Posted on 02/08/2007 6:58:20 PM PST by Copernicus
"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution..."
The States, in adopting a Constitution, created the Federal government. The Constitution detailed the specific functions of that government, granted certain powers to it, and in some instances imposed restrictions on it.
"...expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers..."
These same States feared that the entity created by the Constitution (the Federal government), would use or misconstrue the powers granted to it by the States in their ratification of that same Constitution in an abusive manner. So, in order to stop that entity they created from engaging in that abusive misconstruing of its powers that they feared, they decided:
"...that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:"
The States added further declaratory and restrictive clauses to the instrument they authored which created the Federal government.
That "Convention of a number of States" was not adopting State Constitutions, they were adopting a Federal Constitution, so when they added "restrictive and declaratory clauses" to it, these clauses declared restrictions imposed on the Constitution being adopted, not the Constitutions already in existance...those of course being the Constitutions of the "number of States" mentioned in the first paragraph.
Why would the individual States need to meet in order to add "further declaratory and restrictive clauses" to their own individual Constitutions?
One State does not need the approval of another State to amend its own Constitution.
Learn to read Dead.
These were Rights that EVERY US Citizen would be able to see and know they have as being unalienable and protected at the highest levels of government on down.
That is what you keep missing and seem to hate with such a passion that you would spend thousands of posts lying about it on multiple threads.
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
[T]he people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized! Hamilton Federalist #28
"It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights, by many respectable gentlemen out of doors, and I find opposition on the same principles likely to be made by gentlemen on this floor, that they are unnecessary articles of a Republican Government, upon the presumption that the people have those rights in their own hands, and that is the proper place for them to rest. It would be a sufficient answer to say, that this objection lies against such provisions under the State Governments, as well as under the General Government: and there are, I believe, but few gentlemen who are inclined to push their theory so far as to say that a declaration of rights in those cases is either ineffectual or improper. It has been said, that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a call of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation; but they are not conclusive to the extent which has been supposed. It is true, the powers of the General Government are circumscribed, they are directed to particular objects; but even if Government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse to a certain extent, in the same manner as the powers of the State Governments under their constitutions may to an indefinite extent; because in the constitution of the United States, there is a clause granting to Congress the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the powers vested in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof; this enables them to fulfill every purpose for which the Government was established. Now, may not laws be considered necessary and proper by Congress, for it is for them to judge of the necessity and propriety to accomplish those special purposes which they may have in contemplation, which laws in themselves are neither necessary nor proper; as well as improper laws could be enacted by the State Legislatures, for fulfilling the more extended objects of those Governments. I will state an instance, which I think in point, and proves that this might be the case. The General Government has a right to pass all laws which shall be necessary to collect its revenue; the means for enforcing the collection are within the direction of the Legislature: may not general warrants be considered necessary for this purpose, as well as for some purposes which it was supposed at the framing of their constitutions the State Governments had in view? If there was reason for restraining the State Governments from exercising this power, there is like reason for restraining the Federal Government."
"...restraining the Federal Government."
You're failing miserably.
P.S. How is it that my arguing that the Bill of Rights denies the Federal government the people's ability to bear arms make me a gun grabber?
How is it that supporting strict constructionism make me a gun grabber?
Creating things from whole cloth I see."These were Rights that EVERY US Citizen would be able to see and know they have as being unalienable and protected at the highest levels of government on down."
So then, why the 14th Amendment?
Forgot that part did you?
Dumbass.
Because of people like you. Just that instead of hating people who own firearms, it was freed slaves.
Same anti-Rights principles as you have now.
That's a hoot!!!
You just make sh%t up as you go along, don't you?
You're an ignorant POS.
he's talking about the Constitutions of the several States you moron.
He wasn't. He was not at the BOR "convention", as you falsely claimed, nor was he a member of the Congress that ratified it, as you falsely claimed.
how did the wording for two of the Amendments he came up with end up in the Constitution?
Just when I think you couldn't be any more ignorant...
Here's the version of the 2nd Amendment your opponent of the Constitution signed:
"That each state, respectively, shall have power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia thereof, whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same. That the militia shall not be subject to martial law, but when in actual service, in the time of war, invasion, or rebellion; and when not in the actual service of the United States, shall be subject to such fines, penalties, and punishments, only, as shall be directed or inflicted by the laws of its own state: nor shall the militia of any state be continued in actual service longer than two months, under any call of Congress, without the consent of the legislature of such state, or, in their recess, the executive authority thereof."Wildly different, with NO mention of a right to keep and bear arms.
Gimme another squirm.
And he gets caught constantly.
I'm not lyuing, I'm pointing out where you're wrong.
I don't think that they understand the complexity of the difference between the pre and post Civil War United States.
The United States are...pre Civil War.
The United States is...post Civil War.
At the time when the Constitution was adopted, the States were nearly independent nations...The United States are.
After the Civil War, we became an "is".
"Before the war, it was said "the United States are." Grammatically, it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war, it was always "the United States is," as we say today without being self-conscious at all. And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an "is." -- Shelby Foote"It was a point of grammatical concord which was at the bottom of the Civil War — "United States are," said one, "United States is," said another." -- quoted in Soldier and Scholar: Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve and the Civil War by Ward W. Briggs Jr. (1998), p. 22
There was a time a few years ago when the United States was spoken of in the plural number. Men said "the United States are" — "the United States have" — "the United States were." But the war changed all that. Along the line of fire from the Chesapeake to Sabine Pass was settled forever the question of grammar. Not Wells, or Green, or Lindley Murray decided it, but the sabers of Sheridan, the muskets of Sherman, the artillery of Grant. ... The surrender of Mr. Davis and Gen. Lee meant a transition from the plural to the singular. —The Washington Post, Apr. 24, 1887, p. 4
The States adopting the Federal Constitution were a Band of States entering into a Confederation, while the Civil war turned us into Banded States under a Federal Union.
The Banded States distrusted the Federal government, and set in place "restrictive clauses" the called a Bill of Rights, to avoid the power they granted to the newly-created General government from being misconstrued or abused. It's ludicrous to argue that they went into the Constitutional Convention to set in place limitations to their own State Constitutions via the adoption of a Federal Constitution.
Dead and paine want to argue that the original intent of the Constitution should be interpreted not viewed in the light of the times that it was written, but according to the changed geopolitical landscape created by the Civil War.
It's like they want to be strict constructionists while standing in the wrong period of time.
Naw. I leave that up to your side. The facts are all on my side.
Find that "incorporation" statute in the Constitution yet? Or will you continue to ignore such a simple request?
You think this is a game? That this is for points or something? People have died for their freedoms. People have killed to retain them.
Don't be on the side that will try to kill others to take them away again.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States … Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America." Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789
You just ain't very good at this Roscoe. Stay in Kalifornistan . It suits you...
No. You are lying. Find that Article containing the "incorporation" statute yet?
Still, no one is preventing law-abiding entrepreneuers from becoming licensed gun dealers--just takes a little more work--something unscrupulous people might not bother with. Eighty-thousand gun shops seems like a whole lot and I don't see this as a legitimate gripe about the ATF. We all can buy guns at our local sporting goods store or go to a gun show.
Until they outlaw gun shows and the rest of the sporting goods stores stop selling them (as has been the trend).
With the ATF's track record of harassing, and in some cases (i.e., WACO), MURDERING and severely wounding innocent American citizens, OFTEN over TECHNICALITIES and trumped-up accusations and charges (and hyped-up search warrants) - the ATF SHOULD have been shut down YEARS ago.
Yes you are.
I'm arguing that the Federal government can't mess with our rights to bear arms because of the Second Amendment, and you morons call me a "Brady Buncher"...which is equating me to people who support unconstitutional gun-grabbing legislation passed by the Federal government.
Then I say that the Constitution didn't need to address the issue of bearing arms for the States because the State Constitutions had already done so, and for saying that, you call me ignorant, yet, that's exactly what happened.
You are ignorant because you think history is what you think that it is instead of what it really was, and that the country runs other than how it runs.
You're fixated on the word "incorporation" as if this word is a bad thing.
Incorporation is what the Courts call the method that they've used to make certain that the intent of the 14th Amendment is followed by the States, without the rights retained by the States being violated. It's a method to achieve the proper implementation of the 14th Amendment.
Now, if things were as you say that they were, then with the passing of the 14th Amendment, the Constitutions of the several States would become muted on the subject of arms, as all power would transfer to the Federal government. By NOT incorporating the Second Amendment, the Courts have effectively raised a wall of separation between the Feds and your guns. Additionally, if the Courts incorporate the Second, then all regulations on the subject of arms and citizens would emanate from the Federal level.
Maybe YOU want to place that much power on the Federal government, but I'd rather stay with the original plan as set up by the Founders, and keep the Feds out of it altogether.
So yes...you're both shortsighted and ignorant.
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.