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.
Diane Feinstein finds the "originalist judicial philosophy" troubling. The idea "that judges should evaluate our constitutional rights and privileges as they were understood in 1789" disturbs her, because she feels it "ignores the intent of the framers that the Constitution would be a framework on which to build" and "severely limits the genius" of what our Constitution upholds."
The irony is that the republican form - which existed BEFORE the USCON - is the source of ENDOWED RIGHTS (LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY, ETC), and not the USCON.
Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, governments are instituted among men to SECURE ENDOWED RIGHTS (not "constitutional rights " aka "privileges").
However, consenting to be governed, as in asserting citizenship, abrogates endowed rights. This was known since 1776, when the Founders pledged their lives, their fortunes and sacred honor, in forming the government. And if you don't quite grasp what that means, the Founders basically surrendered their endowed rights to life, liberty and property. . . stepped down in status. . . to become servants of the people. And all citizens do likewise, which explains MANDATORY CIVIC DUTIES that would be a violation of endowed rights if CONSENT was not present.
What else do you call mandatory militia duty - the obligation to train, fight, and die on command?
All male citizens are the militia, and have NO ENDOWED RIGHTS.
NADA.
BUMPKISS.
NOUGHT.
“It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
- - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.
[... Every citizen ... owes a portion of his property ... and services in defense ... in the militia ... from 18 to 50 years of age... ]
Art. 1, Sec. 8, USCON (1789)
Congress shall have power ... To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
Title 10 USC Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of ALL able-bodied MALES at least 17 years of age and, ... under 45 years of age who are ... CITIZENS of the United States
IN SHORT,
The American citizen has no endowed right to life, nor liberty, nor absolute ownership because, as a subject, he can be ordered to train, fight, and die, on command (militia duty), and was obligated to give up a portion of his property (taxes, etc).
Of course, those who did not consent to be governed, retain their endowed rights under the republican form, as promised in Art. 4, Sec. 4, USCON.
" PERSONAL LIBERTY, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
- - - 16 Corpus Juris Secundum, Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.
LIFE, LIBERTY, and PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP are SACRED RIGHTS, not dependent upon the constitution!
No government instituted to secure endowed rights can infringe, restrict or tax them... except by consent of the governed. Once you consent to be governed, shut up, sit down, pay and obey.
If it was intended never to be changed, why was it written in a way that allows it to be amended?
Explain to me rationally, what amendment changed the 2nd Amendment to say what it does today:
"""Militias are illegal as the Police State has replaced the Free State. The privilege of citizens 21 years or older that are non-felons and mentally sane, may keep in their dwelling, but not bear, the small arms the federal government allows. This may be altered anytime the federal government feels threatened by the citizens & people."""
The right to keep the small arms, the government grants us the privilege of having, is what it is today.
If it was intended never to be changed, why was it written in a way that allows it to be amended?
There is a way for it to be changed. That way is not me draping myself in a black robe and ruling the second amendment only applies to the national guard or only protects arms in mass circulation at the time of my decision.
What was the original intent of the constitutional amendment? To provide for a volunteer militia.
Nonsense. The mention of a militia in the 2nd, is merely to explain WHY the right shall not be infringed. It was not to mandate a militia, or provide for a militia.
The original intent of the 2nd amendment was to prevent government from doing ANYTHING to take away or restrict someone from owning and carrying a gun or other such weapon. The included explanation, does not add or subtract from the command. No matter how many liberals afraid of guns, try to pretend it does.
So where are all these 'originalists" clamoring for the disolution of the army and air force? I don't remember them being mentioned in the constitution. I do remember that a lot, if not all, of the framers thought that a standing army was anathema to a free republic thus the second amendment and its wording.
So where are all these 'originalists" clamoring for the disolution of the army and air force? I don't remember them being mentioned in the constitution. I do remember that a lot, if not all, of the framers thought that a standing army was anathema to a free republic thus the second amendment and its wording.
Have you read the preamble? "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union ...provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty ..."
How do you do that without defense?
Article II Section 2 The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States ....
Of course, we do not really know how the Framers wished for the document they wrote to be interpreted. Did they intend for the 'originalist' philosophy? Or did they lean towards 'textualism'? Or were the Framers more pragmatic?
It is difficult, I believe, to correctly and unerringly peer into the mind of a man from the 1780s. Indeed, it would be simpler if the Constitution was written by one man, and not a committee of men, whom all had different ideas about how the Constitution should be drafted (recall, they actually met to 'fix' the Articles of Confederation, but ended up tossing the Articles out; it was our first Constitutional Convention).
What did 'liberty' mean back then? What did "Arms" mean? What did "Equal" mean?
Without writing much more, I feel that one way to interpret words and phrases is by the broad intention. "Press", back in the 1780s, had a very limited meaning to the Framers: essentially, broadsheets (the early newspapers), pamphlets and books. Yet, I have never had a problem with interpreting "Press" in our modern age as indicating the 'means' by which the 'fourth estate' reports on the activities of our representatives in Government, whether it be by the printed word, electronic word, and the spoken word over radio or television.
Agree 100%. There's no way to divine what the 'intent' of the Founders was. And who cares anyway? It's not like they were all-wise oracles.
Nevertheless, we need to have an objective way to interpret the law. The only logical way is to go by the actual meaning of the words in today's common usage. This is true textualism, and not originalism.
Diane Feinstein finds the "originalist judicial philosophy" troubling. The idea "that judges should evaluate our constitutional rights and privileges as they were understood in 1789" disturbs her, because she feels it "ignores the intent of the framers that the Constitution would be a framework on which to build" and "severely limits the genius" of what our Constitution upholds."
This is liberal gobbledygook. She believes, as do all progressives, in the "living document" lie, a term coined by Woodrow Wilson, with absolutely no basis in historical evidence. The founders wrote a document that was intended to be interpreted as written, which is why it has survived for nearly 230 years.
Her view of the Constitution would allow the Second Amendment to be applied only to "non-military use" weapons (an idea that has actually been put forth in one Northeastern State), or repealed altogether. It is a dangerous view that could result even in the repeal of the First Amendment, which isn't too far fetched, considering many college campuses are already restricting the free speech of students.
This idea must be rejected out of hand, and the Constitution defended, as written, and interpreted as written.
As a citizen without property, I consider the Constitution a morally illegitimate document imposed on landless citizens without their advice or consent.
If you can tell us when landless citizens consented to be governed by the Constitution, I'd love to see it.
The irony is that the republican form - which existed BEFORE the USCON - is the source of ENDOWED RIGHTS (LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY, ETC), and not the USCON.
Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, governments are instituted among men to SECURE ENDOWED RIGHTS (not "constitutional rights " aka "privileges").
However, consenting to be governed, as in asserting citizenship, abrogates endowed rights. This was known since 1776, when the Founders pledged their lives, their fortunes and sacred honor, in forming the government. And if you don't quite grasp what that means, the Founders basically surrendered their endowed rights to life, liberty and property. . . stepped down in status. . . to become servants of the people. And all citizens do likewise, which explains MANDATORY CIVIC DUTIES that would be a violation of endowed rights if CONSENT was not present.
What else do you call mandatory militia duty - the obligation to train, fight, and die on command?
All male citizens are the militia, and have NO ENDOWED RIGHTS.
NADA.
BUMPKISS.
NOUGHT.
“It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
- - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.
[... Every citizen ... owes a portion of his property ... and services in defense ... in the militia ... from 18 to 50 years of age... ]
Art. 1, Sec. 8, USCON (1789)
Congress shall have power ... To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
Title 10 USC Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of ALL able-bodied MALES at least 17 years of age and, ... under 45 years of age who are ... CITIZENS of the United States
IN SHORT,
The American citizen has no endowed right to life, nor liberty, nor absolute ownership because, as a subject, he can be ordered to train, fight, and die, on command (militia duty), and was obligated to give up a portion of his property (taxes, etc).
Of course, those who did not consent to be governed, retain their endowed rights under the republican form, as promised in Art. 4, Sec. 4, USCON.
" PERSONAL LIBERTY, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
- - - 16 Corpus Juris Secundum, Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.
LIFE, LIBERTY, and PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP are SACRED RIGHTS, not dependent upon the constitution!
No government instituted to secure endowed rights can infringe, restrict or tax them... except by consent of the governed. Once you consent to be governed, shut up, sit down, pay and obey.
So USCON turned our ENDOWED RIGHT to PROPERTY into some quivering mass of gelatin subject to whatever infringement government deems appropriate?
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.
