If you were an alien from another planet trying to catch up on Earth history, I think a reasonable question would be:
"An amendment? The fundamental check on the government power was the second afterthought?"
We know that it wasn't an "afterthought," because the Federalist Papers show the debate that occurred between the issue of forming a standing army vs. the check on it via the local militia, and how this interplays with the fear of an unscrupulous executive.
See my summary from 2006 in this thread.
-PJ
Not second. The original Bill of Rights had 12 Amendments. What is now the 2nd was the 3rd (or 4th) when drafted.
Not second. The original Bill of Rights had 12 Amendments. What is now the 2nd was the 3rd (or 4th) when drafted.
We'd all be better off if those amendments had never been written. Regardless of "original intent," it was inevitable that eventually they would have been interpreted as government grants of rights which the government had the authority to impose on states and localities (via federal action against prayers at football games or principals editing obscenities out of student newspapers).
The original seven articles merely created and described a new federal government. The "bill of rights" turned it into a document of political philosophy . . . a philosophy that has done nothing but mischief.
>>”An amendment? The fundamental check on the government power was the second afterthought?”
Because civilized people talk through their differences (1st amendment) before they start shooting.