Tuesday’s highlights: Repealing the 2nd Amendment, and why the Stormy Daniels saga is important

By Robert A. Vella

Retired U.S. Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens is calling for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment in response to stubborn NRA and Republican opposition to sensible gun control legislation.  Here’s his rationale, from:  John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “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.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.

For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”

During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.

That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.

Regarding the furor over Stormy Daniels’ allegations against Donald Trump, I want to be very clear about why it has become an important and relevant national issue.  Whether or not he had an extramarital affair with a porn star is completely irrelevant to me and this blog.  Although that story was originally reported just before the 2016 presidential election, I have not covered it here until very recently.  The reason why I did so is when the story expanded beyond being a sensationalized sexual scandal and began to involve the President of the United States in much more serious allegations – that is, the misuse of his political campaign for hush-money to coverup his behavior prior to the election, threats made on his behalf to keep Daniels silent, and lying to the American public.  And, to show you I’m not just being partisan, I turned against President Clinton in 1998 when he blatantly lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

Regardless, there is another reason why this has become an important story – the 2018 midterm elections.  From:  After Stormy Daniels, Republicans Face a Referendum on Trump’s Conduct

WASHINGTON — When Representative Ryan Costello of Pennsylvania announced on Sunday that he would join more than 40 other congressional Republicans not seeking re-election in November, he left no doubt about the reason: President Trump’s conduct made it impossible to talk about anything else.

Were he running, Mr. Costello said in an interview, he would be inundated with questions about Stephanie Clifford, the pornographic film actress known as Stormy Daniels, who has said she had an affair with Mr. Trump and was threatened to stay silent about it.

[…]

While Republicans have been bracing for months for a punishing election in November, they are increasingly alarmed that their losses may be even worse than feared because the midterm campaign appears destined to turn more on the behavior of the man in the White House than any other in decades.

As much as gun control, immigration, the sweeping tax overhaul and other issues are mobilizing voters on the left and the right, the seamy sex allegations and Mr. Trump’s erratic style could end up alienating crucial blocs of suburban voters and politically moderate women who might be drawn to some Republican policies but find the president’s purported sex antics to be reprehensible.

Polls and every recent election show that Mr. Trump has galvanized liberal and moderate voters — especially women and those with college degrees — to oppose his party. Yet at the same time, personal loyalty to the president is increasingly the most crucial litmus test for Republicans.

This widening chasm has created a dilemma for Republicans, especially in liberal and swing states.