Posted on 03/19/2008 12:15:12 AM PDT by BellStar
"The people", the whole people" "the people at large", "freemen" and "freeholders" all referred to something else.
You can't make up your own definitions to suit your argument. Well, not with me you can't.
Evidence for this claim?
Methinks he's a contortionist.
I wonder who he thinks is allowed to peaceably assemble.
You are so very correct. I have heard the author Tom Clancy comment on this subject; and to paraphrase him, he stated that the military is pathological in it's loyalty to their command structure. And, he is correct as our military has a long history of complete obedience to it's civilian leadership with a few exceptions such as during the Civil War and of course there is The Emperor aka General MacArthur. But, back to the subject at hand, oher examples are the Branch Dividian Massacre and Ruby Ridge which was orchestrated by the FBI and ATF. Btw and just as a side note; if the Dem's should win the White House, the pro-gun contol bunch will be emboldened again and we can expect to see these sorts of incidents to occur again for sure...
It was the language they used at the time.
Well, let's see. The first amendment says "the people". So it would be the same group. As the U.S. Supreme Court said in United States v. Verdugo- Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990):
"While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that “the people” protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."
In other words, the enfranchised body politic. A class of persons. Not everyone.
Amendment 4:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, ..."
Obviously, this means that only males between the ages of 17 and 45 are protected.
Only adult, white, male citizens were protected by the fourth amendment back then.
Then it should be pretty easy for you to prove. Such proof should also include a citation of the case which reversed the exclusion of women such that they are now protected.
The DC Circuit Court in US v Parker stated:
"This proposition is true even though “the people” at the time of the founding was not as inclusive a concept as “the people” today. To the extent that non-whites, women, and the propertyless were excluded from the protections afforded to “the people” ...
That's all I need to prove my point.
The quote you supplied refers to the "extent" but does not describe the extent, nor does it prove that the Fourth Amendment was ever held to not apply to woman living alone.
It's no wonder you say so many ridiculous things if that is typical of your reasoning skills.
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.