Response To Pragmatic Revolt

Yo, Moorcat!  Your website is hosed, buddy.

Okay, not really completely hosed, but showing signs of hosery nonetheless.  The URL www.moorcat.com/pragmatic_revolt gives the following message:

Not Acceptable

An appropriate representation of the requested resource /pragmatic_revolt/ could not be found on this server.

---

HTTPD Server Server at www.moorcat.com Port 80

That's easily fixable by just removing the "www".  moorcat.com/pragmatic_revolt works just fine.  Obviously, that's what the left bloglines  are using, because your posts are accessible from there. 

However, when one attempts to comment, the same error message occurs.  Because of that, I'm forced to respond to your latest post here,

Concerning Brad Johnson and his op-ed:

Johnson's letter did not spring from a vacuum.  It is rather in response or as a political addendum to an "extra-session" resolution/petition from the Montana legislature, signed by such level-headed notables as Joe Balyeat, Roger Koopman and Rick Jore.

For more links and information, as well as very good discussion, please read this MetaFilter thread. 

Comments

[moorcat]

I am not sure what the problem is with the site. If I type in www.moorcat.com/pragmatic_revolt it works just fine. Any suggestions on what to look for? I haven't done any changes to the server files or layout so I have no idea why this would be happening now.

As far as the Johnson letter - regardless of who signed the petition (Jore et all...), the idea behind Johnson's letter are still an interesting take on the matter. Also understand that Montana is not the only state looking at this legal aspect of the DC case.

While I agree that Johnson's letter holds no legal arguments per se, I would not be surprised if there are legal briefs being filed in the case relating to this issue.

Moorcat

[Wulfgar]

Several things:

1) www.moorcat.com/P... does work in IE7, but not in FireFox. Regardless of that, the commenting issue is rather more irksome than the accessibility from a particular URL, and that behavior is the same regardless of browser. Hopefully others will chime in as to whether they are having similar difficulties.

2) You are correct that the idea behind Johnson's letter is "interesting", and that says precisely nothing. What is interesting about it? What are the ramifications or consequences of the Supreme Court violating Montana's contractual will? Is he calling for secession, or just a legal temper tantrum?

3) What should be completely without regard, considering Johnson's letter and its confusing intent, is what other states are "looking at", or considering doing. What should be regarded is the very Resolution that you put to the side. Johnson's letter is meaningless. That Resolution, on the other hand, is precisely the very first legal brief you won't be surprised by.

4) It's interesting to note the signers of the Resolution because of the hypocrisy involved. Many of these august legislators are the very same who will cry loud and strong about federal interference in such things as administering *federal* lands in Montana. 'We don't want Washington DC telling us how Montanans will behave towards federal lands, wildlife and resource', or so the battle-cry goes. No matter how you slice it, this is a Montana attempt to influence a court case regarding the city of Washington DC. Akwardly ironic, wouldn't you agree?

[moorcat]

I didn't comment on the resolution because I haven't read it yet - simple as that. As soon as I can obtain a copy of it, I will probably comment on it.

As far as the other states asking the same question, I believe it is important. The method that states entered the union was unique to each state and this gives rise to a number of constitutional questions when the issue of state rights VS federalism comes up.

I also have a problem with the way you have characterized this case. While the situation has arrisen in Washington DC, the matter that the Supreme Court has been asked to adjudicate has implication far beyond the DC case. For example, if the Supreme Court does decide that gun ownership is an individual right, guarenteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution, then it brings every gun restriction law in the US under the microscope. Conversely, if the Supreme Court decides that it is a collective right, it raises questions about the Constitutional law of at least 11 states that define gun ownership as an individual right.

Believe me, I haven't missed the irony in Jore and Koopdog signing the resolution. I also get twitchy even seriously considering the idea just because those individuals are involved. What intrigues me, though, is the Constitutional/Federalism argument.

I also feel you are making too big a deal of Johnson's failure to specify what Montana will do if the Supreme Court decides to that gun ownership is a collective right. I understand your difficulty with Johnson - he is certainly not my pick for "Bright boy of the Day". I don't see Johnson or anyone else saying that Montana will "leave the union". What I see is the concept of State Rights VS Federalism being challenged.

Moorcat

[Wulfgar]

Follow the link to MetaFilter. I posted a link to the Resolution there, and the discussion involves some fairly astute legal analysis of State Constitutions v. The Constitution. The general consensus appears to be that the states, having ratified the Federal Constitution as part of becoming a US state, cannot thereby pick and choose what parts of the Constitution are applicable to those states. Thereby, considering what happens with Heller v. DC, it could be the Montana Constitution that ends up invalid. That hardly appears to be what Johnson, et. al. are pushing for, but unintended consequences have a way of biting folk in the ass.

Another way to consider this issue is this: If the SCOTUS rules in favor of community rights v. individual rights, it could actually work *in favor* of state's rights concerning issues of gun control. DC can have their gun ban, and Montana already has it in their Constitution to support individual rights in this state. That might be preferable to the court ruling that DC, as a Federal property, can set federal statute as supreme, which would be the worst case scenario.

[Mandy]

Rob & Ken, it doesn't work in IE7. I have IE7 and I haven't been able to access Pragmatic's site for a couple months now, and dropping the www doesn't work either.

[Jon]

The link error seems to be with the link on the page rather than the URL itself. Typing the URL into the address bar manually seems to work fine no matter what form you use. Ditto for looking at the page text and copy/pasting the address. That is, on the server side the address seems to be working as expected. The server and URL are fine. It's only by using the link on this page that I can generate the error. I suspect the style sheet may be handling the link in some odd manner, but that is just a wild guess.