The Constitution's 27 Amendments: The ways we embrace their spirit every day

A nation is little more and nothing less than a conversation. Founded on an idea of common interests, established by laws intended to turn an assemblage into a unified people, the conversation that is the United States has continued for more than 200 years as a lover's quarrel between equality and justice.

ya beat me to posting this.

My fav, of course:

SECOND AMENDMENT (1791)

The original debate over the Second Amendment in 1789 did not focus on whether people should have the right to keep guns for themselves. In a nation abutting an unexplored frontier, guns were no more unusual a sight in a home than was a broom. Several states -- Pennsylvania was among the least ambiguous in its language -- proposed words explicitly granting the right to possess weapons for self-defense, defense of the state and hunting game. What the Congress debated, though, was whether citizens could be forced to carry a gun in military service. The amendment as first written contained language exempting religious objectors from bearing arms, language that was dropped after lengthy debate. Elbridge Gerry, a congressman from Massachusetts, worried in 1789 "that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the Constitution itself" by making state militias impossible. As finally adopted, the amendment seemed to predicate the right to bear arms on the need for a militia. It was not until 1803 that scholars expounded on the question of the Second Amendment as an individual right.

When she took up arms herself a few years back, Catherine Montest of Coraopolis "was scared to death" at the idea of carrying a gun. Her job in industrial sales sometimes took her to places she found worrisome. Her husband encouraged her to get training and now, on some travels, she takes along a handgun. "I've got these two really neat kids that I would like to come home to," she explains today. Like many in the midst of the debate over handguns, Montest believes the founders intended the Second Amendment as a guarantor of individual liberties. "You look at these amendments and they all speak to individual rights. It's not second by mistake. They put it up there right behind the First Amendment because it was that important. I don't think they randomly numbered them."

Amendment II: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Back to Main Story

That's the Post-Gazette alright, spewing liberal misinterpretation to the core.
Brainwashing the people into believing that the Constitution grants rights rather than protecting our inalienable rights from those who would abuse the power of government. That, and the usual liberal garbage about the 2nd Amendment empowering the government to form militias....

I knew I should've included a mega- ***BARF ALERT!!!*** in the title.
But I wasn't sure if the title would then be too long to post properly.

A nation is little more and nothing less than a conversation.

Until the bullet meets the bone, aye. There is more
to the United States than yak, yak. The Revolution
wasn't another British-North America Act such as
established Canadian sovereignty. As for this:

10: Rights of the states

Wednesday, November 27, 2002

10TH AMENDMENT (1791)

                 Amendment X: 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

                  A good example of powers remaining with the states can be found
                  hiding behind billboards and trees along any highway. Ever been
                  pulled over by the FBI for a moving violation?

                  Then why did it take Congress in 1994 to raise the speed limits?
                  This is one of the least egregious examples of federal usurpation
                  of state rights. In effect, the Tenth Amendment means whatever
                  the Feds think it means, ie nothing, and nothing more.

Amendments I would like to see:

Abolish the 17th. Senators to be selected by each state in the same manner as the passage of law. Senators to serve at the will of the State and my be removed by the State in like manner. Federal Senators and Congressmen shall not hold any other State or Federal office.

Reform the Electorial College. Each congressional district shall cast it's electorial vote for the candidate for President that receives the most votes within that district. Each state shall cast it's two remaining votes as thus, one vote cast by the Governer which shall be made public no more than 1 hour after casting, one vote awarded to the candidate who received the most votes throughout the entire state.

Abolish income tax. Replace with a National Sales Tax (note this is different from a retail tax).

Limit Congress's ability to spend. Require all expendatures and federal income to count towards a balanced budget. If during the previous year the budget was balanced, Congress may increase spending by no more than the rate of inflation by a majority vote. Any further increases would require a 60% vote. If NOT balanced, a decrease by no more than the rate of inflation shall AUTOMATICLY kick in if Congress fails to pass a budget. Any increase up to the rate of inflation would require a vote of 60% and any further increases would require a vote of 2/3rds.

Tort reform. Limits of acutal damages shall be limited to actual costs incured. Limits of punative damages shall be limited to the "value of life" which is defined as 3X either the annual income or life insurance carried by the individual whichever is higher.

Money reform. The currency of the United States shall be backed by commodities. Commodities may include any goods owned and unfettered by the US which can be sold on the open market within 30 days. All commodities so held shall be identified by their equilivant in gold and a total of all such holdings shall be published monthly. Congress shall set by law the number of dollars in circulation against such holdings.

Election reform. Require all voters in Federal elections to provide proof of residence, picture identification and elegibility to vote in Federal elections. Require voter registration rolls be "scrubbed" annually. Revoke voting rights to anyone who has been convicted of a Federal felony for the time in which they are incarcerated or on probation plus an additional 5 years.

Limit land holdings. Limit the ability of the Federal government to hold de facto any lands in excess of 10% of the total land mass in any State or territory.

I've got others but this will do for now

The Second Amendment contains only a single comma

Sorry, you are incorrect. There are three commas. See the following for a high resolution image of the Bill of Rights and see for yourself.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/high_resolution_images/us_bill_of_rights.jpg

Caution, it's over 8 megs. Our Second Amendment is actually listed as "Article the fourth". Two of the proceeding did not make it.

The article you quote states:

The answer to this question must be found in official records from the early days of the republic

Thus, I return to the ORIGINAL BILL OF RIGHTS. That document is the one I referenced in the high resolution picture is of the the ORIGINAL BILL OF RIGHTS. And according to that document, there are THREE commas.

Quote all the opinions you like. The facts are easy to determine by by anyone for themselves - by simply looking at the ORIGINAL BILL OF RIGHTS.

Then why did it take Congress in 1994 to raise the speed limits? This is one of the least egregious examples of federal usurpation of state rights. In effect, the Tenth Amendment means whatever the Feds think it means, ie nothing, and nothing more.

The way they were able to get around that is by tying it to spending. Instead of passing a law directly, Congress simply stated that states don't "have to" (wink wink, nudge nudge) keep speed limits at 55, but they won't get any federal highway funds if they fail to. Still unconstitutional, IMO, but harder to argue.

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.