June 26, 2008
Supreme Court Reverberates In Campaign
McCain, Obama Weigh In On Gun Rights, Death Penalty Rulings
-
Play CBS Video
Video
The Right to Bear 'Harm'
The Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision about the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Justices tossed out the District of Columbia's ban on citizens owning handguns. Susan Roberts reports.
-
Video
Death Penalty For Child Rape?
The Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty is "cruel and unusual punishment" for rapists, including child rapists. Some disappointed prosecutors disputed the ruling. Wyatt Andrews reports.
-
Video
Mayors Slam Gun Ruling
"CBS News Raw:" The Supreme Court's recent ruling striking down Washington D.C.'s ban on handguns has been met with harsh criticism from D.C.'s Mayor Adrian Fenty and Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley.
-
Interactive
Guns In America
State-by-state gun laws and death rates, maps of recent school and workplace shootings and facts on who's at risk.
-
Interactive
Capital Punishment
Learn about the death penalty in the United States. Check out statistics, history, famous trials and more.
The hotly contentious issue surfaced in the presidential campaign Thursday after the Supreme Court ruled that Americans have a constitutional right to own guns and struck down the 32-year-old D.C. ban.
McCain, the Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting, heralded the justices' action as "a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom."
Voicing a stance that could help him woo conservatives and libertarians, McCain said, "This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms."
His Democratic rival, Obama, issued a more carefully worded statement apparently aimed at both moderate voters and his liberal base. The statement from Obama, who has long said local governments should be able to regulate guns, did not specifically say whether Obama agreed with overturning the specific D.C. ban. But he said Thursday's ruling "will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country."
"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through commonsense, effective safety measures," Obama said.
Obama said his view was supported by the court's ruling that the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns." That language "reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe," Obama said.
Both presidential candidates endorse an individual's right to bear arms. But they strongly differ beyond that. McCain has had a mostly conservative record on the issue; Obama, a mostly liberal record.
Other than a few departures, McCain is largely in line with the National Rifle Association's hardline support for gun rights. He voted against a ban on assault-style weapons and for shielding gun-makers and dealers from civil damage suits. But he broke with the NRA to favor requiring background checks at gun shows and has taken heat for pushing through campaign finance legislation that gun-rights advocates say muzzled their free speech.
Obama has voted to leave gun-makers and dealers open to lawsuits. He also took largely liberal positions on gun laws while in the Illinois legislature, including backing a ban on all forms of semiautomatic weapons and tighter state restrictions generally on firearms.
Campaigning in Cincinnati, McCain claimed Obama has reversed course on the issue. Obama told FOX Business Network that he's been consistent.
The Democrat's campaign said a spokesman made an "inartful" statement when he said in November that Obama believed the D.C. law was constitutional. But Obama himself did not correct a debate moderator who repeated the position in February.
"You said in Idaho recently, I'm quoting here, 'I have no intention of taking away folks' guns.' But you support the D.C. handgun ban and you've said that it's constitutional," said the moderator, Leon Harris of Washington television station WJLA. Obama nodded as Harris spoke, nodding and saying, "Right, right."
"How can you reconcile those two different positions?" Harris asked.
Obama answered that the United States has conflicting traditions of gun ownership and street violence that results from illegal handgun use. "So, there is nothing wrong, I think, with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets," Obama said.
The Obama campaign argued that Obama was simply acknowledging the question by saying "right."
In other instances, Obama refused to articulate a position when asked whether he thought the D.C. ban was constitutional.
The campaign would not answer directly Thursday when asked whether the candidate agreed with the court that the D.C. ban was unconstitutional, simply pointing back to his statement.
The gun ruling was not the only one from the Supreme Court this week to get the candidates' attention. On Wednesday, both candidates said they disagree with the court's decision outlawing executions of people who rape children, a crime he said states have the right to consider for capital punishment.
"I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes," Obama said at a news conference. "I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that that does not violate our Constitution."
The court's 5-4 decision Wednesday struck down a Louisiana law that allows capital punishment for people convicted of raping children under 12, saying it violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
McCain, also criticized the court's decision, calling it "an assault on law enforcement's efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime."
"That there is a judge anywhere in America who does not believe that the rape of a child represents the most heinous of crimes, which is deserving of the most serious of punishments, is profoundly disturbing," McCain said in a statement.
Obama, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, said that had the court "said we want to constrain the abilities of states to do this to make sure that it's done in a careful and appropriate way, that would have been one thing. But it basically had a blanket prohibition and I disagree with that decision."
The court on Thursday also struck down the "millionaire's amendment," a campaign finance law intended to level the field for House candidates facing wealthy opponents who spend lots of their own money.
The law says that when candidates spend more than $350,000 from their own pockets, opponents may qualify to accept larger individual contributions than normally allowed and can receive unlimited coordinated party expenditures.
The justices, in a 5-4 ruling that reflects skepticism of campaign finance overhauls, said the law violates the First Amendment.
"We have never upheld the constitutionality of a law that imposes different contribution limits for candidates who are competing against each other," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority.
McCain, the co-author of the 2002 campaign finance reforms that contain the provision, expressed no interest in having Congress address the court's decision.
McCain said the decision does not affect the court's landmark ruling upholding the constitutionality of the soft-money ban prohibiting six-figure donations to political parties.
"Today's Supreme Court decision in Davis v. FEC does not affect the Court's landmark ruling in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission upholding the constitutionality of the soft money ban contained in BCRA," McCain said in a statement. That ban is at the core of the reforms I worked for in the long bipartisan fight to pass campaign finance reform."
McCain said the millionaire's amendment was not part of the original legislation and was added on the floor during debate. The other co-author of the reforms, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., made the same point.
At least 19 House candidates and nine Senate candidates have spent $350,000 or more of their own money on their campaigns so far this election cycle, according to figures from the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based group that tracks political campaign money. In the 2006 elections, the number was 52 candidates.
©MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
OBROTHER doesn''t know what he is or what he wants!!!
"That there is a judge anywhere in America who does not believe that the rape of a child represents the most heinous of crimes, which is deserving of the most serious of punishments, is profoundly disturbing," McCain said in a statement. ----- I agree with what he has said here. Liberal judges are always more concerned about the rights of a pervert. The victim just has to grin and bear it.
1. Redistribute the country''''s wealth - Marxism 101
2. Grow the size of the government - Create new departments dedicated to supporting Item 1
3. Blame greedy American corporations for the pains of the US and the rest of the world
4 Increase taxes on those already paying the largest percentage and total amount. The top 1% already pay 39% of all taxes.
5 Nationalize healthcare
6 Campaign on a principle based on appealing to the lower income 50% of the US to despise the rich and convince 45% of the other half that their life is miserable so that once convinced of their doom and gloom, they will support the doomsayer and will want bigger government
7. Convince the public, that America is perceived as evil, thus, hated by the rest of the world.
8. Abandon America''''s principle of helping the world rid itself of dictatorships, thus, put our weapons down, throw our arms up, and retreat in shame from Iraq.
12. Give up America''s sovereignty for the "good of the world" and to save the planet from "global warming" by supporting new treaties on international boundaries, not drilling in ANWR or offshore, but standing by while Castro plans to drill off the Florida coast.
13. Campaigning on a message of "change", because it sounds good.
The list can go on and on, as Castro and Obama share many principles for the formula for a failed state, but one in which the party of the "new poor" remains in power through the growth of government. As this party provides more and more entitlements for its citizens and big government prevails, the country becomes less and less productive. Eventually, America''s economy is no better off than Cuba''s. Therefore, Fidel, go ahead and send Obama that box of Cohibas, for he is a Marxist just like you.
8. Abandon America''s principle of helping the world rid itself of dictatorships, thus, put our weapons down, throw our arms up, and retreat in shame from Iraq.
9. Support dictatorships throughout the world and elevate them to be recognized by the US as worthy leaders that need to be heard without preconditions - legitimize them
10. Grow the support base by expanding the lowest income class in the country by increasing and broadening entitlements; however, add to that the importation of poverty into the United States by giving Amnesty to well over 20 million illegal aliens in the country. Furthermore, promote this policy in order to attract even more illegal immigration prior to the granting of the amnesty in order to achieve the highest number of "new, uneducated, government-dependent poor class", I call the "new poor".
Castro and Obama share many of the same values and principles for the country''s economy:
1. Redistribute the country''s wealth - Marxism 101
2. Grow the size of the government - Create new departments dedicated to supporting Item 1
3. Blame greedy American corporations for the pains of the US and the rest of the world
4 Increase taxes on those already paying the largest percentage and total amount. The top 1% already pay 39% of all taxes.
5 Nationalize healthcare
6 Campaign on a principle based on appealing to the lower income 50% of the US to despise the rich and convince 45% of the other half that their life is miserable so that once convinced of their doom and gloom, they will support the doomsayer and will want bigger government
Posted by Obama8years
---------------------------------
The idiot son has been doing a fine job of this for the last 7-1/2 years. Marx would be proud!!
9. Support dictatorships throughout the world and elevate them to be recognized by the US as worthy leaders that need to be heard without preconditions - legitimize them
Posted by Obama8years
-----------------------------
What?? Which one is it??
Wake up America: We don''t know this guy, and he doesn''t believe in change. Wake up!!!!!
www.therealjohnmccain.com
Shouldn''t it be on the Make my day site?
Just keep nodding. My concern is that there are four Justices that agree with him. It never was constitutional.
Posted by Obama8years at 06:39 PM : Jun 26, 2008
Q: Why are they the top 1%? A: Because they earn more (MUCH more) than the other 99%. (That is mathematically correct. And I''m NOT saying that they don''t have a right to earn more.)
In fact, they earn SO much more, that their share of the income pie is over 20% of the total. (1% of the population earns more than 20% of the total.)
If they have 20% of the wealth and we were all taxed at the SAME rate (I know we''re not--see below), the math would conclude at least that 20% of taxes would come from them.
So you might reply with ''but 39% is almost twice that''! And you would be correct, except that the highest tax bracket ($357,700--after deductions--and above) actually pays 35%.
After paying taxes at the rate of, these individuals are left with a minimum of $232,505.
By comparison, someone earning $36,000 is taxed at 25% and is left with $27000.
The only other point I''d like to make is that Obama''s tax plan will only raise taxes on those earning over $250,00. Those making under $75,000 will actually have their taxes cut.
I''ll leave it up to you as to how you feel about that.
how bad is bad? it''s so bad that anyone voting for mcsame is bad. real bad. republicans are bad.
so be good, not bad, and vote for obama.
president elect obama is really irish. the name was spelled O''Bama but too many republicans didn''t know what an apostrophe is so the name was CHANGED to obama. see folks, president elect obama cut the '' and will cut taxes for non-rich people and created CHANGE.
Please someone help our cause to take the guns out of the righteous hands so we can go back to slaughtering them with no big penalty against us!
Now we have to think twice before breaking and entering. Do you feel sorry for our drug crack addiction not being met?
Posted by GreatDriveW at 07:13 PM : Jun 26, 2008
I know enough about him. And he clearly believes in change. I''m awake.
Yeah, I think I''ll stick with him.
Posted by A_NegroeMan at 09:40 PM : Jun 26, 2008
There are other ways to get your fix.
Just ask Cindy McCain.
Last time I got CHANGE was in my coin purse wondering if I will even have that?
I''ve asked this before and I''ll ask again, simply because you yourself asked a very serious question.
Have you ever been in debt? If so, then you know that to get rid of the debt you have to actually pay the bills. If that debt is substantial enough, you may want to pay more than the minimum payment. I''m not a big fan of taxes, period. Not even a single taxed cent is appreciated by me, but when you have a $9 trillion debt, what are you going to do?
Oh come Obama is afraid to debate McCain in town hall meetings. He said he would and now no I won''t....
Flip floppers is what the democrat party is all about...
Oh come Obama is afraid to debate McCain in town hall meetings. He said he would and now no I won''''t....
Flip floppers is what the democrat party is all about...
Posted by Barocalt
He isn''t afraid, he is just smart and knows as long as he keeps McCain reading off a tela prompter then the old man has NO Chance.
Its strategic not fear you see!
This ruling has now "sounded the alarm" for the 70% of Americans who "favored" the decision.
The 5-4 ruling shows we are "one" liberal judge away from the High Court taking away our "Second Amendment" rights.
This "ruling" will play a major factor in "why" John McCain must and will be elected the night of November 4th.
Print it out and write it down.......the alarm has been sounded.................
It''s harder for criminals, Gang Bangers, and nutjobs to elude the Police when they have concealable weapons.
The 2nd Amendment was written at a time when firearms referred to muskets and shoulder irons, not semi-automatic cop killers and handguns designed simply for concealability for unlawful purposes.
I believe citizens ought to be able to walk down the street with a bazooka strapped to their sides if they can show the Police that they''ve received proper training in its use, are properly licensed, and have a clean record in regard to the law and their mental health.
I don''t believe that 12 year old gang bangers should have the protected right to conceal a handgun for the sole purpose of robbing or killing someone.
This ruling has now "sounded the alarm" for the 70% of Americans who "favored" the decision.
The 5-4 ruling shows we are "one" liberal judge away from the High Court taking away our "Second Amendment" rights.
This "ruling" will play a major factor in "why" John McCain must and will be elected the night of November 4th.
Print it out and write it down.......the alarm has been sounded.................
Posted by perceptions5
Since 7 out of the 9 judges were appointed by republican presidents, don''t you think you have more to worry about than just your devil inacrnate liberals?
Posted by perceptions5 at 07:16 AM : Jun 27, 2008"
That''s just absurd. First off this ruling was not about banning guns, it was about overturning an existing handgun ban. If it had gone the other way, nothing as it stands right now would have changed. As it is, this ruling reinforces the right to bear arms.
If you had even a modicum of understanding on how the legals system works you would understand that this ruling sets a precedent. Our legal systems is BASED on precedent so it is nearly impossible for any future supreme court to overrule this and say that the constitution does not give the explicit right to bear arms. Your claims otherwise are foolish, uninformed, alarmist and just a bald faced lie.
Posted by Barocalto at 11:22 PM : Jun 26, 2008"
John McCain was against tax cuts for the rich and then he was for them. He was against the war before he was for it. He was for capitol gains tax a couple weeks ago, now he''s against it. Everything he has been against he is now for, everything he was once for he is now against. McCain makes Kerry look like a wannabe flip flopper.
If you had even a modicum of understanding on how the legals system works you would understand that this ruling sets a precedent. Our legal systems is BASED on precedent so it is nearly impossible for any future supreme court to overrule this and say that the constitution does not give the explicit right to bear arms. Your claims otherwise are foolish, uninformed, alarmist and just a bald faced lie.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by taddles3 at 02:44 PM : Jun 27, 2008
I have to disagree with you on this one taddles. The Supremem Court has a long history of overruling decisions made by itself on previous cases. The court is a political body just like every other branch of govt. As the political views of the justices change so do the way they decide the issues.
-
by darklight73
June 28, 2008 2:16 AM PDT
- We saw both sides of this issue well argued in the opinions. The weakness is not in the outcome, its in the lack of definition around what now constitutes permissible regulation. The decision will lead to decades of litigation. In the meantime there will be more handguns in the hands of ordinary people and there will be many sad stories of fatal household incidents. A few ''bad guys'' will get shot and will sue the homeowner for everything they''ve got.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 37 Comments