Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think they would be shocked by what has happened in Washington DC. That citizens would actually vote for a man based only on his race and not care about anything else.
The Founders would not be surprised at all, though, that citizens attack Obama based only on his race and do not care about anything else. The founders didn't even allow citizens to vote at all, based only on race, gender, or property ownership.
I think they would be shocked by what has happened in Washington DC. That citizens would actually vote for a man based only on his race and not care about anything else.
The Founders would not be surprised at all, though, that citizens attack Obama based only on his race and do not care about anything else. The founders didn't even allow citizens to vote at all, based only on race, gender, or property ownership.
That's just so much class-warfare saber-rattling. Democracy evolved toward greater articipation because human progress gave more people the opportunity to participate concerned with something to lose rather than using the ballot to loot the public treasury,
The real malcontents who seekto turn back the clock are out there in Left field ... as usual.
.......... BTW, the writings in the Constitution make me think that they had particular methods at that time for calling up and arming the militia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Would you mind expanding on that question?
Article I, Section 8. This section describes the powers of Congress. Some of the powers reserved to the Congress are:
Quote:
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
That seems like a lot of stuff about the military being written into the Constitution, especially when you consider how many things are left out, barely mentioned, or so vague as to leave us with 200 years of debate about the meaning.
The specific term Militia is used twice, and at one point the Congress has empowered itself to arm the Militia, which should cause a lot of debate regarding the intent of the 2nd Amendment.
That seems like a lot of stuff about the military being written into the Constitution, especially when you consider how many things are left out, barely mentioned, or so vague as to leave us with 200 years of debate about the meaning.
The specific term Militia is used twice, and at one point the Congress has empowered itself to arm the Militia, which should cause a lot of debate regarding the intent of the 2nd Amendment.
This is a great example of where "original intent" is meaningless. The Framers have essentially written, Congress you can declare war when or for any reason you deem fit, you can tax and spend whatever you feel like to raise an army and a navy, make up any rules that you like about how those forces will be governed, and use the militia to execute any law, or suppress anything that is considered an insurrection (so much for the argument regarding the right to use arms to oppose the government).
Article I, Section 8. This section describes the powers of Congress. Some of the powers reserved to the Congress are:
That seems like a lot of stuff about the military being written into the Constitution, especially when you consider how many things are left out, barely mentioned, or so vague as to leave us with 200 years of debate about the meaning.
The specific term Militia is used twice, and at one point the Congress has empowered itself to arm the Militia, which should cause a lot of debate regarding the intent of the 2nd Amendment.
Given that the constituion was a result of the failure of the decentralized Articles of Confederation, it isn't much of a surprise that a central army controlled by congress. There were armed conflicts between states under the Articles which did not give the central government the powers to enforce its own policy.
The whole idea of the constitution was to *fix* a problem and rethink a philosophy which wasn't working and it stands to reason that the most dangerous things would be prevented by being clearly spelled out.
Yes, there were people who still opposed it, but while they were vocal and local, they were moving against the tide.
There were armed conflicts between states under the Articles which did not give the central government the powers to enforce its own policy.
It was Shay's Rebellion and impending financial collapse and the realization that there was nothing the national government could do about either that brought Hamilton, Madison, Edmund Randolph, and John Dickinson to petition the Continental Congress the authority to address the flaws of the Articles of Confederation or as Hamilton's original request stated, "to devise such provisions as should appear to then be necessary to render the constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies of the union." The petition was granted "for the sole and expressed purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to the Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provision..." Of course Madison, Hamilton, Rudolph, Gouverneur Morris, James Wilson, or Robert Morris had any intention of obeying such limitations as it was their expressed intent to completely do away with the Articles of Confederation and replace it with a constitutional federal republic with the powers adequate to the exigencies of a national government.
suppress anything that is considered an insurrection (so much for the argument regarding the right to use arms to oppose the government).
That's not the only possible interpretation. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights states that the Ten Amendments (including the Second) were added , in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Constitution's] powers.
In other words, to empower a "second amendment remedy" if the seated government attempted to misconstrue or abuse its Constitutional powers. Such as, to use its power in a manner inconsistent with those goals set forth by the Preamble to the Constitution itself. Namely, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty
In reality, those five goals ARE the Constitution, and what follows is basically boilerplate describing mechanical procedures of governance.
That's one of the attributes that interpretations share with opinions... everyone has one.
Quote:
The Preamble to the Bill of Rights states that the Ten Amendments (including the Second) were added , in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Constitution's] powers.
In other words, to empower a "second amendment remedy" if the seated government attempted to misconstrue or abuse its Constitutional powers. Such as, to use its power in a manner inconsistent with those goals set forth by the Preamble to the Constitution itself. Namely, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty
In reality, those five goals ARE the Constitution, and what follows is basically boilerplate describing mechanical procedures of governance.
The problem with this "interpretation" is that it ignores the fact that the boiler place establishes a bi-cameral legislature, invested the Executive with the power to veto legislation and established an independent judiciary with the implied and now firmly established power to strike down any action by either of the two co-equal branches of government which violate those rights and privileges.
Having established such a structure of checks and balances and considering the role that actual insurrection played as an impetus for creating a federalist republic in the first place, I find your argument a bit underwhelming. If there is to be an interpretation along this line however, it would be in the context of Hamilton's response to the establishment of state militias under federal control. In this case Hamilton in Federalist 28 outlines that due to dispersion of the armed power in the several states, the power of a despotic national government would be checked by such a dispersion while at the same time stressing that national authority over all militia's mitigated the power of a state to run rough shod over it's citizens.
It is truly interesting how that has played out over the years.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
