Skip to comments.The U.S. Constitution [Misinterpreted] Online
Posted on 07/09/2004 9:19:09 AM PDT by tpaine
This website very insidiously interprets our US Constitution in a pro-Statist manner. IE --- "The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states."
"The Bill of Rights was understood, at its ratification, to be a bar on the actions of the federal government.
Many people today find this to be an incredible fact. The fact is, prior to incorporation, discussed below, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states."
It is incredible, seeing the author completely ignores the supremacy clause in Art. VI.
He then goes on to bash our 2nd Amendment:
"Recognizing that the need to arm the populace as a militia is no longer of much concern, but also realizing that firearms are a part of our history and culture and are used by many for both personal defense and sport, this site has proposed a new 2nd Amendment - an amendment to replace the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. This proposed text is offered as a way to spark discussion of the topic.
Section 1. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The right of the people to keep arms reasonable for hunting, sport, collecting, and personal defense shall not be infringed.
Section 3. Restrictions of arms must be found to be reasonable under Section 2 by a two-thirds vote of Congress in two consecutive sessions of Congress before they can be forwarded to the President for approval.
This proposed amendment is a truer representation of how our society views our freedom to bear arms. Because "reasonableness" can be far too elastic, the two-Congress restriction requires that two Congresses in a row pass the same bill - this allows both thoughtful reflection and for the opinions of the people, to be expressed between these votes, to be heard (both at the ballot box and in general). It is an unusual, but not unprecedented, way of passing legislation.
Finally, the courts would have the ultimate authority in determining if a restriction is not reasonable, providing a final layer of protection (after the two pairs of debate in the House and Senate and the President's own agreement). The militia is removed from the equation, greatly clarifying the purpose of the amendment.
Historical note: in Section 2, the "collecting" clause was added, and Section 3 is a replacement for "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation" after concerns over "reasonableness" were examined more fully.
Reasonable restrictions do seem to be the way to go, acknowledging the Amendment, but molding it, as we've done with much of the Constitution.
After all, we have freedom of speech in the United States, but you are not truly free to say whatever you wish. You cannot incite violence without consequence; you cannot libel someone without consequence; you cannot shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater without consequence. Why cannot gun ownership by similarly regulated without violating the Constitution?
The trick is finding that balance between freedom and reasonable regulation. Gun ownership is indeed a right - but it is also a grand responsibility. With responsibility comes the interests of society to ensure that guns are used safely and are used by those with proper training and licensing. If we can agree on this simple premise, it should not be too difficult to work out the details and find a proper compromise."
Know you enemy.. This man Steve Mount is NOT a friend of our Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at usconstitution.net ...
Thanks for the link, paulsen.
up your alley
First, I didn't give you this link. I referenced a different page.
Second, your link goes to the wrong page. The verbage you quoted comes from here. FReepers would be well advised to go to the correct page to see your excerpt in context.
Third, the author presents this scenario "as a way to spark discussion of the topic."
Fourth, I think the author is correct -- I think that our society views our freedom to bear arms as those arms "reasonable for hunting, sport, collecting, and personal defense". I believe that society neglects the fact that the primary purpose of the second amendment was to protect against tyranny.
The link I provided was for the others on this board -- here's yours.
His 'kiddy' interpretations of our Constitution are very slyly worded, I admit.
Mount is very good at his game. - You ever meet him paulsen?
This post is a mess. I suggest you have the mods pull it and start over. Please excerpt one cohesive piece of text. You have two different sections. And please save your editorializing for the Replies section of the thread.
Oh my. The Founding Fathers would be appalled.
"...The need to arm the populace...is no longer of much concern...?
I beg to differ. These are the most dangerous of times. Everyone needs a means of self defense. Instead of being discouraged, gun ownership should be mandatory.
Notice they want to 'replace' and not 'repeal' because when you repeal an amendment it stays in the constitution for future generations to see..
The average voter today can pass an 8th grade test from 1900, or read the Federalist papers, yea we are way more sophisticated.
I believe the complete phrase was, "... the need to arm the populace as a militia is no longer of much concern ..."
Given the fact that we now have a standing army, the reserves, and the National Guard, you still feel that we should organize, arm, and form a citizens militia? To fight ... who?
I mean, citizens should be armed, I agree. But the author was referring to a militia.
I see the usual 'reasonable' crowd is showing up to slag you.
The right to keep and bear arms is, as a matter of historical fact, SPECIFICALLY rooted in the natural right to defend against tyranny.
You know it; I know it; even the 'reasonable' bunch know it. They just deny it - that's all.
I wouldn't be surprised to wake up one morning in the near future to read some activist federal judge has found the Constitution to be unconstitutional.
Of course this is what they want with help from the UN and World Court.
Feel better? -- No, I think the Statists goal is to nail dowm majority control of ALL levels of local government.
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.