Ravenwood - 01/16/04 06:45 AM
D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams announced that the District would apply for statehood in 2004. Williams said his concern arose after U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton ruled that the Bill of Rights and U.S. Constitution don't apply to the District because it is not a state.
"I want my constituents to have freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and protection from the quartering of British soldiers just like every other American. Besides, judical rulings shouldn't apply to D.C. because the courts were intended to serve state citizens and we're not a state," said Williams.
Williams' plea for statehood was immediately criticized as a silly fantasy. One Congressional staffer said under the condition of anonymity, "Congress has already gutted or repealed the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. What's the point in making them a state now?"
Judge Walton stood by his decision, claiming that the Constitution clearly says, "We the people of the United States..." It doesn't mention anything about "districts" or "columbia".
Category: Lampoonery
Comments (4) top link me
Scott Ott? Is that you?
Posted by: Kevin Baker at January 16, 2004 7:51 AMTimes change eh? In the last few years quite & few people have been rather pleased to see British soldiers & more than a little upset if Tommy Atkins gets shipped home...hehehehe !!
Posted by: Mr Free Market at January 16, 2004 8:05 AMThat's not what Judge Walton ruled. He ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia, because only the states have militias as referenced in that amendment.
Posted by: Michael O'Neill at January 19, 2004 8:30 AMHere is what the article said: "He also ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to the district because it was intended to protect state citizens, and the district is not a state."
How do you read militias into that?
Apparently, you are going back to the text of the Second Amendment, which says "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It only lists militias as a justification; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."
To interpret it the way the judge suggests means you don't even understand simple grammar.
Posted by: Ravenwood at January 19, 2004 10:26 AM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
