Posted on 11/27/2002 9:29:42 AM PST by Willie Green
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:34:54 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at post-gazette.com ...
Due to the vast expanse of this coverage, I haven't examined the links in depth myself. But be warned: the Post-Gazette is Pittsburgh's LIBERAL news-rag. Conservative opinion is expressed in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
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.
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.
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.
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.
--Boris
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.
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.