This is what happens when folks from both sides get together to do something that matters

UPDATE: Kyle Moore and Michael Tedesco are both of Comments From Left Field. Chris Short is from Conservative Thinking. I regret the error, and thank Michael Tedesco for correcting my mis-impression.

Kyle E. Moore of Comments From Left Field and Michael Tedesco of Conservative Thinking have gotten together and are sponsoring a fundraiser in the names of Sgt. Gray and Sgt. Mora, two of the soldiers who helped author the controversial New York Times article and who were later killed in a vehicle accident in Iraq. Here's the relevant text from the original post:

You don’t have to agree with the Iraq War to support the brave men and women in our armed forces. You don’t have to agree with the politics. The way I see it, it all comes down to that oath, and what it stands for.

These soldiers took a simple oath, they stood up and said that the ideals of America were bigger than they were, and that for those ideals, they would without question sacrifice their lives.

That’s what this is all about. From one day to the next we can bicker and argue over whether a certain war is right or wrong, but at the end of it all, there must be an understanding that men and women like Sgt. Gray and Sgt. Mora, despite the partisan battles that go on back home, continue to day in and day out perform their duties as soldiers.

Remember the closing words of their OpEd, “As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.”

We as Americans have much we can stand to learn from soldiers such as Yance and Omar. Least of which is that this very same spirit of fidelity fuels not only the flame from which this country was born, but exists to this day.

This taken into consideration, I do not wish to honor their service, I am compelled to. I cannot personally look at myself in the mirror unless I have been a part of something to commemorate their passing, and show my gratitude for their service.

As a result, we at Comments From Left Field, in cooperation with Conservative Thinking, are as of this day beginning a fund drive In Honor of Sgt. Omar Mora & Sgt. Yance T. Gray.

After exploring several options, we have decided to donate 100% of the funds to the Fisher House charity, an organization we have worked with in the past. Fisher House has a simple goal; to build houses near military medical facilities. Here loved ones of those who have been injured in the line of duty can stay free of charge while their service member undergoes necessary treatment.

We urge you to give what you can to this noble cause for only in this way can Omar and Tell continue to make the lives of their fellow soldiers better even after their passing. I can think of no honor more fitting of a soldier.

Please spread the word, and if you can donate, please do. The fundraising goal is $10,000, and they won't make it without a lot of help from all sides.

More from the "truth is always stranger than fiction" files

A North Carolina man opened a smoker he had bought at auction and found a human leg, wrapped in paper, sitting inside.

Sounds like the sort of notion a Southern Gothic writer might come up with, expand upon, and use as the opening hook for a murder mystery, doesn't it?

But this isn't fiction; it's truth, fiction's somewhat eccentric maiden aunt.

And it isn't even a murder mystery . . . factual or otherwise.

No, as it turns out, Peg Steele's son had kept his leg in the smoker (for "religious reasons") after having it amputated.

I need to start giving out "worst person in the world" awards

It takes a special kind of asshole to steal money from a school's pumpkin patch.

Never underestimate the ability of college students to come up with uniqe "sports"

Machete ball.

Seriously.

Apparently it's like baseball, only with fruit in place of the ball and machetes in place of the bats.

So, either they're having a lot more fun on college campuses than should strictly be legal, or someone is pulling Andrew Sullivan's leg.

Sometimes my capacity for outrage gets strained

There are things you don't do in this world.

Making a profit by skimping on care for the elderly is one of them.

Well, that's one way to floor me

Tom Goldstein of Akin Gump and SCOTUSBlog has posted an insightful and significant analysis regarding the potential impacts of SCOTUS rulings from the '07 term on the '08 elections.

SCOTUSBlog is usually a must-read site, but this post is particularly important, as Mr. Goldstein appears to be significantly ahead of the curve in his thinking.

I don't know if anyone in the Democratic Party leadership has given any consideration to the issue he raises. If they haven't, they should, lest they end up getting blindsided next year.

Defining "militia"

I am not a gun owner. Nor do I have any particular affinity for or objection to guns. I have, therefore, seldom felt it necessary to think deeply about the precise meaning and boundaries of the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

The DC gun case is changing that, not because I have any particular opinion about whether the residents of the District of Columbia should be able to keep firearms in their homes, but because the case may give the Supreme Court its first real opportunity in decades to delineate the contours of the right.

So, I have spent a fair amount of time mulling over whether the right in question is an individual right or a collective right - the question on which the entire issue seems to hinge - and while I haven't come to any firm conclusions, I am leaning in the direction of an individual right. Whether that inclination is supportable will depend, in large part, upon precisely how the term "militia" is defined.

Dave has suggested that "militia" means all males over 17 and all females who are members of the National Guard (though, based on what I know of Dave's opinions on gun rights, I think he meant that this means it's an individual right rather than the collective one he posits).

While doing some random browsing, I found some language from Federalist #69 (authored by Alexander Hamilton), which may suggest a different definition. In the context of discussing the President's Commander-in-Chief powers, Hamilton observed:

In most of these particulars, the power of the President will resemble equally that of the king of Great Britain and of the governor of New York. The most material points of difference are these: --

First. The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article, therefore, the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor.

Second. The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies -- all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature. The governor of New York, on the other hand, is by the constitution of the State vested only with the command of its militia and navy. But the constitutions of several of the States expressly declare their governors to be commanders-in-chief, as well of the army as navy; and it may well be a question, whether those of New Hampshire and Massachusetts, in particular, do not, in this instance, confer larger powers upon their respective governors, than could be claimed by a President of the United States.

The definition relied upon in this passage seems to imply a collective right, at least at first glance. Still, that may have little meaning as one of the beauties of The Federalist Papers is the manner in which they resemble the Bible. If you try hard enough, you can find a quote to support virtually any argument.

At the rate this is going, I may just remain agnostic on the whole question until the parties in the DC case turn in their briefs, and make my determination based on which argument I find most compelling.

About Damn Time!

According to Reuters, the New York Times has finally realized the futility of demanding that visitors to its website pay to read the musings of Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman and the rest and is retiring the Times Select system.

While the Times isn't acknowledging as much, one of the things that made Times Select ineffective was the fact that the columns were being published all over the place by bloggers, so people were reading them anyway, without the Times getting a thing out of the deal. By re-opening access, the Times can at least reap advertising revenue and - one would hope - increase its total page views.

The gods were listening after all

And in their infinite wisdom, they have decided to salve our sorrows by providing the nation with some much needed amusement.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, Alan Keyes made it official. He's running for President again.

I hope the G.O.P. lets him into their debates. I could use the giggles.

It's never a good sign . . .

. . . when nuns are publicly calling for your impeachment.

Brief thoughts on the DC gun case

SCOTUSBlog has a write-up on the petition for cert coming out of the recent DC Circuit Second Amendment case.

The analysis is, as always, excellent, and I would urge anyone interested in the case to read the entire article.

That being said, there is a passage I want to comment on.

The petition raises a single question: "Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns."

Worded that way, the question appears to offer the Justices an option of deciding the case on narrow grounds, limited to the urban setting of a single city with a history of handgun-related violence, with citizens still able to have some other kinds of guns for self-defense in case of need.

But the reasoning spread through the petition would also seem to offer the Court a chance, if it wished to take it, to speak broadly on the meaning of the Second Amendment -- including defining the scope of the Amendment's restriction on actions by Congress and what that means to states' power to enact gun control laws or protect gun owners' rights without federal interference. The Court has never ruled that the Second Amendment operates directly against state governments so as to limit their legislative power to regulate access to guns. The petition suggests an interpretation that would have the Second Amendment insulate the states from congressional second-guessing about gun rights that the states choose to recognize or to limit.

First, I do hope that the Court decides to take on the broader issue instead of limiting itself to the more limited grounds suggested by the question presented. As SCOTUSBlog notes, it's been 68 years since the Court really touched the Second Amendment, and if there's any area of Constitutional Law badly in need of clarification, it's this one.

Second, I think it's pretty smart of the petitioner to use a federalist-friendly framing, suggesting this is about Congress second-guessing localities. Given the make-up of the current Court, that sort of argument (if properly developed in brief) could be a compelling one.

Third, as savvy as the frame may be, I think it's utterly wrong-headed and illustrates strongly why piecemeal Incorporation is both counter-productive and more than a little silly.

An initial thought on Boumediene v. Bush

With the retirement of Justice O'Connor, Justice Anthony Kennedy became the much-courted swing vote on the Court, and gallons of ink have been spilled on attempts to predict his vote on various controversial cases. Attempts at prognostication will doubtless continue apace as the Court's next term approaches, and will likely rise to a fever pitch after oral argument in Boumediene v. Bush, the latest of the Guantanamo detainee cases to reach the SCOTUS.

I tend to shy away from this sort of prediction, in part because Justice Kennedy is devilishly difficult to forecast.

So, no, I'm not going to read any tea leaves or attempt to interpret the flight of birds. I honestly couldn't tell you how Kennedy is going to vote, but - based on some information included in an article about BoumedieneNew York Times printed in today's , I think it's possible to indicate how Justice Kennedy might vote.

A brief filed by 383 European parliamentarians tells the justices that the case “boils down to the simple, but crucial, question of whether the system of legal norms that purports to restrain the conduct of states vis-à-vis individuals within their power will survive the terrorist threat.” A brief filed on behalf of bar associations in the 53 countries of the British Commonwealth asserts that if Guantánamo Bay were under British rather than American control, there is no doubt that “it would be the English courts and not the executive which would be responsible for determining any issue relating to any ‘enemy’ status alleged against the detained persons.” That view of the ancient writ of habeas corpus had gelled in the English legal system by the mid-18th century.

The fact that legal experts from other common law countries are denouncing the Military Commissions Act is, of course, not dispositive, but it is potentially important. Justice Kennedy is something of an instinctive internationalist who has previously based his vote in controversial cases on prevailing international norms, so it would not be completely out of character for him to do the same in this case.

There are, of course, no guarantees, but there is at least a good chance that Justice Kennedy will vote against the government on this one.