Replies

You have to read up on the reason for the style of language used in The Bill.

The idea and fact was that all, all powers are derived not from the government, nor any document, or statement but from the people and from God. So it wasn't necessary to inform those that held that power, what their powers would be. Further the writers of The Bill of Rights thought of your approach and felt that if they got into that, that anything they didn't say, then people would assume that what was left out wasn't a popular right, but that it was, maybe, a govenmental right. So, they wanted to avoid that, both in language style and explicitly in the Tenth and the then last amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

This notion on non enumerated powers is now unknown in our lawyer, document and word rich legal culture. But, that is our present problem. And that is what you are asking for, a hundred thousand page manual of explicit orders down to the last degree, or as that Yale lawyer President said, and reflecting our present legal culture to include, ‘what is is.’

Thank you all for your comments. I see we have some that still are adamanet about the 2nd Amendment. Thank you. Believe me, I am with you in your fervor, however, I am also a realist in what we can get, and what we will get from Heller.

It is a begining and as with the CCW laws across the country, improvement in our situation will only come in increments.

But we must constantly remind the congresscritters that there is a real power they should listen to, and fear.

From your post 98:

"...thought of your approach..."

"...you are asking for, a hundred thousand page manual of explicit orders down to the last degree..."

From my posts:

"Can those currently in positions of leadership be expected to openly come out with such clarity if the Founders themselves were reluctant to clearly word the Amendment as follows:" (What followed is omitted for this post)

I have not claimed as mine any "approach" nor have I asked for "orders". I questioned whether current leadership can be expected to clearly state something when the Founders were reluctant to do so. I offered one example of what was not written because "the Founders themselves were reluctant" to do so. While I did not go into the reasons for that reluctance as you did, I did acknowledge it.

Whether or not "...those currently in positions of leadership (can) be expected to openly come out with such clarity if the Founders themselves were reluctant to..." has still not been addressed.