|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
 |
||||||||
          |
OU's celebration of President's Day unfair to studentsEditor, Have you ever wondered why you must attend class on Presidents Day, but receive the third Monday of January off to honor and celebrate the significant contributions of Martin Luther King, Jr.? The answer might surprise you. This, I allege, is the result of a reprehensible, reverse discrimination policy. Given the fact that Ohio University must comply with federal and state laws, they are obliged to recognize the federal and state sanctioned holidays. What you might not be aware of is that OU Trustees can parcel these holidays out as they see fit. In other words, observance of the holidays does not have to coincide with the traditional dates associated with them. As a result, Presidents Day at OU is observed on Dec. 24 and Columbus Day is observed the day after Thanksgiving. The OU Trustees euphemistically refer to these as "floating holidays." Regrettably, only federal holidays that specifically honor the contributions of white males to our great nation are deemed "floating holidays" by OU. Now, if Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, a holiday honoring the monumental achievements of a black man, was the only holiday that was singled out and moved to a non-traditional observance date, cries of discrimination echoing Rosa Parks’ sentiments would have surfaced immediately. But move both federal holidays that specifically honor the contributions of white males to this great nation and no one speaks out. Students and neighbors of OU, it is time to speak out. I strongly believe that all federal holidays are culturally significant and should receive equal homage. To single out only holidays that honor the contributions of white males, earmark them as "floating," and then move them to a non-traditional observance date is an egregious act of reverse discrimination. This policy contradicts OU’s mission to "establish equitable policies, procedures, and programs." By engaging in this practice, OU fosters an educational environment that blatantly subjugates the contributions of white males. With a precedent like this, how can white males in attendance at Ohio University not escape the feeling of being devalued as well? President Glidden, end this practice of reverse discrimination at once!
Garett V. Bailey Constitution allows for individual right to bear armsEditor, The letter writer of “Government reserves right to regulate distribution of firearms,” last Wednesday has shown true to his liberal ACLU roots with his comments about Ohio University’s Second Amendment Club. He says for anyone to argue that the Second Amendment applies to collective rights is foolish. Well, count me, a few million citizens and the 5th Circuit Court in as "fools". The writer should review recent law decisions including the 5th Circuit Court that state the Second Amendment IS an individual right, not a collective right. A careful review of the first 10 Amendments of the Constitution show they are individual rights (among them are speech, religion, peaceful assembly, search and seizure, bail, cruel and unusual punishment, trial by jury, and yes, the right to bear arms) except for the 9th and 10th amendments which prohibit the government from making laws that take away the rights of the individual and gives states the authority to make laws where rights are not already reserved for the individual (the people). The framers and authors of the Constitution were very aware of the dangers of giving the government excessive powers and disarming the public. Samuel Adams, one of the signers/authors of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights said, "The said Constitution be never construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." I don't think it gets any clearer than that... Perhaps it is the writer who should study our Constitution and the history of how and why it was written. Maybe his ignorance can be overcome by education, too.
Marvin Parsons Constitution grants rights to the people, not the statesEditor, On Wednesday, a letter to the editor “Government reserves right to regulate distribution of arms,” from one of the Ohio University ACLU appeared. There were several mistakes in this letter, and I wanted to take a few minutes to address them. The writer starts off by saying the “proponents of the Second Amendment … seem to abandon the first provision of a ‘well regulated militia’”. We abandon nothing. Militia means, quite simply, the citizenry on the whole, armed with privately owned weapons. Well regulated means, in the context of the constitution, two things: 1) That it is well drilled/practiced in military ways; 2) That it is well organized, being led by officers chosen by the members of the militia. Don’t believe me? Maybe you’ll believe the United States Congress. According to the Militia Act of 1792, the militia shall be “every free able-bodied white male citizen … who is or shall be of age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years….” To comply with numerous non-discrimination laws, the words “white male” and “and under the age of 45” would, without a doubt, be omitted. But wait, you say that something passed in 1792 couldn’t possibly still be law today? Well let us look at the U.S. Code, Title 10, Sec 311. This act states, in addition to the above, that there are two classes of militia: the organized militia, which consists of members of the National Guard and Naval Militia; and the UNORGANIZED militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. You see, no matter which way you cut it, militia means, in both theory and fact, virtually all of the people, not as a collective, but as an army of individuals. The writer goes on to claim the Constitution grants only a “collective right” of the people to keep and bear arms, implying that the Second Amendment protects only the “right” of states to form select militias the National Guard. There are two things I would like to say about this stance. First, under the American system of political thought, governments, collectives, organizations, etc. don’t have rights; rather, rights are a thing possessed only by individuals. In our Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote that “all men … are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights,” whereas governments have only powers, authorities, and privileges. Second, where did this “collective rights theory” originate? It certainly didn’t originate from the Supreme Court, which ruled, in U.S. vs. Miller (1939) that “the signification attributed to the term militia … in the (Constitutional) Convention…. show plainly enough that the militia comprises all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense… bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in use at the time.” This view was more recently upheld in a 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling U.S. vs. Emmerson (1999). In this case, the court held that “a textual analysis of the Second Amendment supports an individual right to [keep and] bear arms.” Now that we have established that the Second Amendment does indeed protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms, let us go through the amendment one more time, just to make sure we aren’t forgetting anything. “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. Oh, that’s right; we almost forgot the last clause. Shall not be infringed sounds like pretty strong language. In fact, I do believe that it means that, contrary to what the writer would have us believe, “government—be it federal, state, local”—has no right to regulate the sale, distribution and ownership of firearms. It would seem that Larry is the one who needs to remedy his constitutional ignorance. Matt Farren |