The 14^th Amendment, which was added to the Constitution in 1868, was intended to prevent the states from violating individual rights. At the time, the Bill of Rights only bound the federal government, and Southern states and localities in the Reconstruction Era were finding it difficult to treat the newly freed slaves as U.S. citizens or recognize all the rights that that status entails.

The Privileges and Immunities Clause, which is of particular importance in the McDonald case says that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

One of those privileges or immunities is the 2^nd Amendment right to bear arms. But like the Bill of Rights, the 2^nd Amendment only applies to the federal government. However, because the Privileges and Immunities clause was grossly misinterpreted only a few years after its ratification, most of the Bill of Rights has had to be incorporated to the states via due process.

But by trying to incorporate the Heller decision to the states through the Privileges and Immunities clause, Alan Gura, the lawyer arguing the case, is trying to restore the clause back to its original intent.

While it appears likely that the people of Chicago will soon be able to obtain handguns, it doesn’t look as though the Supreme Court will embrace the idea of reversing more than a hundred years of bad legal precedent by restoring the Privileges clause. Even Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia- who recently restored the freedom of speech with their decision in Citizens United v FEC- seemed skeptical about doing so.

But the questions that are at stake in McDonald v Chicago are more fundamental and philosophical than whether or not a city can ban guns. At its core, the case tests the bounds of federalism.

If the states are sovereign and independent entities that can govern as they see fit, how much can the fed really force them to do? Or in other words, should the federal government be able to force the states to recognize rights? The answer is yes, but only under certain conditions.

For the federal government to be able to force states to recognize a specific right, that right must be fundamental, essential to liberty, and easily identifiable and definable. The test that determines that comes from the 1997 case, Washington v Glucksberg.

In that case, the Supreme Court decided that the right to assisted suicide is not covered by the Due Process Clause. Why? Because assisted suicide is not deeply rooted in our nation’s history. Nor can it be defined with particularity. The Glucksberg test is recognized by both sides of the aisle as being able to determine previously unprotected rights that can be incorporated to the state by due process.

And while it seems that McDonald v Chicago will pass the test in the summer of 2010, the ramifications will last for years.  Some fear that if states are forced to rescind bans on handguns, it will only open the floodgates for hundreds of civil rights lawsuits. On the flip side, if Chicago’s gun laws are upheld, what else could cities get away with criminalizing? It is cause for worry for Conservatives who support gun rights, but also believe strongly in states’ rights as well.

Yes, the federal government should force the states to uphold a Constitutionally-recognized right like the right to bear arms, but how far do privileges and immunities go? Do they include things like drug legalization, gay marriage, abortion, affirmative action, or eco-friendliness? Could the federal government start forcing states to allow any of the aforementioned controversial issues?

Most would say no; that those things wouldn’t pass the muster when it comes to the Glucksberg test. They’re probably right, but even the door is opened to frivolous lawsuits, it’s a small price to pay for finally giving the 2^nd Amendment the respect and rule of law that it deserves. The only unfortunate part of the McDonald v Chicago case is that the Supreme Court passed up the opportunity to return the 14^th Amendment back to its originMcDal meaning.

******

Amanda Carey is the Editor of The Tiger Town Observer at Clemson University.  She has previously worked for Robert Novak and has been published in Reason Magazine and The American Spectator.

Today International Women’s Day has a different tone around the world. In some countries it is celebrated like Valentine’s Day or Mother’s Day as an opportunity to honor the women in one’s life by giving flowers or gifts. But in the U.S., this often-overlooked holiday can have a much deeper significance – an opportunity to raise awareness of the many battles women around the world are still fighting.

One such important battle is the global fight against breast cancer. Every 68 seconds, a woman dies from breast cancer. It is the most frequently diagnosed cancer and is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women worldwide. While the incidence rate is highest in the U.S., Canada, and Western Europe, most deaths from breast cancer over the next 25 years will occur in the developing world.

This morning I attended an event organized by Susan G. Komen for the Cure that highlighted the plight of women in the developing world who are afflicted with breast cancer. These women have to fight not only the disease, but also cultural taboos that serve as significant barriers to diagnosis and treatment. Especially in the Middle East and Africa but also in parts of South America and Asia, many women suffer grotesque health effects as a result of advanced stage breast cancer that goes unnoticed or is intentionally ignored. Some particularly tragic cases are detailed in this article.

Women in the U.S. have done a remarkable job of fighting this disease. The five-year survival rate for breast cancer (when caught early before it spreads) is 98 percent. As recently as 1982, it was 74 percent. The rest of the world is not so fortunate. We as American women should take full advantage of the cultural openness and medical opportunities we have to help us detect this treatable disease early by being vigilant about self-exams, clinical screenings, and mammograms. The most significant risk factors of breast cancer are simple: being female and getting older – so none of us is immune.

One in eight American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in her lifetime. My mother is one of those women. Her sister is another one. Their mother is another one. I am proud to say they are all survivors and living examples of the strength of so many women, in the U.S. and around the world, who have fought this disease and won.

******

Rachel Hoff is a young Republican activist based in Washington, DC.

When released in December of 2009, Avatar was met with high praise and wide acclaim. Movie critic Roger Ebert described the movie as “extraordinary,” saying “When I saw Avatar, I felt sort of the same as when I saw Star Wars in 1977.”

Time Magazine ran a review that told movie-goers to “Embrace the movie—surely the most vivid and convincing creation of a fantasy world ever seen in the history of moving pictures.” Ross Douthat of The New York Times even wrote that Avatar is “Cameron’s long apologia for pantheism … Hollywood’s religion of choice for a generation now.”

Well, Avatar may be “Hollywood’s religion of choice,” but there are three main reasons why free-thinkers and conservatives in general should be reluctant to waste about 2 ½ hours of their time.

For starters, Avatar, which some people characterize as a modern-day Pocahontas, has a strong anti-capitalist message. Comparable to any film out of say, Michael Moore’s private-enterprise-hating brain (yes, it’s that bad), Avatar is a story about evil Americans trying to take advantage of a distant ecosystem; and all for corporate greed.

Said ecosystem exists on the planet of Pandora, which is inhabited by natives called the Na’Vi. However, in the movie, Pandora becomes overrun with military mercenaries and greedy profiteers who will stop at nothing to gain a few trillion dollars. Now enter Jake Sully; an ex-Marine who takes over his dead brother’s Avatar.

An avatar is a genetically engineered replica of the Na’Vi that the humans can interface with by sleeping that will allow them to interact with the natives. And in a plot that is just about as predictable as Harry Reid’s loss in November, Sully falls in love with the Na’Vi princess, Neytiri, decides to permanently become part of the Pandora world, and fights against the evil humans.

Although in real life, no one would, or could defend the tactics that the military display in this movie, the very fact that entrepreneurship is shown as being evil, immoral, and synonymous with murder is very telling. Not to mention the fact that in the end, the collective, or socialistic society of the Na’Vi succeeds.

Then there’s the fact that the movie is basically a glorified, 162-minute, PSA for man-made global warming. It’s the perfect equation: untouched, green, ecosystem, plus humans who want to tear down the trees, equals the ultimate struggle of good versus evil. Or so Cameron would like people to think.

What’s most telling is a part of Sully’s narrative at the end in which he watches the “aliens” (i.e. humans) leave Pandora, saying they are going back to continue to destroy their dying world. But Avatar is more than just one big argument for taking care of the environment; it’s the vision of an impossibility that completely disregards the way the world works.

It’s this complete disregard for reality that is the worst feature of Avatar. For instance, the movie’s plot would not even be possible if Jake Sully wasn’t completely disconnecting his brain from his body. In other words, his adventures are entirely dependent upon his separation from reality. It would be the same as if another movie was made entirely about someone’s trip off LSD: completely unrealistic.

Moreover, Avatar has almost no metaphysical meaning; it does not represent any metaphysical concept. Or think about it this way: art (which most people would agree does include movies) is created as a projection that is reflective of the creator’s beliefs and values. This tells us a lot about those who create art.

With Avatar, there is no semblance of reality- no interaction between what is and what could be. It is simply what James Cameron wishes reality was. Thus, Avatar is a film that is a projection sans any values that can be found in the real world. Not only that, but the “happy ending” completely inverses the traditional sense of morality. In real life, permanently choosing to disconnect yourself from reality would be wrong. In Avatar however, it is Sully’s ending, and the audience is supposed to rejoice with him.

Many people argue that while watching Avatar, one must ignore the misguided messages and just appreciate the stunning visuals and effects, or the movie’s beauty. But to do that requires that one redefine the word “beauty” to include things that are anti-rational and value-less.

Just three things to think about as society prepares to give Avatar awards that were created through a capitalist system and built from our earth’s natural resources.

******

Amanda Carey is the Editor of The Tiger Town Observer at Clemson University.  She has previously worked for Robert Novak and has been published in Reason Magazine and The American Spectator.

We haul hay bales and feed to the livestock. We pull trailers and implements. We haul fuel to the fields. We haul buckets and bags of seed and fencing supplies and tires and produce to the farmer’s market. Besides, how else would the high school football team get down Main Street for the Homecoming parade? And where would our dogs ride?

Our farmers drive them, of course. But so do our lawyers, teachers, politicians and bankers. Again, not for fashion, but function.

Out here, you see, we are part of a growing minority. We are – or are very closely connected to – the remaining 3% of our country’s population who are the food producers. We grow the wheat, corn and soybeans, and we raise the cattle, pigs and chickens that help to feed our nation.

But for the remaining 97% of our country, truck driving and wheat farming are becoming quite foreign. In fact, it has gone so far that it seems food producers and food consumers no longer speak the same language.

Even I fall into that guilty “consumer” column. My husband and I were just debating in the kitchen the other day about the difference in brown sugar and white sugar. I didn’t know where brown sugar came from. What I did know was that brown sugar is more popular among the “eat-healthy” advocates. But, even I didn’t know if brown sugar came from beets or cane, or how the sugar was refined and processed. (I have since done my homework.)

So it begs the question: If I, Kansas farm-girl, don’t know about the sources of food I use every day, how can those in more urban places, and those generations-removed from the farm, be expected to know and understand where their food comes from?

The gap is widening. The disconnect between producer and consumer, rural and urban is growing. And if we continue on the present course, our voice may be lost for good. Lost to an urban consumer whose food choices are en vogue, yet who lack a full understanding of how that food made the trek from farm to table and who may be unaware of how weather, world markets and politics played into the choices available to them at the grocery store.

What to do?

We can start by simply telling our story. The tools at our fingertips, literally at our fingertips, can put us in touch with that other 97% in nanoseconds. To a fault, we have been slower to adapt to the latest in Internet and social media technology. And beyond that, we’re still waiting for broadband service to reach every corner of my state. That’s not an excuse, just an admission of fact. But for those with access, the tools exist to make our story heard instantly.

But even telling the story can be a big leap for our truck-driving culture. People simply tend to be a bit more quiet in this middle section of the country, and furthermore, all those tied to the agricultural industry.

The best farmers and ranchers I know are humble, quiet, and devoted to the land and animals they serve. They tend to their soil while honoring the generations who have gone before them and preserving the land for future generations. Ranchers, livestock producers, dairymen and women, all care for their animals and see to their well being before taking care of themselves.

Yet, there is energy growing behind an anti-animal agriculture movement. And livestock producers have found themselves on the defensive, and a bit unprepared for the far-slinging tactics of a bigger, louder, angrier agenda. Energy continues to grow in the conventional agriculture versus organic agriculture debate. On the surface, organic production seems the gentle victor. But do consumers fully understand the production practices behind organic foods enough to justify paying premium prices?

So you should expect the volume to be turned up on the stories coming from the production sector. And you should expect to hear stories about men and women passionate about producing food; and stories of communities and families working so hard to preserve a rural culture; and of people who honor the land and respect the animals because it’s the right thing to do and because it also happens to make good business-sense. And you should listen. As the mother and chief-grocery-getter in my household, I intend to listen. I would prefer to hear about my food from its source; not from an exaggerated story spun in an urban office building.

Beyond growing soybeans and raising pigs, we also grow a lot of common sense in the Midwest. And be prepared, because just as soon as we figure out how to package it and sell it, we’re going to start hauling it to the cities in our pick-up trucks.

******

Sarah Goss is a native Kansan, full-time mommy of three, community volunteer and blog author. Her children are her top client, but her devotion to agriculture and rural community development run a close second.

Day one of the conference began with speeches by U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) and hopeful Florida Senator Marco Rubio (R). Both men received resounding applause by the thousands of attendees in the audience. Rubio in particular, who many view as the future of the GOP, delivered a passionate address extolling his beliefs in the American dream, limited government, and the necessity of a free society.

CPAC’s opening day also saw two major surprise visits: one by Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) who was introduced by former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and later former Vice President Dick Cheney, introduced by his daughter, Liz Cheney. Other headliners throughout the three-day conference included Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN), Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), Newt Gingrich and former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft.

The conference this year also had its fair share of confrontations and interesting appearances. One of the most noteworthy was the hotel-lobby showdown between new media mogul Andrew Breitbart and liberal investigative journalist Max Blumenthal. The whole thing was, of course, caught on camera and went viral in a matter of minutes.

Also interesting was a speech in which Students for Liberty Executive Director Alex McCobin was tepidly booed for commending CPAC organizers for allowing GOProud, a gay Republican group to co-sponsor the event. McCobin summarized that “freedom is a single concept that we must defend at all times,” and that most students are socially tolerant while fiscally responsible. The majority of the crowd applauded and cheered in support.

However, later that same day, Conservative activist Ryan Sorba was roundly booed and forced to leave the stage after he denounced homosexuality as immoral. He even went so far as to respond to protests in the audience by saying “The lesbians at Smith College protest better than you do. Bring it.” Let’s just say McCobin was left with far more respectability than Sorba.

But while CPAC 2010 stood out for its underlying feel of Conservative resurgence and optimism (and of course, hope and change!), there was a definite inner struggle on display between the Libertarian presence and the traditional GOP. Although the divide has almost always been present within the Republican Party, the Tea Party movement and Ron Paul enthusiasm have only exacerbated it. And this year, it showed.

This year, Libertarian groups like Students for Liberty, Campaign for Liberty, and Ladies of Liberty Alliance and other Ron Paul supporters made their presence known. In fact, it would be fair to say that CPAC attendees could be divided into two distinct groups: the group that stood in line for hours to get an autographed copy of Anne Coulter’s latest book, and the group that stood in line for hours to see Glenn Beck.

Anne Coulter’s group also cheered and chanted “Cheney ’12!” when the former VP made his surprise appearance, while the Beck group shouted the same thing for Ron Paul. But the division was not necessarily a friendly one.

After Ron Paul won the straw poll by a landslide, many accused Paul supporters of stuffing or manipulating the ballot box. The D.C.-based Politico even reported that a conference worker “rushed over to reporters after the announcement to make sure they had heard the unmistakable boos when the screen first showed Paul had won the straw poll.”

Nor were many Conservatives pleased with Glenn Beck’s concluding address, in which he compared the current state of Washington to a morning hangover. And according to Beck, the Republicans contributed to the mess just as much as the Democrats.

Beck even went so far as to liken the Republican Party to an addict that has yet to begin the road to recovery: “The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem,” said Beck. “I have not heard people in the Republican Party admit they have a problem and when I did hear them say they have a problem, I don’t know if I believed them.”

Ironic as it is however, Beck was extremely well-received. Rumors of protests proved to be unfounded and the boos were minimal at best- a far cry from the heckles Ron Paul was met with.

Yet the ideological division at CPAC should have been expected. In the wake of the Tea Party movement and strong losses in 2006 and 2008, the GOP has been undergoing some major soul searching; CPAC only shows that the searching continues.

******

Amanda Carey is the Editor of The Tiger Town Observer at Clemson University.  She has previously worked for Robert Novak and has been published in Reason Magazine and The American Spectator.

His argument is as follows: President Obama has really been a more moderate president; therefore the Tea Partiers can’t really be angry at his “socialist” policies. So, the movement is motivated by racism and radical anti-statism that blindly holds onto principle rather than facts.

While it is true that Obama hasn’t gone far enough to satisfy his far-left supporters, he has still supported and enacted policies that anger a lot of Americans. He supported the bailouts and the stimulus, took over General Motors, tried to push through what began as a very radical government takeover of the healthcare industry, and wants to raise taxes on wealthy. Not to mention the increase in federal spending and the out-of-control debt.

The passionate tea partiers however, do recognize that these policies began during the Bush administration. But they have also been carried on by Obama. That’s not the kind of change a lot of Americans were hoping for.

In light of that, a movement or uprising like the one seen today was inevitable, regardless of who is commander-in-chief. The Tea Party Movement is not a direct result of the man who currently holds the presidency, but of years and years of harmful and anti free-market policies. Obama’s election did not cause the movement; it just ensured its beginning. Thus, the liberal argument that the tea parties can be dismissed because they are only fueled by racial hatred is wrongfully dismissive and a sign of evasion.

Dionne’s second answer- that the movement is motivated by anti-statism that is a “profound mistrust of power in Washington”- is more accurate. But his reasoning is still misguided.

Dionne writes that “This suspicion of government is not amenable to “facts” — not because it is irrational, but because the facts are beside the point. For the anti-statists, opposing government power is a matter of principle.” Yes, standing up for limited government is a matter of principle, but it is not a position devoid of any facts.

On the contrary, people believe in limited government precisely because the facts of history say a limited government leads to a more prosperous nation. Furthermore, it is a fact that the Founding Fathers- federalists and anti-federalists alike- were all advocates of limited government.

The Tea Partiers are not blind to the facts; they understand better than most that ideas have consequences. Lack of economic freedom will weaken the economy, bailouts reward irresponsible behavior that will inevitably persist, and increased spending will eventually mean higher taxes.

However, amidst all the accusations and denunciations from the left, there is unfortunately, a glimmer of truth. Most recently, the Tea Party invited criticism by giving WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah a podium at their convention in Nashville, TN, to demagogue about Obama’s alleged lack of citizenship.  Then, they responded with resounding applause when former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) said that Obama voters could not even spell the word “vote,” much less say it in English.

The Tea Party needs to stop making it so easy for the left and the media to criticize and denounce a movement that had very legitimate beginnings. To do that, tea partiers will need to do some serious soul-searching and determine whether they are a voice for Americans concerned about the deficit, or for Americans concerned about whether Obama was born in the U.S. The latter position will only confirm the characterizations of writers like Dionne, who say the movement is made up of racist, radical ideologues.

There’s still time to course-correct for the Tea Party movement. But for now, it looks as though it may be ill-fated to become what Reason Magazine’s Brian Doherty calls “personality cult anti-Democratic party populism.”

******

Amanda Carey is the Editor of The Tiger Town Observer at Clemson University.  She has previously worked for Robert Novak and has been published in Reason Magazine and The American Spectator.

So what precedents is Dionne referring to? Those would be Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. FEC. Both addressed corporate spending in elections, and both upheld restrictions that limited said spending in support of or against any specific candidate.

The 1990 Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce case came about when the Chamber of Commerce wanted to sponsor a newspaper advertisement that supported a candidate for state office. They argued that because the chamber was technically a “non-profit ideological corporation,” it should be exempt from any restrictions.

When the case made its way to the Supreme Court however, the restrictions were maintained. In his majority opinion, Justice Thurgood Marshall found that in practice, the Chamber of Commerce more resembled a business than a political organization, and thus was bound to state campaign finance laws.

The second precedent, McConnell v. FEC, was a 2002 suit challenging the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, otherwise known as McCain-Feingold. Like the Michigan case 12 years earlier, the Supreme Court upheld McCain-Feingold, specifically the portion that prohibited corporate spending during elections.

The decisions in these two precedents are now, for the most part, void; something that Dionne and his progressive colleagues mourn. This is where the hypocrisy comes in. Would Dionne be singing the same tune if media corporations and newspapers like his own Washington Post were subject to the same standards and restrictions that bound other corporations?

In each Supreme Court ruling and McCain-Feingold, media corporations were exempt from any restrictions; a fact Dionne manages to leave out of his scathing criticism. If he had been asked about free speech during the 2008 election, Dionne would surely have touted its importance, while the Post and numerous other outlets championed candidate Barack Obama.

What’s even worse, however, is the fact that outrage over the Supreme Court decision has now transferred into voracious attacks on Justice Samuel Alito, who vividly displayed his disagreement when President Obama said the court “reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections.”

Of Alito’s reaction, Dionne says that “His was the honest reaction of a judicial activist who believes he has the obligation to impose his version of right reason on the rest of us.” Judicial activist? Since when does adhering to the part of the First Amendment that says “Congress shall make no law…” warrant the label of judicial activist? But even more than that- Alito was right! Obama’s statement on foreign corporation is provably false.

Moreover, Dionne and others like him seem to think that the decision in Citizens v. FEC is wrong simply because it went against precedent. Should all cases then be decided a certain way simply for the sake of sticking to precedent? If that were the case in 1954, then the Supreme Court never would have ruled in Brown v Board of Education that desegregated schools were wrong.

They would have ruled based on the fact that in the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson, the highest court in the land decided that segregation in public places was constitutional. From then on, the doctrine of “separate but equal” reigned supreme. That is, until the same court later reversed it- and courageously so.

The First Amendment is as clear cut as they come; there’s no room for misinterpretation. Free speech is free speech, no matter where it comes from. But if corporate spending in elections is such a big problem, then John Stossel has an easy solution: “There is a simple way to get corporate money out of politics: get the government out of our lives and economic affairs. If government has no favors to sell, no one will spend money trying to win them.”

******

Amanda Carey is the Editor of The Tiger Town Observer at Clemson University.  She has previously worked for Robert Novak and has been published in Reason Magazine and The American Spectator.