Why didn't they say the freedom to print newspapers? The right to free political speech? The right to keep and bear muskets? The power to foster commerce among the several states? And a whole bunch of others.
They'd already defined that stuff.
Because they wanted to leave some flexibility. If the definition of "the people" changed, then it was easy to implement. But in 1792, they did not mean "all persons" or even "all citizens". That was the original meaning of "the people" in 1792.
Of course they did! The Constitution and Bill of Rights was, as I've said, anti-Fed. It was designed to place restrictions upon the government, not upon growth and change of the new country and it's body politic. They doubtless foresaw this.
Ever wonder why your chosen group was thusly construed? Quite apart from the issue of slavery, women had an entirely different role at that time in history. The "working poor" (and the non-working, for that matter), really had other things on their mind, methinks. The most productive, the most successful, were invariably very able-bodied men (who, perchance, happened to be white), and thus most likely to participate in the schemes of society, as their self-interest was most likely at stake. Yes, there were built-in prejudices in society at that time, but that notwithstanding, the framework was laid for successive generations to expand upon and build on that which the Founders produced.
Now, if you believe in a living, breathing constitution that means whatever we want it to mean, by all means, speak up and say so. That IS what you believe, isn't it?
No, I'm not a proponent of that school of thought, but in the above paragraph you yourself give legitimacy to the idea of "change" for definitions to reflect political realities of the time.
"All those founders whose quotes I’ve offered up time and again refer to the “militia” as “all the people”."
Ah, no. First of all they never said, "all the people". Second, the term "the people" meant something very specific -- perhaps if they used the term "enfranchised body politic" it would have been clearer. Third, they could not have meant "all the people" since so many people were excluded from the protection of the right.
Ah, yes!
George Mason: "I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
Representative Williamson: "The burden of the militia duty lies equally upon all persons"
Joseph Story (Supreme Court Justice): "The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally...enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..."
You get the idea, I'm sure....
"why would they take this hard-ass view of the federal government, and give state governments, who are just as prone to abuse by it’s political elite as the feds, a pass?"
Because they trusted their state and had much more contol over it. If you think about it, they WERE the state.
These wealthy, white, male, citizen landowners were the only voters. Are they going to vote to take away their own guns? Most state constitutions didn't even protect arms. Again, who's going to write a state law taking them away?
You are getting closer, robertpaulsen. As I've stated before, they did what they felt they were politically capable of doing. They felt they could best bring their vision into existence by acknowledging, and using, their political capital on the political realities of the time.
They knew, to a man, they could not rework society as it was then. What they could do was give their vision of the birthing nation a chance.
No, they didn't piss off the landowners and the powerful. Why do that? That's committing political hari-kari. They were way too smart for that. Rather, they used the politically powerful as the springboard for the bold and exciting experiment. That's just astute politics, that's all.
Likewise, the use of the term "militia" was undoubtedly used to sway wavering members of the several states to buy what they were trying to sell.
"Utilizing them was the plan our Founders had for repelling enemies, both Foreign and Domestic?"
That was the plan.
Not your best response. Or, most cogent.
CA....
Code words for a "living" constitution.
"You get the idea, I'm sure...."
Yes, that you're spreading sand and tap-dancing. I repeat, none of your quotes said quote-unquote "all the people".