Posted on 04/05/2013 4:02:09 PM PDT by Sir Napsalot
(snip) Lost in this confusion and anxiety is the possibility that a basic consensus on guns exists among Americans. Opinion polls suggest that a majority recognize a right to bear arms, subject to reasonable regulations protecting public safety. This strong dual commitment, if clarified and entrenched in our Constitution, could reassure most, though not all, of us.
Before you mock the idea of a constitutional amendment, consider that hardly anyone is happy with our unstable status quo: gun enthusiasts fear their rights are under constant threat; gun-control advocates point to the danger of illegal guns and easy access to firearms.
(snip)
Most Americans are committed to the Constitution and rely on the courts to adapt our antique highest law to modern technological and cultural developments. Many of us trust the judiciary to balance rights against the inevitable restrictions on them. But we are left with the awkward, irresolvable phrasing of the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
“What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you not understand?” the gun-rights advocate asks. “What part of ‘a well regulated Militia’ do you not understand?” goes the retort.
(snip)
But in the 1980s, a movement to interpret the amendment as promoting the right to bear arms for self-defense emerged. It reached an apotheosis of sorts in the 2008 case, which struck down the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns. It was the first time the court had ever restricted gun regulation, but the 5-to-4 vote also suggests that the decision is not fixed doctrine.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Re: Article V
Both parties are so eager to absorb > 11 millions ill-informed illegals to give them voting rights (on top of our current ill-informed voters), because it will be so much easier to overcome the requirements for
(Wikipedia) “Amendments may be proposed by either:
- two-thirds of both houses of the United States Congress; or
- by a national convention assembled at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the states.
To become part of the Constitution, amendments must then be ratified either by approval of:
- the legislatures of three-fourths of the states; or
- state ratifying conventions held in three-fourths of the states.”
See, there's a problem here: the courts have already 'clarified' the Constitution so that the explicit and unconstrained prohibitions of the first amendment (e.g. "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press") is of no effect. You see, in the 1919 case Schenck v. United States the Supreme Court declared that Congress could indeed make laws abridging speech [and, incidentally, the press]. The case was started over violations of a sedition act because a protester printed out his objections to WWI and thought to encourage people to non-compliance with the draft (as well as petitioning the congress to stop the war & draft) -- now this is important, the US has almost always made exceptions for those religious who felt moral objection to war (Quakers, etc) precisely because of their moral objections to war -- so there was some precedent of moral obligation being held in high regard. Furthermore, the First Amendment was affirmed to make explicit the freedoms of people to protest politically, IOW exactly what the man was doing.
And the USSC said: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force." -- when it is patently obvious that citation is about an injunction [judicial act] and not a congressional [much less legislative] action.
My point is this: our government routinely violates the Constitution.
What is the consequence to those violators? And what are the consequences of the violations?
Well, let's just stop and ponder this.
Mr. Elkins seems to be assuming that things like "reasonable restrictions" and "background checks" are things "many reasonable people would find reassurance in a revised Second Amendment that was properly balanced."
And just what defines "proper balance?"
Who writes the definition of "proper balance?" You, Mr. Elkins?
I am sure that you would answer YES, Mr Elkins.
However Mr. Elkins, due to the massive amount of arms sales that have already occurred during the course of the "most transparent administration" and due to the fact that there is no apparent end in sight for said arms sales I would submit to you Mr Elkins, that "many reasonable people would NOT find reassurance" with you or any of your neo-communist ilk engaging in such an exercise as rewriting the Second Amendment."
But I would offer that such an idea has already been explored.
Allow me...
"The unalienable Right of all individuals as the people to keep and bear all arms with accoutrements at all times in any circumstance, in any location, in or not in defense of themselves or other individuals in any manor as individuals or groups and in or not in defense of their state as organized or unorganized militia, shall not be infringed in any way by any process, rule or law from any domestic or foreign source, forever."
Not quite what you had in mind Mr Elkins?
I do not understand your objection the the new and clarified version of the Second Amendment, Mr Elkins.
It relieves all of the concerns you have expressed, Mr. Elkins.
No more "uncertainty," no more "gun enthusiasts fear."
Gone will be the "constant threat" of infringement.
We will no longer be "Lost in this confusion and anxiety."
We will have rid ourselves of the crushing issue regarding the "awkward, irresolvable phrasing" of the Second Amendment by "agreeing on a formal clarification of the constitutional text."
No more "worrying about the slippery slope of encroachments."
The "violent rhetoric" will have been stopped as we have "adapted our antique highest law to modern technological and cultural developments."
Of course, in retrospect, we will have simply proven (once again) the incredible effectiveness of the Founding Fathers to clearly articulate their ideas.
The Founding Fathers version... 27 words.
My "adaptation of antique highest law to modern technological and cultural developments" version... 74 words.
New and improved version? Almost three times as long, to say the same exact thing.
And did the Founding Fathers know exactly what they were doing?
You Betcha.
If the Founding Fathers meant for there to be laws restricting an American Citizen of their right to freely and without restraint posses arms they would have clearly written it into the text of the Amendment just like they did in these...
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law
Amendment III
but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment XII
no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny
And these...
AMENDMENT XIII
AMENDMENT XIV
AMENDMENT XV
AMENDMENT XVI
AMENDMENT XVIII
AMENDMENT XIX
AMENDMENT XXIII
AMENDMENT XXVI
The Second Amendment is absolutely clear here.
It is:
"shall not be infringed"
Not "according to the rules of the common law"
Not "but in a manner to be prescribed by law"
Not "but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation"
Not "without due process of law"
Not "Congress shall have power to enforce this"
Not "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation"
Not "unless they shall by law"
Not "Congress may by law"
Not "and shall not prevent"
Not "No law"
Yeah, the Founding Fathers had every single opportunity for YEARS to put such a stipulation in the Second Amendment.
What do we see there?
Do we see the stipulations that are in many of the other Amendments?
No.
The "Bill of Rights" took seven months to write. This was in addition to the eleven years for the Constitution. The Constitutional Convention was 116 days long. The Bill of Rights was not ratified until 1791.
There was plenty of time to create stipulations for the Second Amendment that would allow certain encroachments based upon existing or future law or laws. Such stipulations exist throughout the Constitution and it's Amendments, including the first ten.
The Second Amendment contains only one stipulation.
"Shall not be infringed."
My conclusion is they damn well meant exactly not in the slightest scintilla. They were experts in what happens when such concessions are allowed. It is the absolute definition of "slippery slope."
Such concessions are the exact cause of being tangled in the 20,000 infringements spider web of laws, rules, ordinances and policies of today.
But, to be sure, let's look one more time.
"The unalienable Right of all individuals as the people to keep and bear all arms with accoutrements at all times in any circumstance, in any location, in or not in defense of themselves or other individuals in any manor as individuals or groups and in or not in defense of their state as organized or unorganized militia, shall not be infringed in any way by any process, rule or law from any domestic or foreign source, forever."
This one is just for you because there is no "uncertainty and confusion" when we come to understanding YOU, Mr. ZACHARY ELKINS, associate professor of government at the University of Texas, Austin, Texas.
Zachary Elkins
Associate Professor — Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley
Curriculum Vitae
Contact V E-mail: zelkins@austin.utexas.edu
Phone: 512.232.7250
Office: BAT 4.120 v Campus Mail Code: A1800
Biography
Professor Elkins’ research focuses on issues of democracy, institutional reform, research methods, and national identity, with an emphasis on cases in Latin America. He is currently completing a book manuscript, Designed by Diffusion: Constitutional Reform in Developing Democracies, which examines the design and diffusion of democratic institutions, and recently completed The Endurance of National Constitutions, which explores the factors that lead to the survival of national constitutions. With Tom Ginsburg (University of Chicago), Professor Elkins co-directs both the Comparative Constitutions Project, a NSF-funded initiative to understand the causes and consequences of constitutional choices, and the website constitutionmaking.org, which provides resources and analysis for constitutional drafters in new democracies. Elkins earned his B.A. from Yale University, an M.A. from the University of Texas at Austin, and his Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley.
.
Unfortunately, the liberals are too stupid to realize they're poking a tiger - not a bundle of wet straw. That is most unfortunate for them, because when they finally do realize their error, it'll be far too late to avoid the inevitable consequences.
Of course I’m interested. Ping me anytime you want, darlin’.
You have just explained why the Article II, Section 1, clause 5 eligibility requirement to be President, ‘Natural born Citizen’, hasn’t been amended.
Once the explanation is widely understood - a Natural born Citizen is born in the United States of citizen parents - there will be few if any dissenting votes.
A contest!
The right of the law abiding American Citizen to own any firearm, for the defense of his country, family, possessions, the United States Constitution, and against tyrannical and oppressive government, shall not be infringed, furthermore, The federal government, or the states, shall make no law restricting the ownership of firearms. And The American people can hunt too.
(First draft.)
This big fight is over what is a "reasonable regulation". I have seen that polling question before, and it almost never defines what respondents consider reasonable. When the clarify what regulations are actually being considered support is often anywhere from under 40% to barely over 50%, depending on what is proposed. I.E. I personally think background checks should be improved, am not convinced that Schumer's bill contains any improvements to the current background check system, and am certain that it contains numerous provisions that are either irrelevant or counter-productive.
He is correct. Another factoid that is ignored is that the Militia Acts came after the 2nd Amendment - likely to take advantage of the fact that the populace was guaranteed the right to be armed.
If they want to rewrite it, I would suggest, "The ability of a populace to defend itself from an overbearing government being integral to the preservation of Freedom, anyone who attempts to disarm the population will be shot".
.
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.