- BitsBlog - http://bitsblog.theconservativereader.com -

Breakfast Scramble (Tuesday)

DavidL's Breakfast Scramble
Dumping on Dumbo Care, federal judge rules Obama Care individual mandate unconstitutional.  Nice Deb does the rounds, here [1].

Breech slapping Breyer,  Stephen Breyer believes the Second Amendment, or I suppose any portion of  the Constitution, does not mean squat, from Fox News [2]:

Breyer wrote the dissent and was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He said historians would side with him in the case because they have concluded that Founding Father James Madison was more worried that the Constitution may not be ratified than he was about granting individuals the right to bear arms.

Madison “was worried about opponents who would think Congress would call up state militias and nationalize them. ‘That can’t happen,’ said Madison,” said Breyer, adding that historians characterize Madison’s priority as, “I’ve got to get this document ratified.”

Therefore, Madison included the Second Amendment to appease the states, Breyer said.

Stephan Tawney shreds Breyer’s process, from American Pundit [3]:

But there’s another point here: Who cares what Madison’s intent was? Who cares why the Second Amendment was added? Who cares what the motivation for its inclusion was? It’s there.

Is Breyer now saying that judges, including the Supreme Court, can ignore rights specifically guaranteed in the Constitution based upon the motivation for their inclusion? That judges can decide explicit rights don’t exist because they weren’t included in good faith? Wow.

We can only infer what James Madison intended. Whereas we can read the document which the several states ratified. In the world according to Breyer, Madison’s supposed thoughts trump the actual words of the Constitution itself.

Shredding Breyer’s history, from John,  Verum Serum argus that Bryer has his history wrong as well, link [4]:

Reading the entire thing carefully (and I recommend you click over and do that), you get a clear sense of what Madison’s argument was. People (the anti-Federalists) were indeed concerned about the rise of an all-powerful federal government. Madison argued that this could never happen because states full of armed citizens would resist such a move with force of arms. He specifically says that an armed citizenry alone might insufficient to defeat a tyrannical state, but an armed citizenry organized into militias would easily do so.

Finally, not withstanding Article V of the Bill of Rights, I hold that Stephen Breyer has no right to either life or liberty, because obviously Mr Stephens never intended to conceive a son as stupid as Stephen.  What say you?

Hat tip:  Ed Morrissey, Hot Air [5].

FLOTUS’ butt is a security risk, Michelle Obama, the Fat Lady of the United States, lard butt poses a threat to the security of the United States, or so she seems to believe, from Mike Allen, Politico [6]:

First lady Michelle Obama plans to warn in remarks Monday that the nation is seeing “a groundswell of support” for curbing childhood obesity, and she is unveiling new ammunition from current and retired military leaders.

“Military leaders … tell us that when more than one in four young people are unqualified for military service because of their weight,” the first lady says in the prepared remarks, “childhood obesity isn’t just a public health threat, it’s not just an economic threat, it’s a national security threat as well.”

Mrs. Obama, either take off the weight, or zip your lip.

Men, Women, Different, throwing gasoline on the fire of the myth of sexual equality, from Mark Perry, American [7]:

The College Board recently released 2010 SAT test results [8] for college-bound high school seniors, and here are some highlights.

1. Boys scored significantly higher on the 2010 SAT math test than their female counterparts, by a difference of 34 points. This 30-point-plus male advantage on the SAT math test follows a pattern that has persisted since at least 1972.

2. For all SAT math scores of 580 and above (70th percentile and higher), male students outnumbered female students. As test scores increased by 10-point intervals from 580 to 800, the male-female ratio steadily increased, reaching a peak of 2.08 males per female for perfect scores of 800 (8,072 males vs. 3,887 females).

3. More females (827,197) than males (720,793) took the test in 2010.  Adjusting for those differences in sample sizes, 1.12 percent of males scored a perfect 800 compared to 0.47 percent of females who did so, for an adjusted male-female ratio of 2.38 to 1.

Being better at math (reading) does no make men (women) better than women (men).  It does mean that they are different.   Then anybody with a room temperature intelligence, or better, already knew that.