To back up its phony settled-law argument, the Maloney court utilized Presser v. Illinois, which is Supreme Court precedent from 1886. This was a case decided far before the Supreme Court developed the incorporation doctrine, and therefore, as the Heller court noted, “did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases.” The Maloney court, desperate to preserve its own political agenda, utilized a translucent shield to protect this agenda. Courts rarely use precedent that is over 120 years old, which has not been ratified in later decisions and laws. For example, a court would never think to use the analysis from one hundred years before Miranda to determine whether a confession was properly obtained. Or if it tried, the outcry would be deafening. This is what the Maloney court did. The Supreme Court will hear an appeal of Maloney as well.
Is this what the Founding Fathers imagined when they wrote the Bill of Rights, that the people’s rights to defend themselves against a tyrannical government applied only as to the federal government, and the state could be as tyrannical as it wanted? To be fair, there is only one sensible reading of Heller on the question of whether the Second Amendment restrains only the federal government, or all governments. By writing that the right to keep and bear arms, like the freedom of speech, precedes the existence of the United States, by characterizing it as “ancient,” and by describing its use against tyrants throughout history, the Supreme Court found and declared that the individual right to keep and bear arms is “fundamental” (meaning natural, not government created) and thus is immune from all government interference, absent a state interest of the highest order and due process.
Historical Ignorance Is Not Bliss
The philosopher Santayana once said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. And it seems that we have not learned from history and we shall let the government lie to us once again. Currently there is a hue and cry about renewing the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. In 2007, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), a strong supporter of renewing the Assault Weapons Ban, spoke of the mass murders at Virginia Tech and Columbine High School to justify the need for a ban on high-capacity assault rifles. The guns used in those tragic events were not assault weapons, but a legal variety of firearm. Yet, the government will lie and lie again to serve its own ends until the general public supinely believes it. One should consider what the result would have been if one student present at either of these massacres had firearms training and was able to carry a weapon to take down the killers. How many lives would have been saved?
President Obama has stated that he “has seen the impact of fully automatic weapons in the hand of criminals . . . [and] [t]hus supports making permanent the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban. These weapons such as AK-47s belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets. These are also not weapons that are used by hunters and sportsmen.” Such a short statement, yet so full of either mistaken beliefs or continuing government fraud.
As John Lott points out: First, the Assault Weapons Ban did not, as discussed, ban fully automatic weapons; second, the firing mechanisms banned are the exact same as those in the semiautomatic weapons used by hunters and sportsmen. Third and foremost, the percentage of deaths attributed to fully automatic weapons is so miniscule that no person could attribute them to the high murder rate of any city.27 As should be clear, we do not know any better and we have not learned that governments, no matter from which party, are adept at deception.
Since, as noted earlier, there is no evidence that an assault weapons ban reduced crime in the United States, even when the research was compiled by bureaucrats in the Clinton administration who were assuredly searching hard, the federal government recently attempted to reinstate the assault weapons ban, this time claiming that it “will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.”28 In Mexico? Apparently, even though the expiration of the ban has not had an effect on overall violent crime rates in the United States, Attorney General Eric Holder feels that new laws in this country will help cure Mexico of its gun violence, even though we have not through our drug laws managed to cure it of its drug problems. And the basis of this lie is that more than 7,700 guns sold in the U.S. have been traced to Mexico.
What no one has determined is the number of those guns falling under the Assault Weapons Ban.29 Yet the government throws the statistic out to the public, holding it to represent something that they do not know it does. But why question that; as long as we buy the lies and create scapegoats of American gun owners, does it really matter what the truth is? Apparently, not to the government.
Conclusion
Some would argue that registration and licensing weapons are not really infringements, but would anyone seriously argue that citizens must register with the police and obtain a license in order to exercise freely their political or religious beliefs? What would happen if the government attempted to force people to register or obtain a permit if they object to unreasonable searches and seizures? Once this dichotomy is noted, a rational person will never resort to such an argument again to justify disparate treatment of the right to bear arms.30
Noah Webster once said that “before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole body of the people are armed.” The gun bans and registration laws have in effect continued the transfer of power from the people, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, to the government, progressively walking toward an end where the people will be helpless and the government all-powerful. Why would the government not take the opportunity to disarm us, while espousing the lies that it is not disarmament, that we continue to have a right to keep and bear arms, and that any regulations are only to ensure our safety?
If after reading this, you are too disturbed by the fact that the government can dictate whether or not you choose to protect yourself, then you may want to stop here. The lies the government tells you, about safety, security, liberty, and privacy are only going to get more unbelievable, including the fact that the government cannot only prevent you from receiving medical life-saving measures but also force you to ingest items you would otherwise refuse.
Lie #7
“Your Body Is Your Temple”
If we do not have control over our own bodies, we have control over little else. If anything belongs to us, reason would tell us that the thing we enter into and leave this world with—our body— belongs to each of us. Everything we do, our thoughts, our speech, our movements, and all physical action, come from our bodies. Therefore, having control over our bodies is one of the most fundamental rights we can possess.
In The Libertarian Manifesto, Professor Murray Rothbard argues:
The case against outlawing narcotic and hallucinogenic drugs is far weaker than the case against Prohibition, an experiment which the grisly era of the 1920s has hopefully discredited for all time. For while narcotics are undoubtedly more harmful than is alcohol, the latter can also be harmful, and outlawing something because it may harm the user leads straight down the logical garden path to our totalitarian cage, where people are prohibited from eating candy and are forced to eat yogurt “for their own good.”1
This totalitarian cage Rothbard described is already looming on the horizon. And some cages are already here.
The Oreo Police
In late 2006, New York City established laws banning trans fat, a type of unsaturated fat, from all city restaurants, as well as creating a requirement that fast-food restaurants post calorie counts alongside menus and other food offerings. Subsequently, several other governments have passed similar legislation, including the entire State of California, several Massachusetts cities, and some upstate counties in New York. Trans fat has been linked to heart disease and was commonly used to prepare fried and baked foods.
While many of us would agree that foods laden with trans fats are not a healthy option and should not be consumed in large quantities, shouldn�
��t we be able to make that choice? Decisions about what we feed our children and ourselves are exceptionally personal and certainly should not be subject to government paternalism. These policies treat Americans as babies who cannot be trusted to make decisions regarding what goes into their own mouths and the mouths of their children. This government-knows-best attitude is nowhere grounded in the Constitution and is profoundly offensive to the Natural Law. So while it may seem that we are free to eat what we want, the government is duping us by taking many food choices off of shelves and menus or adversely influencing our choices. Like parents hiding Halloween candy from their child, the government is hiding choices from us. Except, we’re not children and the government has no lawful authority to act as our parent.
Besides stripping us of our rights, do these health-police food policies even make us healthier? Learning to choose healthful foods amidst other choices is one of the ways people learn to take care of themselves. By eliminating variety, it may lead people to believe that they no longer need to be vigilant or even responsible in making decisions about what goes into their bodies. Why bother, when you can have the government do that instead? In taking away foods that contain trans fat, the government is not making the store shelves “safe” but it could create that mistaken impression in the minds of some consumers; there are still plenty of foods out there that could have a detrimental effect on a person’s health. Indeed, countless food items and behaviors could have an injurious effect on your health if you never learn moderation.
The health police want to destroy your freedom of choice, and their tactics are not likely to improve health. Even the New York Times has a problem with all this. A December 2008 Times article argued that the “health halo” created by trans fat–free foods and other types of foods that claim to be more healthful are actually helping to keep us fat.2 The theory goes that because we think that foods are made more healthful through these policies, we let our guard down and tend to eat more. Consequently, we don’t actually become thinner or healthier as a result of these policies that cost taxpayers loads of money, deprive us of our rights, and make insulting assumptions about our decision-making abilities.
Health policies like the trans fat ban can work to put small mom-and-pop stores out of business. When the trans fat ban was first proposed, much of the opposition came from small business owners who would be required to do extra clerical work and spend money in the conversion process. Restaurants and bakeries also had to figure out how to re-create many of their recipes to make them taste good without the use of these fats. For instance, Stuart Zaro, president of Zaro’s Bakery in New York, revealed that there was about a 20 percent increase in the cost of baking without trans fats. Additionally, bakeries are now forced to fill out sheets detailing the ingredients used in preparation of the food. As the economy worsens, we need to ask whether these policies causing many small local businesses and national chains to spend large amounts of money are really helping anyone.3
Also questionable is whether government interference was even needed to curb consumer use of trans fats since in recent years many companies and restaurants have been cutting down on or eliminating the use of trans fats due to consumer demand. It turns out that many Americans already knew to avoid trans fat–laden foods even before the government forced us to stop eating them.
The government’s paternalistic nature toward its people is in no danger. The Obama administration appears to be moving full steam ahead in this government-knows-best direction. In May 2009, for instance, President Obama appointed Thomas Frieden, M.D., as director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.4 Dr. Frieden is the former New York City Health Commissioner, and held that post when New York City established the bans on trans fats and smoking in bars and restaurants.
On June 22nd 2009, President Obama signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which gives the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the power to regulate the tobacco industry. The Act gives the FDA the power to regulate tobacco ingredients, cap nicotine levels, and control advertising.5 In fact, regular cigarettes, cigars, and chewing tobacco are the only tobacco products off-limits to the FDA.6 Unfortunately, we have learned over the years that when Congress grants virtually unlimited power to government agencies, they feel a pressing need to use it in the most foolish, yet ambitious ways possible.
On September 22nd 2009, the FDA exercised its authority under the Act and banned the sale of flavored cigarettes. The FDA argued that these products attract children and teenagers to smoking, and act as a gateway for young people to become habitual smokers.7 Like the trans fat ban, this regulation removes individual choice and treats us like morons. In addition, it absolutely will not work to decrease teenage smoking or smoking-related deaths. The folks at the FDA must realize this fact; if they don’t, they might be more dim-witted than we originally thought. Advertising is at the core of the tobacco industry’s success. The industry revolves around recruiting new smokers. We’re dealing with an industry that has succeeded despite the fact that its products slowly kill people! Banning flavored cigarettes doesn’t put a dent in big tobacco’s armor; rather, it’s just another challenge. Should the government ban tobacco advertising? Ban tobacco? Or just stay out and let people make free choices?
Criminalizing Marijuana
Many of the Founding Fathers, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, cultivated hemp, the plant from which marijuana is derived.8 In the late eighteenth century, many medical journals recommended the use of hemp seeds and roots for treating sexually transmitted diseases, inflamed skin, and incontinence.9 Unfortunately, a change in our attitude toward drugs came in the nineteenth century, when a noticeable number of Americans became unknowingly addicted to morphine.
Although there was an attitude of concern about drug use, it took some time for the country to criminalize it. By 1937, marijuana was outlawed in twenty-three states, mostly in an effort to stop former morphine addicts from starting to use a new drug or as a backlash against newly arrived Mexican immigrants who sometimes brought the drug to the United States with them.10 On October 1st 1937, under President Franklin Roosevelt, the Marijuana Tax Act went into effect, which imposed a prohibitive tax on the “evil” drug. Congress held just two hearings on the law, which was introduced by Rep. Robert L. Doughton of North Carolina. Harry Anslinger, arguing for the tax, stated to the House Ways and Means Committee that “traffic in marijuana is increasing to such an extent that it has come to be the cause for the greatest national concern. . . . This drug is entirely the monster Hyde, the harmful effect of which cannot be measured.”
In addition, two veterinarians testified that dogs (not people, but dogs) do not respond well to marijuana. One of the vets stated, “Over a period of six months or a year (of exposure to marijuana) . . . the animal must be discarded because it is no longer serviceable.” The testimony for the tax, as you may have concluded, was far from convincing. Furthermore, the committee rejected testimony from the American Medical Association, which pointed out the government’s lack of evidence of harm to humans.
Just three months after Representative Doughton introduced the bill, in June 1937, the House passed it. One congressman commented on the bill, stating that it had “something to do with something that is called marijuana. I believe it is a narcotic of some kind.”11 In 1970, Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act, a comprehensive law regulating a myriad of controlled substances. It banned all marijuana outright.
In addition to prohibiting drugs for recreational use, the government has also criminalized the use of marijuana for medical use. In Gonzales v. Raich (2005), the Supreme Court decided that Angel Raich and Diane Monson could not use physician-prescribed medical marijuana to relieve their serious medical conditions. Raich and Monson had relied on cannabis treatments for many years. In fact, Raich’s physician believed that ending such treatments “would certainly cause Raich excruciating pain and could very well prove fatal.”12 Nevertheless, federal agents e
ntered Monson’s house to take and destroy her six marijuana plants, despite the fact that both women were residents of California, which has authorized the use of medical marijuana since 1996. California law arguably conflicts with the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, the federal law that makes the “manufacture, distribution, and possession of marijuana” illegal, and makes no exception for medical use.
In a downright bizarre majority opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held, 6 to 3, that the Commerce Clause (which was written to authorize Congress to keep commerce between the states regular, not to prohibit it) permits Congress to control marijuana, a substance that cannot legally enter the stream of commerce. In ruling for the government, the majority likened this case to the ridiculous case of Wickard v. Filburn, in which the Court concluded that the federal government could regulate the wheat a farmer grows for personal use. Raich does the seemingly impossible, as it extends the Court’s decision in Wickard and wins the award for the most ludicrous adaptation of the Commerce Clause in American history. The Court stated that not only can the government regulate items harvested for personal use (the marijuana grown in Raich and the wheat grown in Wickard); it can regulate, through its power to control interstate commerce, something that can’t even legally be bought or sold!
Unfortunately, the Commerce Clause has become the tool through which Congress wields virtually unlimited power. Based on Supreme Court precedent, the Court in Raich stated that the Commerce Clause permits Congress to regulate activities that “substantially affect interstate commerce.” Furthermore, as the Court puts it, Congress need not “legislate with scientific exactitude,”13 nor make any kind of particularized findings supporting its conclusions. The idea that it is not beyond the realm of possibility that Raich’s medical marijuana would find itself in the stream of commerce was good enough for the Supreme Court to side with the government, as if women growing small amounts of marijuana in their own home for their own medical use ever have a chance of affecting commerce whatsoever.
Lies the government told you Page 13