Posted on 06/02/2004 12:44:36 PM PDT by neverdem
Richard Skidmore is a professor at Los Angeles Pierce College, Woodland Hills, California, having taught at Pierce College since 1975.
O’ Hear ye, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in their December decision that the Second Amendment of the Constitution was not adopted "to afford rights to individuals with respect to private gun ownership or possession."
The left hails this courts decisions as decisive and correct, while the right sees the court as a bulwark to destroy our republican form of government and forging the links in chains of usurpation. Remember, this is the same federal court that declared the Pledge of Allegiance an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and has a record of more decisions reversed than any other court.
Have these judges made a sound judicial decision or legislated from the bench? The answer is in our history, our Constitution and especially the Second Amendment, a part of our "Bill of Rights." Some may think that surely this is a trick question that only a judge can divine. However, I assure you that the answer is meant for the common man in jury to resolve.
Judge for yourself, the Second Amendment states: "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."
Today’s media debates are often pro-gun and anti-gun advocacy matches. But reviewing the debates that confirmed our Constitution and our "Bill of Rights" we recognize that today’s debates are similar to those of 1787: Should we have a federal government that is overreaching and infringes on individual liberties or should the individual be protected and the federal government be limited?
Indeed I hear your question: Where can I find the answer to a limited or infringing government which in turn can resolve the debate on gun control and determine if the 9th Circuit Court gets an A or an F in its decision?
The answer is in two books, "The Federalist Papers" and "The Anti-Federalist Papers." One may obtain them at any quality bookstore, each at under $10.
Federalists sought a central federal government to assure a "more perfect union," with the benefits that an energetic government would bring in commerce and prestige much as England had. James Wilson, Supreme Court Justice and signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, saw with particular clarity, strong government could as much serve the people when controlled by them as it could injure them when it was hostile.
Anti-federalists were skeptical of any new constitution and saw the federalist hopes as lust by ambitious men for a "splendid empire" where, in the time-honored way, "the people would be burdened with taxes, conscriptions, and campaigns." They saw the enlarged powers of any central government as familiar threats to the rights and liberties of the people.
Be not mistaken in this, Federalists understood the need to limit the powers of government having endured the long struggle to end the "tyranny" of kings and wanted insurance that government would be faithful to the people, stable, and filled with wisdom in its enactments.
As the debate over the new Constitution progressed, anti-federalist objections crystallized into specific proposals for amendments that would assure the new federal governments limited powers. In some state conventions, these amendments were insisted upon prior to their ratifying the Constitution. Their proposals being similar in nature were later included as the first ten amendments, which we call "The Bill of Rights."
Consider Virginia, in 1788, offered 20 amendments for consideration.
Its 17th states: "That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
Similarly Pennsylvania, upon ratification, issued 14 recommended amendments and the 7th reads: "That people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state … and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers."
Considering our recorded history, one could reasonably ask: Did the 9th Circuit judges abrogate the history of our nation, ignore the grievances that compelled us to separate from England, discard the debates of the Federalists and Anti-federalists, legislate from the bench which is not their responsibility, and thus compel another re-writing of our natural history to justify their decree, relying on the general ignorance of the people to allow their decisions to stand? A simpler question is: What part of "shall not be infringed" is not understood?
Richard Skidmore is a professor at Pierce College in Woodland Hills, Ca. He may be contacted at rskidmor49@excite.com.
© Copyright 2003 by Magic City Morning Star
The second amendment is not incorporated. Any federal law passed under the second amendment applies only to the federal government, not the states. This was true with all other previously unincorporated amendments.
Assuming they were passed under an incorporated second amendment, do you think the 1968 GCA and the 1994 AWB needed to pass strict scrutiny? I don't. I think the USSC would rule that these two statutes merely had an incidental effect on the rights protected by the second amendment.
You're mixing apples and oranges, here. I'm done.
Quite true paulsen. Your fruit salad logic has been "done" to a turn.
How about the fruit salad questions?
What is the "current reality" of the second amendment? No, what is the "correct reading" of the second amendment? No, what is the "meaning" of the second amendment? No, what is your meaning of the second amensment? No, what do you think is the meaning of the second amendment?
Now, about the commerce clause .....
Like I said. I'm outa here.
But you'll be back, -- all too soon, -- with a complete memory loss of the trouncing your 'logic' has suffered in the past few days.
Disingenuous answers lead to more pointed questions.
Get used to it.
Here's a clue for you.
"But the present question is unconnected, with the former relations between G. B. and her Colonies, which were of a peculiar, a complicated, and, in several respects, of an undefined character. It is a simple question under the Constitution of the U. S. whether "the power to regulate trade with foreign nations" as a distinct & substantive item in the enumerated powers, embraces the object of encouraging by duties restrictions and prohibitions the manufactures & products of the Country? And the affirmative must be inferred from the following considerations: 1. The meaning of the Phrase "to regulate trade" must be sought in the general use of it, in other words in the objects to which the power was generally understood to be applicable, when the Phrase was inserted in the Constn.
2. The power has been understood and used by all commercial & manufacturing Nations as embracing the object of encouraging manufactures. It is believed that not a single exception can be named."
James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell
18 Sept. 1828
"But the present question is unconnected, with the former relations between G. B. and her Colonies, which were of a peculiar, a complicated, and, in several respects, of an undefined character. It is a simple question under the Constitution of the U. S. whether "the power to regulate trade with foreign nations" as a distinct & substantive item in the enumerated powers, embraces the object of encouraging by duties restrictions and prohibitions the manufactures & products of the Country? And the affirmative must be inferred from the following considerations:
1. The meaning of the Phrase "to regulate trade" must be sought in the general use of it, in other words in the objects to which the power was generally understood to be applicable, when the Phrase was inserted in the Constn.
2. The power has been understood and used by all commercial & manufacturing Nations as embracing the object of encouraging manufactures. It is believed that not a single exception can be named."
James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell
18 Sept. 1828
Oh no. I tried that, you see, with court cases.
Ken H then corrected me my stating, "correct reading = meaning". Meaning? OK, I gave him that, too.
Oh no, says he, "meaning" means your definition of meaning. OK, here it is.
Oh no, says he. "Meaning" means what you "think" the actual meaning .....
F#$% it. I just gave up. He's worse than MrLeRoy for stretching out a thread.
Too bad the Founding Fathers didn't say, "Congress has the power to encourage trade by regulation ..."
And too bad they didn't add, "... and Congress shall not regulate trade by restriction or banning."
I'm sure they meant to say this, they just forgot. Yeah, they forgot.
"Of course, the power to regulate commerce is the power to prescribe conditions and rules for the carrying-on of commercial transactions, the keeping-free of channels of commerce, the regulating of prices and terms of sale. Even if the clause granted only this power, the scope would be wide, but it extends to include many more purposes than these. ''Congress can certainly regulate interstate commerce to the extent of forbidding and punishing the use of such commerce as an agency to promote immorality, dishonesty, or the spread of any evil or harm to the people of other states from the state of origin. In doing this, it is merely exercising the police power, for the benefit of the public, within the field of interstate commerce.''
-- Brooks v. United States, 267 U.S. 432, 436 -437 (1925).
"Thus, in upholding a federal statute prohibiting the shipment in interstate commerce of goods made with child labor, not because the goods were intrinsically harmful but in order to extirpate child labor, the Court said: ''It is no objection to the assertion of the power to regulate commerce that its exercise is attended by the same incidents which attend the exercise of the police power of the states.''
-- United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 114 (1941).
Why is that too bad? You have before you a perfectly good explaination of exactly what was meant by the Commerce Clause, written by the man who authored the clause itself.
robertpaulsen also says the Second Amendment means the RKBA shall not be infringed by the Federal government.
Which is it?
450 posted on 06/10/2004 10:16:13 AM PDT by Ken H
___________________________________
Paulsen can't answer that question, so he keeps quoting the erroneous 'logic' that lead him to it.
Heres a prime example of this contradictory opinion:
''Congress can certainly regulate interstate commerce to the extent of forbidding and punishing the use of such commerce as an agency to promote immorality, dishonesty, or the spread of any evil or harm to the people of other states from the state of origin.
In doing this, it is merely exercising the police power, for the benefit of the public, within the field of interstate commerce.''
-- Brooks v. United States, 267 U.S. 432, 436 -437 (1925).
Bold statement, to claim Congress has the 'police power' to stop the "spread of evil" from State to State. --- To bad they don't use it to stop CA's evil idea of banning assault weapons from spreading. - Aye paulsen?
I'll assume you read the entire letter?
My take on it was that James Madison was explaining that 1) The U.S. Constitution granted Congress the power to impose import taxes for revenue generation. 2) It also granted Congress the power to regulate trade with foreign nations. 3) Therefore, Congress was certainly allowed to impose import taxes, not only for revenue generation, but also for the purpose of regulating trade.
He cited the fact that Great Britain did it, as did all countries (that he knew of) for the benefit of their own manufacturers.
Is this something you feel we should still be doing? Should we interpret the "correct reading" of the Commerce Clause in Madison's own words as an instrument to be used to protect our domestic manufacturers from foreign competition?
Maybe you see the contradiction in your position and don't have the honor to admit it?
I believe we do that now, to protect them from "dumping" and other predatory trade practices. IMHO, it would be a misuse to use it simply to give domestic manufacturers a trade advantage beyond the geographic advantage they already have. Such a practice would be counter to the intent, since it would disrupt the normal market competition that drives the creation of industry and manufacturing. That's the extent of the contribution I will make to changing the subject at hand.
He also stated explicitly that this had nothing to do with the questions as to the meaning of the Commerce Clause, so why are you trying to drag it into the discussion?
WHAT???
YOU brought it up. You cited his letter as a "clue" to the "correct reading" of the Commerce Clause in your post #466!
Now you're saying that "He also stated explicitly that this had nothing to do with the questions as to the meaning of the Commerce Clause"?
Is there something wrong with you?
You're going to educate me, you're going to give me a "clue", on the true meaning of the Commerce Clause, the "correct reading" if you will, by citing a small portion of a lettter by James Madison.
The portion that mentions the use of the Commerce Clause to encourage manufacturing.
But when I cite other parts of the same letter, those parts which illustrate that your portion was discussing protectionism, I'm berated for "dragging the rest of it in".
I gave you a link to information provided by the author of the Commerce Clause dealing directly with how the Constitution should be interpreted, and providing clarification as the the meaning of the Commerce Clause itself. So far your only interest in it has been to look for some way to dismiss it, and substitute someone else's opinion as being of more import.
I dismiss it because it gives one man's opinion of how the Commerce Clause can be used, not what it is, or how it should be used.
I agree that the Commerce Clause can be used this way and has been used this way. So?
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.