Skip to comments.
Framers' intent still hotly debated
ARIZONA DAILY STAR ^
| 06.04.2006
| Ann Brown
Posted on 06/05/2006 12:35:33 PM PDT by neverdem
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 301 next last
To: Eastbound
My advice to anyone who wants to kill me: Pray that you're successful on your first attempt. YEAH!!! That's what I'm talkin' about!!
81
posted on
06/05/2006 1:35:15 PM PDT
by
CrawDaddyCA
(Free Travis McGee!!)
To: JamesP81
"
. . . What it DID NOT mean was that the militia answered to any elected or appointed government official. . . ."
James, I must disagree pointedly with this comment.
The following is from Article 1, Section 8 of the
United States Constitution
"
. . . The Congress shall have power to . . .
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
What the 2nd Amendment makes clear is that, in granting this power to regulate the militia to Congress, the people have not surrendered their right to keep and bear arms. The opening phrase "A well regulated militia . . ." only reaffirms what is already in the constitution itself.
To: E. Pluribus Unum
When the Constitution was written there was no standing army or National Guard such as there is today. When it was necessary to repel an invasion, riot, revolt or whatever, large or small, the Militia was called out. The Militia was everyone of age that could help to provide a defense. In order to have the Militia affective it was required that each member possess a gun. The "not to be infringed clause" was to prevent some political hack, that had mischief in mind, getting a law passed that prevented citizens from owning guns, thus pulling the teeth of the Amendment. It's just as applicable today as it was then. If the gun hating crowd wants to do away with the 2nd Amendment why don't they attempt to repeal it?
83
posted on
06/05/2006 1:35:50 PM PDT
by
ANGGAPO
(LayteGulfBeachClub)
To: StJacques
"Letters of Marque and Reprisal" are papers of authorization given by the government, which implies regulation, since the legitimacy of action derives from government sanction.Merchant owners already armed their vessels to defend against pirates.
84
posted on
06/05/2006 1:36:06 PM PDT
by
neverdem
(May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
To: StJacques
I never said the constitution prohibited the militia from serving the government. At its core, however, the militia remains a civilian organization, not a military one. That is the important distinction.
85
posted on
06/05/2006 1:38:24 PM PDT
by
JamesP81
To: Dead Corpse
". . . Letter's of M&R were authorization for privateers, already armed, to act on behalf of the government in a legal capacity. No more. No less. They were also loot sharing agreements as well. Government got its armed ships, Captains gave govt a cut of anything they captured."
Of course that's what they are and I didn't say anything to contradict that. The point is that those "letters" are issued by the federal government acting under constitutional authority (See Article 1, Section 8) which makes "Letters of Marque" an activity that is regulated.
To: neverdem
A Constitution that embraced precise concepts of the 18th century could not necessarily be applicable to a society dependent on cell phones and Blackberrys. I see this line of thinking quite a bit, and it never fails to exasperate me. The Constitution did NOT "embrace precise concepts of the 18th century." It's not as if the document contains specific requirements for wagon construction or detailed regulations for sailing ship operations.
The Constitution outlines very general, universal principles and guidelines. Power should be separated among several branches. The people should have representation in government. Power should be limited and delegated. Citizens in a Union should be treated equally no matter what part of the Union they happen to be in. The Federal level of government should be supreme in its sphere of delegated authority, and the states (or people) in all others.
The Constitution consists of basic guidelines for the structure and power of government, based on observation of history and human nature. These are not concepts that only apply to the 18th century or that become less valid with trivial developments in technology or culture. I have a hard time believing the Framers, living in the midst of the Enlightenment, couldn't foresee and didn't plan for human progress.
87
posted on
06/05/2006 1:40:37 PM PDT
by
timm22
(Think critically)
To: neverdem
Framers' intent still hotly debatedNot in my household. :)
88
posted on
06/05/2006 1:41:15 PM PDT
by
Recovering_Democrat
(I am SO glad to no longer be associated with the party of "dependence on government"!)
To: JamesP81
"I never said the constitution prohibited the militia from serving the government. At its core, however, the militia remains a civilian organization, not a military one. That is the important distinction."
I got that James. And I don't think you and I are as far apart as some might believe, because you may have read that I am among the first in this thread to make clear that the "militia" are the "law-abiding citizenry."
I can see you're passionate about this issue and I do not object to "passion in defense of liberty" one bit. Keep on goin'!
To: neverdem
This isn't a rant against you personally, just something I feel about guns and the Constitution.
An Amendment to the Constitution stands as strong as the original articles of the Constitution and the Supreme Court has NOTHING to say about an amendment whatsoever. Leaving an interpretation of any part of the Constitution, other than a very basic literal interpretation is dangerous and is not warranted. Bringing 'intent' and interpretation/modernization/evolution of circumstances is pure BS.
I personally believe the US Constitution is the product of persons with inspiration from a 'higher power' and it does not need determination of intent, divining of "what they would think given the evolution of science/history since then", et. al.
The 2nd amendment guarantees this right to firearms and you can't perfume the liberal lefts' feces-laden attempts enough to where it can pass the basic "smell test"
90
posted on
06/05/2006 1:45:05 PM PDT
by
Gaffer
To: neverdem
Ashcroft settled this when he was AG. If the Second Ammendment secures a "collective" right, then so do the other 9 in the Bill of Rights.
To: StJacques
They were permission slips to be pirates. Without which, their actions would have been criminal. If you want to call that "regulation", then whatever flips your trigger.
Inactive militia do not lose their Right to Arms just because they are not serving in an official capacity. The 20k+ laws on the books are by and large entirely unConstitutional and need to go away.
Laws governing the drill, arms, uniform of the day, ect... are all parts of the Militia Act of 1792 and also quite clear that they only pertain to people acting AS an active duty militia.
92
posted on
06/05/2006 1:45:48 PM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
To: neverdem
If the Libs want gun control, fine! They can give up their guns and give them to us.
To: StJacques
Well regulated menas straight shooting in the parlance oif the day
94
posted on
06/05/2006 1:47:37 PM PDT
by
statered
("And you know what I mean.")
To: Dead Corpse
"They were permission slips to be pirates. Without which, their actions would have been criminal. If you want to call that "regulation", then whatever flips your trigger. . . ."
Since it would have been illegal for Americans to act without the letters, then the activity is regulated.
To: Little Ray
Actually, the framer's intent is only unclear to folks who WANT it unclear. For everbody else, there are the Federalist Papers, which make the intent very clear indeed. Exactly correct.
96
posted on
06/05/2006 1:50:38 PM PDT
by
RJL
To: NY.SS-Bar9
When he was saying the Constitution is flexible, I think he means that it embodies a set of principles that have diverse application, even in issues that could not have been imagined by the authors.
97
posted on
06/05/2006 1:53:25 PM PDT
by
Still Thinking
(Disregard the law of unintended consequences at your own risk.)
To: StJacques
Yeah... piracy is generally frowned on. Not so much "regulated" as "unlawful" or "banned".
Of course, with todays asset forfeiture laws, it's kinda hard to remember who the bad guys are.
Also, those Letters were given to Captains and companies whose ships were already armed as the new FedGov couldn't field enough armed ships to fight. Using those cannons in self defense on the high seas wasn't a "regulated" event, nor was simple possession of said cannons. Only being able to attack openly your Nations enemies ships was "regulated" as you put it.
98
posted on
06/05/2006 1:53:48 PM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
To: lemura
Thanks. I was looking for those references (Tribe, Dershowitz) but could not find them.
99
posted on
06/05/2006 1:54:25 PM PDT
by
E. Pluribus Unum
(Islam Factoid:After forcing young girls to watch his men execute their fathers, Muhammad raped them.)
To: Dead Corpse
Just a point of no particular significance here, but which I offer to show some personal understanding of this, my Great-Great-Great Grandfather Perre Daspit de St. Amand, served with Jean Lafitte, who was granted Letters of Marque and Reprisal. And we're quite proud of him in my family.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 301 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson