Posted on 04/22/2015 4:17:09 PM PDT by Bigg Red
Please, if you are able, visit Washington, D.C., and see the Constitution and the Bill of Rights before Obamugabe has them shredded. When you visit the National Archives you will find them housed in the same room as the Declaration of Independence.
Although I am a Boomer who has lived in Maryland all of her life, I just saw these precious documents for the first time yesterday. Embarrassed that it has taken me so long.
We just spent a week at a DC-area private campground, a fairly affordable alternative to staying in a hotel. I highly recommend this place, Cherry Hill Campground. If you do not have camping gear, you might want to rent one of their cabins.
Nobody's perfect, but in my book, Bork's the best of the bunch when it comes to Constitutional understanding and interpretation. He lays the foundation for accuracy by insisting on original understanding and intention as written.
Using what you learn from his instruction, you can accurately critique Bork himself, and his assessment of the Second Amendment, for instance. I don't have much use for the popular culture or conventional wisdom of things generally and I don't know about his argument in the Gomorrah book - I'd have to study it.
His The Tempting of America is a masterpiece IMO however, and the lay person could learn a lot by reading it.
W O W!! Really fantastic work..it would be terrific to see that go nation wide. This is an image the American public would comprehend and bring understanding to those that are
visual learners. POWERFULLLLL. Thank you.
Our Framers knew that sovereignty had always followed the sword.
Our English heritage and experience under James I, Charles I, Cromwell, and the military occupation of Boston by George III all solidified a fear of professional soldiery.
OTOH, militias were not to be feared if strictly composed of freeholders, and were regularly exercised, disciplined and kept well-equipped.
Among the things I admire about the Framing generation was their ability to learn from experience. Our Revolutionary War was a long, drawn out affair due in part to general reliance on militia forces. Republican Rome was the model and George Washington was our Cincinnatus, who lead an army of freemen against professional soldiers. Most of the time, our militia army lost battles.
Look at Article VI of the Conferation: . . . but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
As per the Preamble to our Constitution, providing for the common defense was one of the purposes of the American Republic. Having learned from experience, our Constitution provides for both republican militias and professional armies.
A gaggle of young men with weapons but without training, discipline, equipment isn't a militia; it is a mob.
Taken all together, that is why the 2A is so carefully worded. Well drilled, i.e. regulated militias were expected to defend the greater republic. Since militias are so necessary, arms may not be denied to the people.
Among the irritating habits of the Left is their shallow, ignorant dismissal of most constitutional provisions as nothing more than the expressions of oppressive white men.
There is a rich history behind every clause in the Constitution. It is our duty to discern them.
References:
The Stuart Age, by Barry Coward, 1980.
An Argument Shewing, that a Standing Army is inconsistent with a Free Government, and absolutely destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy, by John Trenchard and Robert Moyle, 1697.
A Letter Balancing the Necessity of Keeping a Land Force in Time of Peace by John Somers, 1698.
A Short History of Standing Armies in England, by John Trenchard, 1698.
Discourses on Livy, by Niccolo' Machiavelli, 1513.
It’s okay, I know exactly what you mean.
I suppose I could have worded everything more carefully, but I was short on time because I had a lot of unpacking, laundry, and camper cleaning on my list.
Interesting point about the word “unalienable” (vs “inalienable”).
Unalienable means we can’t even GIVE those rights away.
Inalienable means they can’t be taken from us.
That is interesting. Life, Liberty, and free pursuits are ours whether we or anyone else likes it or not.
There’s implied RESPONSIBILITY with that distinction.
That’s how the left defines “freedom”, by the way - freedom from responsibility.
FYI, a little more of my opinion on the Second Amendment and Bork...
The first ten amendments do not actually amend the body of the Constitution. They are instead confirmations of certain rights the anti-federalists insisted be put in before ratification because the anti-federalists believed the new government would ignore the Constitutional presumptions and simply commandeer all of our rights.
Many think the first ten amendments are a bill of rights. They are not. Totalitarian states issue “bills of rights”. The first ten amendments are simply a sampling and iteration of certain individual rights as the Ninth and Tenth Amendments confirm.
This is where is find myself sometime disagreeing with Bork (even though Bork does a masterful job of refuting the Incorporation Doctrine regarding the first ten amendments).
Having said this here and in the previous reply, and without deciding before more investigation, because the right of the people to bear arms is not prohibited in the body of the Constitution, the second amendment simply confirms that right “shall not be infringed”, the “militia” thing notwithstanding.
As I said, no one’s perfect even though many here look for that. However, Bork is one of the best when it comes to constitutional interpretation. I wish every American would read the Constitution and his commentaries. It would not only stop the feds in their tracks, but would probably do a lot to get the feds back into their constitutional cage.
Thanks for the insight.
Yes. It suggests ownership and also that we have a duty as well as a right to defend against the invasions of tyranny by our own government. The application today is the people via the states rejecting unconstitutional federal acts because they are acts of tyranny.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.