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.
Well, for anybody that listened to Randi Rhodes today, it is quite apparent that she nor her listeners understand the importance of state rights.
The conversation got started with her complaining about the "purpose" of people desiring to form independent militias.
She quoted the second amendment about 10 times, and each time said:
"A well regulated militia, if necessary, the rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Funny that she left out an entire portion of that sentence.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I don't think that many people who favor a large centralized government understand that the founding fathers understood the inherent risk of any government or form of government to be unregulated.
For this reason, they balanced the executive branch with the legislative branch, and the legislative branch with the judicial, and the judicial with the executive. It was very important in the founding fathers eyes to always balance power.
The importance of the individual states is for the same reason. It was the intention of the founding fathers that each state secure and arm its own militia in the event that the branches of the federal government get too greedy with their power.
The states are not simply another municipal government tasked with paving roads and providing education exclusively, they are also intended to keep the federal government honest and ensure that its power isn't extended beyond those powers enumerated in the constitution.
Not only did the founding fathers provide an amendment to allow the states to arm themselves, they also provided an amendment (the 10th) which explicitly stated that the federal government ONLY has the powers outlined in the Constitution, and all other powers (if any) must be deferred to the individual states.
Who else is supposed to keep the government in check if they were to execute powers not enumerated to them... say like making everybody in America purchase something from the private sector or face penalties?
I sat on hold to talk on the Randi Rhodes show for 2 hours to make this simple point. It appears that they only accept callers which agree with Randi's points, or from idiots on the other side that can't string a coherent sentence together in opposition.
Either way. Anybody disagree with this on the left?
Balance is the keyword. They tried to balance the three branches. But they also tried to balance state versus federal powers. They expected, and even desired, tension between all the different players, but they were embarked on something new and innovative, and couldn't anticipate everything.
Balance is the keyword. They tried to balance the three branches. But they also tried to balance state versus federal powers. They expected, and even desired, tension between all the different players, but they were embarked on something new and innovative, and couldn't anticipate everything.
Thanks DC. I thought that this was common knowledge. But after listening to Randi Rhodes today, I think its just easier to call everybody who opposes an over reaching federal government racist while moving to unbalance the state vs. federal factor.
I don't know who Randi Rhodes is, but if what you say is true then she is indeed misunderstanding the wording of the 2nd ammendment. However, if you think these 'militias' that we see today are the type referenced in the 2nd ammendment, you're also misunderstanding it. The militias in those times were more akin to the National Guard than to the modern militia movement.
Well, for anybody that listened to Randi Rhodes today, it is quite apparent that she nor her listeners understand the importance of state rights.
The conversation got started with her complaining about the "purpose" of people desiring to form independent militias...
This ain't about state rights. And "state" (as you mentioned, referring to the second amendment) refers to the nation as a whole, not separate states. Having said that, some of the powers granted by the constitution to the congress (Article I/Section 8):
Quote:
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
Militia is not to be confused with militant groups.
This ain't about state rights. And "state" (as you mentioned, referring to the second amendment) refers to the nation as a whole, not separate states. Having said that, some of the powers granted by the constitution to the congress (Article I/Section 8):
Militia is not to be confused with militant groups.
Either the whole of US or each state separately, how did we get from that, to the right of each individual to bear arms?
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 is not what the US Constitution says.
However, that is what the appropriately named Dick Act of 1905 says.
The Dick Act of 1905 removed militias from the control of the states and placed them under control of the national (pronounced "federal") government.
A state has no control over the types of militia units it has. A state might have disasters (tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes or whatever) and want national guard military police, engineer and medical units, but if the national (pronounced "federal") government says no, you'll have two mech infantry brigades, an armored brigade and a cavalry squadron, then that is the way it shall be, and the states can do nothing about it unless they want to tussle with the national (pronounced "federal") government.
The right to bear arm is an individual right, in addition to the need for regulated militia that the second amendment talks about.
"State" when used singularly implies a country. For example, US Department of State is a federal office.
That's not what it meant.
At the time each individual state had it's own militia. These have turned into what we now call the Army and Air Force National Guards. Since Vietnam the feds have taken control of the National Guards and effectivley made them part of the regular military.
Another example of the feds oversttepping their bounds.
US Constitution (http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Constitution.html - broken link)
Article I/Section 8/Clause 12-16 quoted in my post that you responded to earlier.
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.
