Speaking of the South & Politics...

...the Georgia General Assembly is back in session. This looks like an interesting term, because the legislature can only meet for forty days a year, but they may not know what they need to know about the Federal budget within those forty days. Thus, there's a chance they may take a recess of as much as three weeks while waiting on Congress to decide what it is going to do about Sequestration.

In the meanwhile, here's a brief on what the session is likely to include:
State Representative Ed Rynders (R-Albany) says some of the biggest issues that are up for discussion are ethics reform and a right to bear arms.

“I believe in a right to bear arms,” said Ed Rynders, State Representative.

Although gun control is expected to come up during the legislative session, Rynders says the biggest topic is the state's budget.

“Everyone here is committed to not raising the taxes, which of course means that we have to live within our means. The governor has asked for a three percent across the board cut in programs and departments everywhere except for education. Public education will not be cut,” said Ed Rynders.
That's the kind of prioritization that the Federal government is refusing to consider. You can keep taxes low and still have one priority that you won't cut, or a few priorities that get cut less. It is possible to do this through the democratic process. States do it, but then again, states can't print their own money. Maybe the most important priority for the Federal government is a balanced budget amendment, to keep them from doing what states aren't permitted to do.


Texan99 said...

From your mouth to Congress's ears.

RonF said...

I've had a discussion with someone recently on the 2nd Amendment. Their take was that it hadn't been looked at since 1790 and maybe it was time to update it.

I told him that certainly no earthly principles should be free of periodic examination. I pointed out that until Heller vs. The District of Columbia the 2nd Amendment had never been held to grant the individual right to keep and bear arms; up until then the Supreme Court had simply avoided ruling on the issue. So it had been examined recently.

I then said that it can be legitimate to circumscribe a Constitutionally-guaranteed civil right; "you can't yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater" and such. However, it seems to me that those that would do so carry the burden of proof that their change is necessary to preserve public safety more than the change would endanger the point of the right; the burden is not on the opponents of such a change to prove the opposite.

However, it occurs to me that I cannot cite any specific principles of law or rulings to uphold my viewpoint. Can anyone here do so?

Grim said...

I gather you mean that is how it should be; but I think the burden always falls on those who wish to remain free. There are always too many who want to control you. There is no rest for the free man.

RonF said...

True. What I am specifically asking about is a) are there any legal principles touching the matter, and b) when civil rights have been argued in front of the Supreme Court, who have they generally actually laid the burden of proof on?

douglas said...

"There is no rest for the free man."

Oh, and we've become a lazy people.