Category Archives: Supreme Court

SCOTUS Decision Spurs Minutemen Revival

by Jordan Zakarin

Over 230 years since the first pitched battles of the American Revolution, Thursday’s Supreme Court decision reversing laws barring well-armed state militias has served as the catalyst for the re-establishment of several groups of self-armed, haphazard groups of farmers and masons bent on fighting back against the imperial British.

The split, 5-4 decision was authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, who, joined by  Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Thomas and Kennedy, wrote that the Second Amendment explicitly extended the right to rural freedom fighters to band together to battle for their fledgling nation.

“Despite dissension in our ranks, to me, it’s crystal clear,”  Scalia wrote in his introduction. “Upon reading the actual text of the amendment; ignoring all context; and turning a blind eye to over 200 years of technological, societal and governmental progress; we see that the article’s prefatory clauses connote that the framers intended the citizens of this 13-state republic to have unfettered ability to form small, ragtag groups of guerilla fighters, in order to patrol the woods of the Northeast and instigate skirmishes with the Redcoats.

“Any law, local, state or federal, that prohibits that heroic, patriotic yeoman activity is hitherto found unconstitutional, retroactively and from this moment forward.”

Within moments of the ruling being handed down, the long-retired cowbells summoning the militiamen rang out across the countryside, calling to assembly for the first time since the 18th century the rabble rousing volunteer fighters.

The most prominent of the re-formed militia were the Massachusetts Minutemen, who by three p.m. were assembled in a Cambridge square. Muskets locked and loaded, pitchforks sharpened and farm animals locked in the barn, the newly reassembled colonists, clad in workmans’ clothing and buckskin hunting outfits, began to reacquaint themselves after over two centuries of downtime. Soon, they were once again railing against the Intolerable Acts handed down by Governor of Massachusetts, General Thomas Gage. After a brief break to watch the Red Sox World Series DVD Box Set, they began plotting another successful defense of Lexington and Concord.

Enthusiasm abound, Minutemen spoke excitedly about their reformation.

“Tis a bright day in the sun for this fine nation, this would-be republic under God, wherein we once again come together as brothers in arms to defend our right to a life free of tyranny, to defend our freedom of self-determination,” said Paul Westinghouse, a Boston-area farmer and battalion leader. “We all must thank those brave justices for having the courage to interpret amendment as it was intended when it was first written, with no regard for what may or may not be appropriate in a more advanced, civilized future.”

Similarly, militiamen in all twelve other colonies quickly cleansed the dust off their hunting rifles and gathered for an inspiring reading of Patrick Henry speeches and Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, various reports indicated.

William Fitzadams, an iron worker and member of a Maryland militia battalion, put the day in perspective, declaring that, “now that we have our God given rights back, after so many years of inane state laws banning our very existence, we can once again fight for freedom from armed tyranny and fear of being shot on the streets of our own town. O! Glorious day it is.”


Supreme Court Reverses Gore Endorsement, Awarding it to McCain

by Jake Maccoby and Jordan Zakarin

Mere moments after formally announcing his backing for Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama in an email to supporters, former Vice President Al Gore’s endorsement was blocked and reversed by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision, handing the Nobel Prize winner’s full throated support to Republican nominee John McCain.

Writing for the majority, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that regardless of who Gore intended to support, a strict constructionist reading of his statement made it clear that, from a legal standpoint, his endorsement must be awarded to the GOP candidate.

“It is plainly obvious, by reading Section One, Clause Four of Article Two, that the framers, Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton, were firm in their resolve, that in the 2008 Presidential election, 219 years after ratification, former Vice President Gore, who the constitution also stipulated must lose the 2000 Presidential election regardless of the voters’ wishes, would be required to hand his endorsement and considerable public influence to John McCain, who was himself one of the original framers of Constitution,” Scalia wrote.

Seconds after the ruling, Charlie Black, a spokesman for the McCain campaign, said that “Senator McCain is gratified and humbled by the support of Vice President Gore, and he urges the American people to unite behind him for the good of the nation.”

Black also called any possible attempts by Gore to challenge the ruling “extremely divisive,” stating that “any type of debate or divergence would be extremely dangerous in the face of the impending election this November.”

Constitutional scholars have been abuzz since the decision was handed down, heatedly debating whether the court had the authority to overturn a personal opinion. Mercer Archwell, a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said that he thought that the court was well within its jurisdiction to do so.

“Of course they have every right to do it,” Archwell wrote in an op-ed column that ran in Tuesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal. “This country was founded on people telling other people what to think and say. I think that the court was simply basing its decision on the best available precedents, from the Salem Witch Trials of 1693 to the Joseph McCarthy hearings of 1954. This is just pure American tradition.”

Not so fast, said constitutional scholar Jason Derek. “This is an absolute outrage, a preposterous abuse of power that is not even endowed upon them by any document, constitution or legal doctrine otherwise. That this country now has a court that disregards the laws it is sworn to protect, it just sucks. I wish there was something we could do about it, but I guess we’ll just take it on the chin again.”

In response to Derek’s allegations, a spokesperson for the court noted that the judges had seen precedent in a 2000 case that established judicial review over all actions taken by Al Gore. The former Vice President was unavailable to comment, as aides say he was in Greenland, eating ice cream sandwiches before they all melted.

In addition to Gore, thousands of elderly Jewish residents of Florida were dismayed at the news that they had each inadvertently issued endorsements of Pat Buchanan.