Bang / Guns
See other Bang / Guns Articles
Title: Opinion: What America’s gun fanatics won’t tell you
Source:
MarketWatch
URL Source: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wh ... atics-wont-tell-you-2016-06-14
Published: Jun 18, 2016
Author: Brett Arends
Post Date: 2016-06-21 04:08:48 by buckeroo
Keywords: None
Views: 9462
Comments: 47
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution doesn’t just say Congress shall not infringe the right to “keep and bear arms.” It specifically says that right exists in order to maintain “a well-regulated militia.” Even the late conservative Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia admitted those words weren’t in there by accident. Oh, and the Constitution doesn’t just say a “militia.” It says a “well-regulated” militia. What did the Founding Fathers mean by that? We don’t have to guess because they told us. In Federalist No. 29 of the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton explained at great length precisely what a “well-regulated militia” was, why the Founding Fathers thought we needed one, and why they wanted to protect it from being disarmed by the federal government. And there’s a reason absolutely no gun extremist will ever direct you to that 1788 essay because it blows their baloney into a million pieces. A “well-regulated militia” didn’t mean guys who read Soldier of Fortune magazine running around in the woods with AK-47s and warpaint on their faces. It basically meant what today we call the National Guard. It should be a properly constituted, ordered and drilled (“well-regulated”) military force, organized state by state, explained Hamilton. Each state militia should be a “select corps,” “well-trained” and able to perform all the “operations of an army.” The militia needed “uniformity in … organization and discipline,” wrote Hamilton, so that it could operate like a proper army “in camp and field,” and so that it could gain the “essential … degree of proficiency in military functions.” And although it was organized state by state, it needed to be under the explicit control of the national government. The “well-regulated militia” was under the command of the president. It was “the military arm” of the government. The one big difference between this militia and a professional army? It shouldn’t be made up of full-time professional soldiers, said the Founding Fathers. Such soldiers could be used against the people as King George had used his mercenary Redcoats. Instead, the American republic should make up its military force from part-time volunteers drawn from regular citizens. Such men would be less likely to turn on the population. And the creation of this “well-regulated militia,” aka the National Guard, would help safeguard the freedom of the new republic because it would make the creation of a professional, mercenary army “unnecessary,” wrote Hamilton. “This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it,” he wrote. That was the point. And that was why they wanted to make sure it couldn’t be disarmed by the federal government: So a future “tyrant” couldn’t disarm the National Guard, and then use a mercenary army to impose martial law. The Founding Fathers didn’t call the republic’s new force an “army” because that term more than two centuries ago called to mind the British army, foreign mercenaries, tyrants and kings. So they said “militia” instead. But they meant a real body. Hamilton was scathing about the idea that the “militia” could just mean every Bob, Billy and Benjamin with his musket. Such amateurs would stand no chance in modern warfare against professionals, he wrote. And requiring every citizen to become a professional would be ridiculous, he said. It would be “a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss,” he wrote. Taking people away from their work in order to train them “would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country.” The Second Amendment is an instrument of government. It’s not about hunting or gun collecting or carrying your pistol into the saloon. The Founding Fathers left it up to us to pass sensible laws about all these things. The Constitution is about government. Today we have a professional army, anyway. Military matters have become so complex that no part-time soldiers could do it all. So you could argue that makes the Second Amendment null and void, like the parts in the Constitution about slaves and Indians being counted as “three-fifths” of a person in the Census. But even if you still want to defend the Second Amendment, it should apply only to those who volunteer to join the “select corps” of their National Guard, undergo rigorous training to attain “proficiency in military functions” and perform the “operations of an army,” serve as ordered under the ultimate command of the president and be subject to military discipline. So if you’re running around waving your AK-47 under the Second Amendment, and you haven’t shown up yet at your local National Guard headquarters, you’re not a “patriot.” You’re a deserter. Arends discusses: "Federalist No. 29" as though he is locked-jawed about the only consideration for the creation of the BILL OF RIGHTS. Arends is wrong, of course. The BILL OF RIGHTS was a requirement by the anti-federalists; so his reference is only meaningful when you consider a totally lame exploitation of America's education system. 'Well regulated' at the tyme of the BILL OF RIGHTS writing meant that amoung the states that all federal law was equal of and towards the states. There was nothing more to the intent of the phrase until today's liberal, authoritarian facists that profess TOTAL federal government control stole the idea as meaning lots of unnecessary federal bureaucracy, as though we are to be ruled by a king. I often laff at those that argue that BILL OF RIGHTS is for federal government. That is far from the truth. The BILL OF RIGHTS was an EXCLUSION from federal government and was for and about state authority. Arends has his head up his ass but you knew that already. Can we please stop pretending that the Second Amendment contains an unfettered right for everyone to buy a gun? It doesn’t, and it never has. The claims made by the small number of extremists, before and after the Orlando, Fla., massacre, are based on a deliberate lie.
The author is another phanatic liberal Jew.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: buckeroo (#0)
Then why post and spread his BS? We have a closet agenda? I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Federalist No. 29, and all of the Federalist Papers, are nothing but newspaper editorials from their time. They have exactly the legal force as editorials in the New York Times. Newspaper editorials, such as the Federalist Papers, are written by political partisans to public their point of view and try to persuade people. They are not legal documents. They are not "legislative history". They are newspaper editorials, and that's all they ever were. It doesn't matter that together they are book length. It doesn't matter that as a people we revere the Founders. None of that elevates their political opinions in newspaper editorials of the time to the level of law. (This cuts all ways.) The Federalist Papers give us a good idea of what some men of the leading men of the time thought. And yet, soon we had a Constitution, and we DIDN'T then proceed to restrict guns as Hamilton would have wished.
???? Has Trump now agreed with Dems to confiscate our guns?
You can't handle the author's opinion without getting all defensive, GI?
The Federalist Papers were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay -- three of the Founding Fathers. Additionally, James Madison was the author of the U.S. Constitution. Meaning their comments offer much insight as to the original intent of that document. The second amendment was written to protect the existence of well-regulated state militias. At the time, there was no federal army, nor did the Founders want one (for obvious reasons). But the War of 1812 demonstrated a need for a standing federal army and, at that point, militias became moot. But the second amendment still protects well- regulated state militias like the Texas State Guard and State Militias in 21 other states. Your individual right to keep and bear arms outside of the militia is protected by your state constitution. The Heller court ruled otherwise, but they were wrong.
Nice try - but the Second Amendment recognizes "the right of the people" not merely the right of the militia. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Now subject to being modified or overruled by federal judges. Just like the morons wanted.
Yep. They put the fox in charge of protecting the henhouse.
Ever read the anti-federalist papers? If you did, you would know the foundation of the Bill of Rights. The BILL OF RIGHTS had nothing to do with the federalist papers which supported a strong central government. The anti-federalist papers (typically by "brutus") created the BILL OF RIGHTS to ensure immunity from federal government tyranny.
The lie is a blatant bullshit distortion. It does not specifically say that right exists in order to maintain a well-regulated militia. It says 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. A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, to keep it free from a usurping Federal government. The right to keep and bear arms was for self-defense and collective defense. The militia is made up of the people. When called to service, the people came with their own arms which they had bought with their own money. This is silly bullshit, easily disproven by the definition of the militia in 1792 or 2016. The militia is, and has been, defined by Federal law. At the time of the Framing and ratification of the Bill of Rights, the militia was viewed as a force for the people to defend against potential future usurpations of the federal government. Madison, Federalist 46, re the Militia The Militia Act of May 8, 1792 (repealed and replaced 1795). 1 Stat. 271 May 8, 1792. Chap. XXXIII.—An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defence by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.(a) Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That and by whom each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia by the captain or commanding officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this act. And it shall at all times hereafter be the duty of every such captain or commanding officer of a company to enrol every such citizen, as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of eighteen years, or being of the age of eighteen years and under the age of forty-five years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrolment, by a proper non-commissioned officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger and espontoon, and that from and after five years from the passing of this act, all muskets for arming the militia as herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for __________ (a) The acts for the establishment of an uniform system for the government of the militia, are: An act more effectually to provide for the national defence by establishing an uniform militia throughout the United States, May 8, 1792, chap. 33; an act providing arms for the militia throughout the United States. July 6, 1798, chap. 65; an act in addition to an act entitled, “An act more effectually to provide for the national defence, by establishing an uniform militia throughout the United States,” March 2, 1803, chap. 15; an act more effectually to provide for the organizing of the militia of the District of Columbia, March 3, 1803, chap. 20; an act establishing rules and articles for the government of the armies of the United States, April 10, 1806, chap. 20; an act in addition to the act entitled, “An act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and to repeal the act now in force for those purposes,” April 18. 1814, chap. 82; an act concerning field officers of the militia, April 20, 1816, chap. 64; an act to establish an uniform mode of discipline and field exercise for the militia of the United States, May 12, 1820, chap. 96; an act to reduce and fix the military peace establishment of the United States, March 2, 1821, chap. 12, sec. 14. 272 SECOND CONGRESS. Sess. I. Ch. 33. 1792. balls of the eighteenth part of a pound. And every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes. Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the Vice President of the United States; the officers judicial and executive of the government of the United States; the members of both Houses of Congress, and their respective officers; all custom-house officers with their clerks; all post-officers, and stage drivers, who are employed in the care and conveyance of the mail of the post-office of the United States; all ferrymen employed at any ferry on the post road; all inspectors of exports; all pilots; all mariners actually employed in the sea service of any citizen or merchant within the United States; and all persons who now are or may hereafter be exempted by the laws of the respective states, shall be, and are exempted from militia duty, notwithstanding their being above the age of eighteen, and under the age of forty-five years. Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That within one year after the passing of this act, the militia of the respective states shall be arranged into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions and companies, as the legislature of each state shall direct; and each division, brigade and regiment, shall be numbered at the formation thereof; and a record made of such numbers in the adjutant-general's office in the state; and when in the field, or in service in the state, each division, brigade and regiment shall respectively take rank according to their numbers, reckoning the first or lowest number highest in rank. That if the same be convenient, each brigade shall consist of four regiments; each regiment of two battalions; each battalion of five companies; each company of sixty-four privates. That the said militia shall be officered by the respective states, as follows: To each division, one major-general and two aids-de-camp, with the rank of major; to each brigade, one brigadier-general, with one brigade inspector, to serve also as brigade-major, with the rank of a major; to each regiment, one lieutenant-colonel commandant; and to each battalion one major; to each company one captain, one lieutenant, one ensign, four sergeants, four corporals, one drummer and one fifer or bugler. That there shall be a regimental staff, to consist of one adjutant and one quartermaster, to rank as lieutenants; one paymaster; one surgeon, and one surgeon's mate; one sergeant-major; one drum-major, and one fife-major. Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That out of the militia enrolled, as herein directed, there shall be formed for each battalion at least one company of grenadiers, light infantry or riflemen; and that to each division there shall be at least one company of artillery, and one troop of horse: there shall be to each company of artillery, one captain, two lieutenants, four sergeants, four corporals, six gunners, six bombadiers, one drummer, and one fifer. The officers to be armed with a sword or hanger, a fusee, bayonet and belt, with a cartridge-box to contain twelve cartridges; and each private or matross shall furnish himself with all the equipments of a private in the infantry, until proper ordnance and field artillery is provided. There shall be to each troop of horse, one captain, two lieutenants, one cornet, four sergeants, four corporals, one saddler, one farrier, and one trumpeter. The commissioned officers to furnish themselves with good horses of at least fourteen hands and an half high, and to be armed with a sword and pair of pistols, the holsters of which to be covered with bearskin caps. Each dragoon to furnish himself with a serviceable horse, at least fourteen hands and an half high, a good saddle, bridle, mailpillion and valise, holsters, and a breast-plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs, a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouch-box, to contain twelve cartridges for pistols. That each company of artillery; and troop of horse shall be formed of volunteers from the brigade, at the SECOND CONGRESS. Sess. I. Ch. 33. 1792. 273 discretion of the commander-in-chief of the state, not exceeding one company of each to a regiment, nor more in number than one eleventh part of the infantry, and shall be uniformly clothed in regimentals, to be furnished at their own expense; the colour and fashion to be determined by the brigadier commanding the brigade to which they belong. Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That each battalion and regiment shall be provided with the state and regimental colours by the field officers, and each company with a drum and fife, or bugle-horn, by the commissioned officers of the company, in such manner as the legislature of the respective states shall direct. Sec. 6. And be it further enacted, That there shall be an adjutant-general appointed in each state, whose duty it shall be to distribute all orders from the commander-in-chief of the state to the several corps; to attend all public reviews when the commander-in-chief of the state shall review the militia, or any part thereof; to obey all orders from him relative to carrying into execution and perfecting the system of military discipline established by this act; to furnish blank forms of different returns that maybe required, and to explain the principles on which they should be made; to receive from the several officers of the different corps throughout the state, returns of the militia under their command, reporting the actual situation of their arms, accoutrements, and ammunition, their delinquencies, and every other thing which relates to the general advancement of good order and discipline: all which the several officers of the divisions, brigades, regiments, and battalions, are hereby required to make in the usual manner, so that the said adjutant-general may be duly furnished therewith: from all which returns he shall make proper abstracts, and lay the same annually before the commander-in-chief of the state. Sec. 7. And be it further enacted, That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-nine, shall be the rules of discipline to be observed by the militia throughout the United States, except such deviations from the said rules as may be rendered necessary by the requisitions of this act, or by some other unavoidable circumstances. It shall be the duty of the commanding officer at every muster, whether by battalion, regiment, or single company, to cause the militia to be exercised and trained agreeably to the said rules of discipline. Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, That all commissioned officers shall take rank according to the date of their commissions; and when two of the same grade bear an equal date, then their rank to be determined by lot, to be drawn by them before the commanding officer of the brigade, regiment, battalion, company, or detachment. Sec. 9. And be it further enacted, That if any person, whether officer or soldier, belonging to the militia of any state, and called out into the service of the United States, be wounded or disabled while in actual service, he shall be taken care of and provided for at the public expense. Sec. 10. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the brigade-inspector to attend the regimental and battalion meetings of the militia composing their several brigades, during the time of their being under arms, to inspect their arms, ammunition, and accoutrements; superintend their exercise and manoeuvres, and introduce the system of military discipline before described throughout the brigade, agreeable to law, and such orders as they shall from time to time receive from the commander-in-chief of the state; to make returns to the adjutant-general of the state, at least once in every year, of the militia of the brigade to which he belongs, reporting therein the actual situation of the arms, accoutrements, and ammunition of the several corps, and every other thing which, in his judgment, may relate to their government and the 274 SECOND CONGRESS. Sess. I. Ch 34. 1792. general advancement of good order and military discipline; and the adjutant-general shall make a return of aD the militia of the state to the commander-in-chief of the said state, and a duplicate of the same to the President of the United States. And whereas sundry corps of artillery, cavalry, and infantry now exist in several of the said states, which by the laws, customs, or usages thereof have not been incorporated with, or subject to the general regulations of the militia: Sec. 11. Be it further enacted, That such corps retain their accustomed privileges, subject, nevertheless, to all other duties required by this act, in like manner with the other militia. Approved, May 8, 1792. Compare to current Federal law: http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2012/title-10/subtitle-a/part-i/chapter-13/section-311/ Part I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS (§§ 101 - 498) Chapter 13 - THE MILITIA (§§ 311 - 312) Section 311 - Militia: composition and classes THE MILITIA - 10 U.S.C. § 311 (2012) §311. Militia: composition and classes The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. (Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85–861, §1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, §524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.) http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2012/title-10/subtitle-a/part-i/chapter-13/section-312/ Part I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS (§§ 101 - 498) Chapter 13 - THE MILITIA (§§ 311 - 312) Section 312 - Militia duty: exemptions THE MILITIA - 10 U.S.C. § 312 (2012) §312. Militia duty: exemptions (a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty: (1) The Vice President. (2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. (3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty. (4) Customhouse clerks. (5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail. (6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States. (7) Pilots on navigable waters. (8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States. (b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant. (Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 15; Pub. L. 100–456, div. A, title XII, §1234(a)(3), Sept. 29, 1988, 102 Stat. 2059; Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title X, §1057(a)(7), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3441.)
Now subject to being modified or overruled by federal judges. Just like the morons wanted . --- Roscoe misterwhite, at (#5) Pretends that your individual right to keep and bear arms outside of the militia is protected by your state constitution. -- IT IS NOT, as anyone that lives California or the other states infringing on the right can testify. Moron Roscoe claims that our constitutional rights are now subject to being modified or overruled by federal judges. Just like the morons wanted, -- when of course, judges at ANY LEVEL have never had that power. -- They try, but eventually their infringements are shot down by the political process. As we will see by a Trump election.
Judges have no method to enforce their rulings. Their "decisions" are toothless decrees. The executive branch is under no obligation to obey or enforce their opinions. Presidents have ignored them, and will most likely continue to do so whenever they feel like it. Try telling it to roscoe and the canary Klan. Be prepared for a moronic silence.
They may tap GrandIsland to put up his stop sign. Of course, GI is always looking for another free handout.
The Kanary Klan are all a bunch of phonies.
Yeah. That's what Governor Wallace thought as he stood at the schoolhouse door.
Yeah. That's what Governor Wallace thought as he stood at the schoolhouse door. --- misterwhite Misterwhite insists that States have the power to regulate/ban guns. But they don't have the power to regulate who goes to which schools? Hypocritical? - You bet.
The more you thrash the morons, the more stubbornly ignorant they become.
Misterwhite insists that States have the power to regulate/ban guns. But they don't have the power to regulate who goes to which schools? Hypocritical? - You bet. Roscoe observes.. --- Confirming he's a moron himself.
President Eisenhower, and U.S. Army’s 101st Airborne Division informed Governor Orval Faubus differently. Some presidents have acted unlawfully. Why did President Nixon give up his tapes? SCOTUS has ruled unanimously and Congress was going to impeach and remove him if he refused to comply.
Presidents have ignored them, and will most likely continue to do so whenever they feel like it. hondo68 In reply, our resident phony law expert replies: --- Of course he did, because he AGREED with the SCOTUS, even though he was under no OBLIGATION to do so. I doubt that you're quite this dumb, Chan, -- which makes you a purposeful propagandist.. A pitiful liar.
And Nixon handed over the tapes because he AGREED with the SCOTUS, even though he was under no OBLIGATION to do so. Right on. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) Cooper v Aaron, 358 US 1 (1958) It is the duty of the judiciary to say what the law is. The Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath to support the Constitution. Per Article II of the Constitution, the President And, The Constitution, and the rest of the laws, are what the judiciary says they are. It is not up to the douchebaggery of tpaine. And the President is lawfully required to obey the laws as interpreted by the judiciary.
Where/how/when did the US Supreme Court receive the authority to interpret the US Constitution?
When it became common knowledge that the anarchist crowd lacked the IQ to interpret it well enough not to shit on their neighbor. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Please explain your position, GI. Lets see if you can keep up with my perspective. I say the US Supreme Court has no authority to "interpret" the US Constitution. If they do, please show me where/how/when they received that authority.
Completely wrong, -- our Constitution is the supreme law of the land,-- And the SCOTUS interpretations or opinions cannot change the constitution. Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath to support the Constitution. Per Article II of the Constitution, the President: --- Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United State's." You cannot quote any constitutional basis for your opinion above. -- Our President is required by oath to defend the Constitution itself, NOT opinions about or interpretations of the document. We live in a constitutional republic, and are not ruled by our judicial branch.
+10
The US Supreme Court has the authority to "interpret" the US Constitution, but their 'authority' is to issue opinions, -- opinions which are NOT binding on the legislative, -- or the executive branch. This is what the founders INTENDED, -- a separation of powers..
No it doesn't, tpaine. Please cite the where/how/when that authority was manifested.
Article III of the Constitution enumerates the powers of the judicial branch. Feel free to read it to find their manifested authorities.
Feel free to read it to find their manifested authorities. Thanks. Lets see ... lets investigate Section 2 of Article III; please post Article III Section 2, so we can agree with your perspective.
Article III of the Constitution enumerates the powers of the judicial branch. Feel free to read it to find their 'manifested authorities', as you put it. You claim that section proves your point? -- post it yourself,- - with your opinions.
Article III Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. OK, done. Show LF where I am incorrect. Thanks, in advance.
Article III of the Constitution enumerates the powers of the judicial branch. Feel free to read it to find their 'manifested authorities', as you put it. You claim that section proves your point? -- post it yourself,- - with your opinions. Article III Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. You claimed it showed their 'manifested authorities'. Where are they? You gave my reply to nolu a +10, in agreement. -- In effect you're now taking his POV, -- that the SCOTUS has the power to issue binding opinions? Scotus interpretations/opinions of our Constitution are not binding on anyone. They are just opinions issued about the case at issue, nothing more.
Your earlier perspective did not take into account that there is no authority to interpret the US Constitution; your position established that the judiary has "opinions" which I agree with. Clearly, there is no government authority to interpret the US Constitution and that the authority is reserved to the people based on Article III, Section 2. Don't you agree?
I don't agree that Art III, Section 2 makes that clear, and neither does nolu, and the Statists. Every branch and level of our governments, and individual citizens, have the authority to interpret our Constitution. And a duty to honor it, as written.. Although NO one has the authority to force their particular opinion to be honored.
The US Supreme Court does not interpret the US Constitution. Rather, it applies the US Constitution to all law UNDER the US Constitution.
Every branch and level of our governments, and individual citizens, have the authority to interpret our Constitution. And a duty to honor it, as written.. Although NO one has the authority to force their particular opinion to be honored. The SCOTUS applies the US Constitution (as they interpret it) to all laws UNDER the Constitution. -- In any real sense, we agree, despite our quibbling about 'interpretation'.
You are chasing rainbows, tpaine. Here is what nolu chan suggested within his pathetic post: The Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Just like the idea: the US government owns the US Constitution.
The SCOTUS applies the US Constitution (as they interpret it) to all laws UNDER the Constitution. -- In any real sense, we agree, despite our quibbling about 'interpretation'. Whatever. -- At least I'm trying not to quibble.. And everyone agrees that he's wacko. --- ?? --- Far out...
Comments (41 - 47) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestArends has his head up his ass but you knew that already.
#2. To: buckeroo (#0)
#3. To: buckeroo (#0)
#4. To: GrandIsland (#1)
#5. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
The Federalist Papers give us a good idea of what some men of the leading men of the time thought.
#6. To: buckeroo (#0)
they [the Framers] wanted to make sure it [the militia] couldn’t be disarmed by the federal government
#7. To: misterwhite (#5)
Your individual right to keep and bear arms outside of the militia is protected by your state constitution.
#8. To: Roscoe (#7)
"Now subject to being modified or overruled by federal judges. Just like the morons wanted."
#9. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
The Federalist Papers give us a good idea of what some men of the leading men of the time thought. And yet, soon we had a Constitution, and we DIDN'T then proceed to restrict guns as Hamilton would have wished.
#10. To: buckeroo (#0)
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution doesn’t just say Congress shall not infringe the right to “keep and bear arms.” It specifically says that right exists in order to maintain “a well-regulated militia.”
A “well-regulated militia” didn’t mean guys who read Soldier of Fortune magazine running around in the woods with AK-47s and warpaint on their faces. It basically meant what today we call the National Guard.
The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.
SECOND CONGRESS. Sess. I. Ch. 33. 1792.
Subtitle A - General Military Law (§§ 101 - 2925)
Subtitle A - General Military Law (§§ 101 - 2925)
#11. To: Roscoe, misterwhite, Nolu Chan, grandisland, gatlin, y'all canary's (#7)
misterwhite (#5) --- Your individual right to keep and bear arms outside of the militia is protected by your state constitution.
#12. To: tpaine (#11)
(Edited)
judges at ANY LEVEL have never had that power. --
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#13. To: hondo68, Y'ALL (#12)
#14. To: hondo68, tpaine, GrandIsland (#12)
Their "decisions" [the adjudications of the court system, irrespective of level] are toothless decrees.
#15. To: buckeroo, y'all (#14)
#16. To: hondo68 (#12)
"Judges have no method to enforce their rulings."
#17. To: misterwhite (#16)
hondo68 (#12) --- "Judges have no method to enforce their rulings."
#18. To: misterwhite (#16)
That's what Governor Wallace thought as he stood at the schoolhouse door.
#19. To: Roscoe, defends the canary morons, (#18)
"The more you thrash the morons, the more stubbornly ignorant they become."--
#20. To: hondo68 (#12)
The executive branch is under no obligation to obey or enforce their opinions.
Presidents have ignored them, and will most likely continue to do so whenever they feel like it.
#21. To: nolu chan, Hondo68, Y'ALL (#20)
Judges have no method to enforce their rulings. Their "decisions" are toothless decrees. The executive branch is under no obligation to obey or enforce their opinions.
President Eisenhower, and U.S. Army’s 101st Airborne Division informed Governor Orval Faubus differently.
#22. To: tpaine (#21)
Of course he did, because he AGREED with the SCOTUS, even though he was under no OBLIGATION to do so.
It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.
It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, “to support this Constitution.”
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed
#23. To: nolu chan, tpaine (#22)
The Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
#24. To: buckeroo (#23)
Where/how/when did the US Supreme Court receive the authority to interpret the US Constitution?
#25. To: GrandIsland (#24)
#26. To: nolu chan (#22)
The Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
The Constitution, and the rest of the laws, are what the judiciary says they are. --- And the President is lawfully required to obey the laws as interpreted by the judiciary.
#27. To: tpaine (#26)
#28. To: buckeroo (#25)
Please explain your position, GI. Lets see if you can keep up with my perspective. I say the US Supreme Court has no authority to "interpret" the US Constitution. If they do, please show me where/how/when they received that authority.
#29. To: tpaine (#28)
The US Supreme Court has the authority to "interpret" the US Constitution, but their 'authority' is to issue opinions, -- opinions which are NOT binding on the legislative, -- or the executive branch.
#30. To: buckeroo (#29)
Please cite the where/how/when that authority was manifested.
#31. To: tpaine (#30)
Article III of the Constitution enumerates the powers of the judicial branch.
#32. To: buckeroo (#31)
Thanks. --- Lets see ... lets investigate Section 2 of Article III; please post Article III Section 2, so we can agree with your perspective.
#33. To: tpaine (#32)
#34. To: buckeroo (#33)
Thanks. --- Lets see ... lets investigate Section 2 of Article III; please post Article III Section 2, so we can agree with your perspective.
OK, done. Show LF where I am incorrect.
#35. To: tpaine (#34)
#36. To: buckeroo (#35)
Clearly, there is no government authority to interpret the US Constitution and that the authority is reserved to the people based on Article III, Section 2. Don't you agree?
#37. To: tpaine (#36)
(Edited)
#38. To: buckeroo (#37)
The US Supreme Court does not interpret the US Constitution. Rather, it applies the US Constitution to all law UNDER the US Constitution.
#39. To: tpaine (#38)
(Edited)
#40. To: buckeroo (#39)
You are chasing rainbows, tpaine.
Here is what nolu chan suggested within his pathetic post: The Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Just like the idea: the US government owns the US Constitution.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]