Second Short Quiz

[johnkarls]

.
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 http://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?)”

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

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?

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

4. Who was Paul Revere?

5. Who were the famous “Minute Men”?

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”)?

7. 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?

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???

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”) for protecting “hearth and home”?

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?

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?

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

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

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”?

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?

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”?

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

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?

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?

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?

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?

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.]

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???

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


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

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?

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

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

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?

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?

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”?

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?

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)?

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?

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?

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?

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'"???!!!

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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”?

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”???!!!

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”???!!!

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???!!!

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