Posted on 12/14/2010 4:30:58 AM PST by marktwain
Every other amendment in the Bill of Rights protects the individual. It is ridiculous for Breyer to suggest that this one amendment is a “group” right for the states and not to the people.
The liberals always have to reach to reach their conclusions. They have to reach to get abortion into the constitution and to keep the right to bear arms out of the constitution. It’s reading what you want it to say and not what it says.
On Sunday, they quoted from his book, and while I don’t have the exact quote, it said that the constitution has unchanging values that must be waveringly applied. Something foolish and contradictory like that. A bowl of mush where only the judges are empowered.
The fact is, it, like so much else in the Constitution, was a compromise, an agreement, a pact, a social contract. It's the Constitution, it's the law, it's the very foundation of the law, and Breyer and the others can't wish it away by the bizarre argument that Madison didn't like it in 1788.
In fact, Madison's objection to a Bill of Rights was that it would itself lead to precisely this scenario - that a group of revisionists so inclined would hold that the rights enumerated therein were the only rights the people held. Worse, Breyer and his fellows now insist that even these are negotiable. If they think Madison would agree with them on the matter they're very, very mistaken.
I’m convinced that the time has come for a Constitutional Convention.
Let me first say that I DO NOT BELIEVE for an instant that any ConCon could simply erase the existing Constitution and substitute a new one. Not possible.
The ConCon was included in Article V so that the states themselves could propose Amendments, especially those Amendments that Congress would refuse to consider. (Term limits, anyone?)
Whether the ConCon proposes Amendments or attempts to fully rewrite the sacred document (good luck with that!), there is still the small matter of ratification by the Several States. They can propose any damn thing they like but WE have to agree to it.
That being said, perhaps we do need a substantial rewrite. The thieves now in office obviously have no respect for the Constitution, because they twist it and ignore it daily. (Yes Nancy, we ARE serious!) Therefore, it would be difficult in the extreme to force Congress back into the box that the Framers built for it. So perhaps we do need something more substantial than just a few Amendments, though that would be a great place to start.
And if we were presented with a substantial rewrite, then a new series of Federalist Papers would be needed to explain everything, in fine detail. That would be a very good thing, in my humble opinion.
We can no longer trust our government. Perhaps we need to roll up our sleeves and get dirty with a new Constitutional Convention. What’s the worst that could happen? That Congress would ignore the new Constitution, too?
Then we would see how far the Second Amendment could REALLY take us!
What a bunch of horse shit but what do you expect to come from a horses ass?
ConCon ping!
There were a lot more people than Madison involved in authoring and approving the Constitution and its Bill of Rights.
And then Breyer goes on to imply that the Constitution grants rights to the people? That is patently false, and he should know that.
Breyer is either totally ignorant, or totally disingenuous. In either case, he is acting as Tyranny's Apologist. It's just breathtaking how such unamerican thinking is so commonplace among Breyer and his ilk on the Left.
Bryer is ASSUMING the states provided the firearms too!!!
the states were/are dependent on citizens to INDIVIDUALLY own their own firearms.
Bryer should step down.
Resignation is the only cure for such professional stupidity.
Bryer is an insult to all judges, lawyers, and citizens in general.
Bryer is relying on the book that turned out to be a complete fabrication about gun ownership in colonial america.
very good.
and thank you Patrick Henry - for forcing the issue with virginia and New York ratification.
(both states interestingly signed a conditional ratification - retaining the right to seceed if the federal government did not meet certain criteria.)
and Wallace let him. At the end he addressed him as “dear friend”. Disgusting.
I vaguely recall this. What book was that?
The thing that Justice Breyer and all the other Prorgressive losers might want to ponder: It doesn’t matter WHAT they think the 2nd A says. What matters is what WE think it says. If we are willing to take the opinion of “FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS” they are going to have a tough time.
Sorry, but this is the totally WRONG direction to take.
A constitutional convention would open the door to rewriting almost all of the structure we have today, INCLUDING the 2A and the other parts of the Bill of Rights and restructure the framework now.
To open that Pandora's Box of what could happen if the liberals gain control of the convention is traumatic to contemplate. Imagine a Senator for life, or a POTUS for life being put into the 'new' constitution.
Imagine a Bill of Rights re-written to eliminate the 2nd, 5th, the 10th, and include gay marriage, abortion and illegal amnesty.
I don’t remember the name of the book. It was written by some ivy league who faked inheritance documents and made insane leaps in logic to argue that firarms were rare in colonial america.
From the description, I assume he's talking about Michael Bellesiles' Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture, the methodology of which has been shown to be faulty, and the way in which he did it fraudulent.
He said historians would side with him in the case because they have concluded that Founding Father James Madison was more worried that the Constitution may not be ratified than he was about granting individuals the right to bear arms.
So let me get this straight: Breyer says that Madison didn't want the 2nd Amendment, but its there because Madison wanted the thing passed.
I find a number of things wrong with this:
1. I've never seen a single quote from anything that Madison wrote which backs up Breyer's point of view.
2. Even assuming that Breyer is right about Madison, IT DOESN'T MATTER - because Madison was only 1 person, and the Constitution had to be ratified by the legislatures of 9 states.
3. However, Breyer CANNOT be right, because the 2nd Amendment was ADDED to the Constitution AFTER IT WAS RATIFIED - just like the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments (to pick a few with important rights protected therein). Madison's intention as to the body of the Constitution is IMMATERIAL to whatever amendments were passed thereafter. Oh, and just for the fun of it, let's remember that ALL of the states ratified the 2nd Amendment (along with the rest of the B.O.R.).
4. Since the 2nd was properly ratified (not one single person that I know of has ever challenged this fact), it is PART OF THE CONSTITUTION. Breyer took and oath to uphold the entire document. The Constitution is not a buffet, from which you're permitted to pick and choose what you like and forget about the rest - ALL of it must be enforced as the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.
5. In point of fact, Madison penned the "Federalist Papers" #46, which is a very eloquent explanation of why the federal government should not have a monopoly of force and why the federal government in such a system COULD NOT impose its will on the states (something about 500,000 armed people vs. a federal army of 30,000 maximum, all in a country of roughly 3 million people).
6. Rights are PRE-EXISTING, NOT granted by the Constitution. Breyer knows this, and is being a lying, statist sack'o'shiite for not acknowledging this. He knows very well that the Constitution was, effectively, the birth certificate or employment contract for the federal government - and its powers derive FROM THE PEOPLE. How could the people give the federal government the right to use weapons in furtherance of its mandated duties if the people themselves didn't have that right in the first place? What else could support the Army, etc. having guns and other weapons, the Divine Right of Tyrants?
7. The fact of the matter is that the Constitution is a compact - i.e. a contract - between the people and the federal government. If the 2nd (or any other part of the B.O.R.) is ignored, then the whole document is void, since the states only ratified the main document based on the solemn promise that something like the B.O.R. would be passed by Congress and sent to the states. Had they failed to do so in the 1st Session of Congress, the union between the states would have been destroyed in its cradle.
Based solely on his statements contained in that interview, Breyer should be impeached for knowingly failing to uphold the Constitution, and thereby betraying his oath.
A Con-Con would be a disaster. Change the membership in the Congress and state legislatures to be mostly originalists concerned with maximizing freedom at the expense of federal power, and I’ll change that opinion. Until then, DON’T DO IT! We’ll end up with a statist, anti-freedom document that will crush our posterity.
Bottom line is the accuracy of his argument is irrelevant. If the Second Amendment was the price of getting it ratified, the Second Amendment was the price of getting it ratified. So what? Besides, how can we now rip off the people who agreed to the Constitution only because of 2A inclusion? That would mean they’re expected to hold up their end of the deal without getting the price they agreed upon.
"the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition"
This has been effectually accomplished from the beginning, but as there is legitimate fear over its acquiescence on the part of those who desire more, a civilian rose-by-any-other-name has been proposed and welcomed by many.
"That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism."
Well, it has taken a while, but it is certainly a sobering and present fear on the part of many.
"This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men."
He may be fine with his percentages of people under arms and militias to oppose them (and the favorable ratio for the latter), but his number are off a good bit. Just picking.
"the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed,"
Here is the real rub - he did not foresee the death of federalism. Thankfully, we are seeing it alive and well in some quarters, and perhaps the lesser magistrate will be able to say NO to the central government. But it is a little understood concept by the masses.
"Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it."
Madison is one of my favorite Americans, but he did miss it on some issues.
Looking at the current map of party control of state legislatures, I would have not a lot of fear of ratification of things such as you imagine. Even in less optimistic times, the state legislatures would have a hard time with them.
See below:
http://www.ncsl.org/tabid/21253/default.aspx
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.