether the D.C. gun ban is constitutional. Given the bizarre history of the Miller case, its dubious analysis and inconclusive result, about the only guidance Miller offers is how not to go about setting a Supreme Court precedent.

The opinion, of course, is much broader than those specific questions. Read the full Washington Times column here.

Photograph from cato.org.

Congress Leans Conservative, Party Affiliation Influences Vote

Political scientist Jonathan Kropko conducted a party study of ideology in the first session of the 110th session of the House of Representatives. He made several interesting findings:

* More Democrats seem to be taking ideological positions in the middle, and there are more Democrats on the conservative side of ideology than there are Republicans on the liberal side.

* Representatives may not be so polarized ideologically when they're not being pressured by their parties.

* The Republican leadership in the House is much more conservative than the Democratic leadership is liberal. Nancy Pelosi and majority whip James Clyburn are staunchly on the conservative end of the Democratic party.

The paper can be found here.

Perhaps most interesting is that when members of Congress are thinking on their own and not in a partisan manner, they are more likely to vote similarly regardless of party affiliation. It suggests that if a representative were to take a stand and not fall in with the party leadership, more original thought would result, and perhaps more problems would be resolved in reasonable ways.

Voting a particular way simply because you are a member of a certain party is unfair and irresponsible. Your constituents elected you to either speak their minds or to speak your mind, not to speak your party's mind.

Just 5 Presidents Were Neither a Governor Nor a Senator

1. Taft (Secretary of War)
2. Hoover (Secretary of Commerce)
3. Eisenhower (General)
4. Ford (House of Representatives)
5. Bush 41 (Director of CIA)

What does this tell us? The odds are against Bob Barr winning the Presidency, as they are against Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney. What does it really tell us? A common man or woman will never become President. In order to achieve that office, you have to be a career politician, that is devote at least enough time to run for and become a Governor and Senator for at least one term, probably two, and then run for and become Vice President or President. It is a commitment of at least 10 years at a minimum.