Dear Washingtonians:
Jonetta Rose Barras wrote about Muriel Bowser’s refusal to
participate in mayoral debates, “What Muriel Bowser’s Forum Rejection
Means for Ward 4,”
http://tinyurl.com/l6x3jvq. “Bowser hasn’t rejected any ordinary
invitation to a candidates’ forum. She has refused an appeal from some
of the folks who helped usher her into politics, from her constituents
and one of her neighbors. Who does that? In more than 25 years covering
politics in this city, I don’t remember a politician exhibiting such
flagrant disregard for constituents. . . . Citizen-organized debates and
forums may be perceived as maddening and mundane, but they are critical
to a healthy democracy. Bowser’s repeated rejection of invitations to
debate thwarts the public discourse and injures the democratic process.”
The part of the story that Jonetta doesn’t mention is the
inexplicable cooperation of other members of the press with Bowser’s
plan, not only to evade mayoral debates for now, but also to insist that
when she does finally agree to debate, all the minor candidates be
invited to participate in the forums, not just Catania, Schwartz, and
her. Bowser may have won the Democratic party nomination, but that
doesn’t give her the right to call all the shots and set all the rules,
and expect the press and the public to obey.
Gary Imhoff
themail@dcwatch.com
###############
Gary complains [themail, August 20] that I say “that the rights
asserted in the Bill of Rights apply only to the federal government, and
not to the states, until and unless the Supreme Court has ruled on any
specific portion of the Bill of Rights.” Yes, that is the case. The
first ten amendments were offered specifically and solely as limitations
on the new form of federal government, to persuade reluctant states to
ratify the Constitution. State and local governments could do what they
wanted, exempt from those supposed “rights.” Citing Wikipedia: “the Bill
initially only applied to the federal government, a restriction affirmed
by Barron v. Baltimore (1833).” Gary mentions freedom of speech;
that was the first of the “rights” enumerated by the Bill of Rights to
be “incorporated,” that is, extended to the states, in 1925, based on
the Fourteenth Amendment. Before that date, there was, indeed, no such
“right.” (Ten of the original states had no freedom of speech provisions
in their state constitutions.)
And this was the case for guns, right up until McDonald v. Chicago,
2010. If one lived in a state with a gun-rights clause in the state
constitution, then yes, one had that right. But upon exiting that state
and entering a state without such a clause, that “right” would vanish.
That’s not much of a “right.” And that’s why McDonald v. Chicago
is so important. Only from that date, June 28, 2010, can there be said
to be a universal personal “right” in the United States to bear arms.
That Supreme Court decision was hardly unanimous, and the shift of a
single vote would have resulted in no such “incorporation” of the Second
Amendment. Justice Breyer wrote this, in dissent: “In sum, the Framers
did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right
of armed self defense. There has been, and is, no consensus on that the
right is, or was, ‘fundamental.” And yes, local governments remain free
to impose limits on gun rights, the only requirement being that those
restrictions be reasonable. This is not “nullification.” It’s about
competing rights: guns, a “right” established only by a very marginal
Supreme Court decision just four years ago, versus the right of us, the
people, to govern ourselves, a right that has existed at least since
1776.
[Jack accurately reflects the contempt in which DC government
officials hold the Bill of Rights, and their attitude that they are
above such minor matters as whether citizens of the United States have
any of those supposed rights that they are deluded enough to believe
they have. That’s why the DC government has appealed Palmer v. DC.
I believe that the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, is
the foundation of American democracy, and that government officials at
any level do not have the power to deny Americans the rights that belong
to them and not to government officials. Damon Root, in reason.com (http://tinyurl.com/m6vhhsh),
writes, “Like it or not, Judge Frederick Scullin’s opinion in Palmer
v. DC is a careful piece of work. There’s nothing in it that rises
to the level of ‘errors of law.’ The District of Columbia should face
legal reality and stop trying to dodge the Second Amendment.”
[This discussion between Jack and me has gone on for three rounds.
I’m going to call a pause on it until there’s another development in the
case. — Gary Imhoff]
###############
[A correspondent sent the following message, but didn’t want it
attributed to him, because he feared that it might be interpreted as
meaning that he didn’t care about the plight of young people who can’t
find decent jobs, apartments, or partners. I think that it demonstrates
exactly the opposite — that he does care more about people in that
situation that do the city planners who condemn people to that
situation. But I can see how people determined to misinterpret his
position could condemn him, so I’ll comply with his desire to keep his
message anonymous.]
Regarding the August 20 article in themail, pointing out that
developers, with the backing of the city, will build 125 microapartments
of 350 sq. ft. each, with no parking, for $2500 per month. Are these
really for Hipsters? I doubt anyone with any hipness would live in such
a place. You won’t impress a possible partner you might meet in a hip
bar, that is for sure. There probably are some young folks who want to
minimize their carbon footprint who would live in such a place, but for
the most part, I don’t think twenty- or thirty-somethings want to think
of themselves as downwardly mobile, if they can help it, and it seems to
me that most such people would look at such a micro apartment and run
the other way.
Has anyone seen the ad on Metro about the Silver Line, featuring a
slightly nerdy looking thirty-something, dressed in slightly mismatching
top and bottom, petting a cat in his home? The ad says that now that you
have the Silver Line, you can finally get around and meet people. Maybe
it is because I am from an older generation, but I thought the guy
looked pathetic. No car, can’t get around, only a cat to keep him
company. No Silver Line will help him. Isn’t this the demographic you
would market a 350-square-foot apartment to?
###############
themail@dcwatch is an E-mail discussion forum that is published every
Wednesday and Sunday. To change the E-mail address for your subscription
to themail, use the Update Profile/Email address link below in the
E-mail edition. To unsubscribe, use the Safe Unsubscribe link in the
E-mail edition. An archive of all past issues is available at