[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Former White House Physician on Trump’s Health: There’s a ‘Neurological Issue’ Not Being Addressed

Sen. Ron Johnson's Letter to Nunes and Jordon Regarding Vindman

Reporter Uncovers Manson Family Connections to CIA’s MK Ultra Mind Control and Hollywood Child Trafficking

“I Can do Anything I Wanna do, I’m a Cop”: Tyrant Cop Fired After Insane Power Trip

The End of Babies

Does this live feed ISS glitch during astronaut interview prove NASA T.V. fakery?

Victory for Free State Activist Wrongfully Arrested for Filming Police at Checkpoint

Doctors Caught on Tape Plotting to Take Custody of Newborns Whose Parents Refuse Vitamin K Shots

Mark Epstein says his brother Jeffrey was murdered: He ‘knew a lot of stuff about a lot of people’

Social Media Censorship Reaches New Heights as Twitter Permanently Bans Dissent

Ron Paul, Hero

You could end up being behind bars if you annoy a police officer in an upstate NY county

High Profile ‘Kidnapping’, ISIS Leader Arrested In Ukraine Bust, Suspected Links To Yovanovich, Biden, Kerry, Pelosi, And Romney

Stacey Abrams: ‘The Electoral College Is Racist and Classist’

A comprehensive book on the lefts tactics

Kanye West performs at Harris County jails

7 employees were terminated:’ Vicious brawl at Milwaukee Popeyes caught on cellphone video

Bolton contacted whistleblower prior to filing complaint, suggesting an attempted coup

Lying to Congress – Marie Yovanovitch Was Prepped by Obama Administration About Issues With Hunter Biden and Burisma

Pending Ban on Flavored E-Cigarettes in Massachusetts Authorizes Forfeiture of Vapers' Cars

'LGBTQ' Support Declines

“American Ultra”: Another Attempt at Making MKULTRA Cool

The Sick and Twisted Culture of Disney and ABC News

Lunar Lunacy: Disappearing Moon Rocks, Contradictory Mineral Data, Missing Apollo Film and Destroyed Mission Technology

Roger Stone was found guilty. Now all eyes turn to Trump.

Giuliani says he has 'insurance' if Trump tries to throw him under the bus

Instead of Arresting Disabled Veteran For Hitchhiking, Cops Drove Him 100 Miles to Doctor

Family Facing Jail for Living in RV On Their Own Property To Repair Home After Fire

IT’S HAPPENING… BREAKING: President Trump Meets with AG Bill Barr in Oval Office – Then Delays Departure and Calls in Top Aides and Communication Team

The So-Called War on Terror Has Killed Over 801,000 People and Cost $6.4 Trillion: New Analysis

Humor

My favorite moment from the impeachment hearing today.

Judge In Planned Parenthood Trial Orders Guilty Verdict Against Journalist

Judge orders man accused of threatening U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, family to be involuntarily medicated

The real meaning of ‘OK Boomer’

Casualties of War: Military Veterans Have Become America’s Walking Wounded

T(y)ranny Triumphant, Part II: Zhe Who Controls the Past…

FAKE SCIENCE for COPS: Alcohol level breathalyzers based on sham science, shocking investigation discovers

The Big Plantation

J. P. Morgan’s Takeover Of The American Press In 1915

Police Responding to Man Having a Seizure, Shoot and Kill His Service Dog

It Happened To Us In Idaho – The Nick and Donna Nickerson Family

The Daily Northwestern Apologizes to Students for Reporting News That Triggered Them

Drag queen sashays into Trump impeachment hearings

Israel Settles Score with Islamic Jihad Leader

Robert Spencer’s 'The Palestinian Delusion': A Treasure

VATICAN HOSTS PRO-ABORTION, PRO-LGBT ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION

Coming Soon to a Democrat Run City Near You… Denver Business Owner Fined for Not Picking Up the Homeless Sh*t on the Sidewalk Outside his Business

BOOM! Rudy Giuliani DESTROYS Schiff’s First Witness GEORGE KENT – He’s Behind Dismissal of Investigation into Soros’s Corrupt AntAC Operation in Ukraine

Ukrainian Officials Release Records of 46 Payments to Hunter Biden from Burisma Holdings, 38 Payments were for $83,333 Totaling Over $3.1 Million


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Bang / Guns
See other Bang / Guns Articles

Title: The Founding Father Who Told Americans We Have A Right To Military Weapons
Source: Daily Caller
URL Source: https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/15/natelson-military-weapons
Published: Oct 20, 2019
Author: Robert Natelson
Post Date: 2019-10-20 15:26:27 by Hondo68
Ping List: *Bang List*     Subscribe to *Bang List*
Keywords: Neighborhood Nuclear Superioty, NOW!, Tench Coxe
Views: 95
Comments: 11

NATELSON: The Founding Father Who Told Americans We Have A Right To Military Weapons

(KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images)

Does the Constitution’s right to keep and bear arms apply to everyone? Or only to law enforcement and the National Guard? Does the right include so-called “assault weapons?”

A newly published document from America’s founding offers a clue.

When interpreting the Constitution, judges and scholars consider what people said about the document around the time it was adopted. Writings by the Constitution’s advocates explaining its meaning to the general public are particularly helpful, because Americans relied on those explanations in deciding to ratify the document.

The most famous writings of this kind were penned by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay and collected as “The Federalist.” But there were many others. Among the most important were newspaper op-eds produced by Tench Coxe.

Few people know of Coxe today, but during the founding era he was famous. He served in the Confederation Congress. After the Constitution was ratified he became our first assistant secretary of the treasury, working directly under Alexander Hamilton.

Public release of the proposed Constitution on Sept. 17, 1787 ignited a massive public debate. Opponents argued that if the instrument were ratified it would create an all-powerful central government. Coxe supported the Constitution — and like Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, he was frustrated by opponents’ misrepresentations.

Coxe wrote a series of op-eds to accurately explain the Constitution’s legal effect. His informal style was much easier to understand than the scholarly tone of The Federalist, and his articles became extremely popular.

Many of Coxe’s op-eds were republished long ago, but new ones sometimes surface. The editors of the Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution recently issued new volumes that include four productions by Coxe previously known to only a few dedicated scholars.

In a Pennsylvania Gazette article published February 20, 1788, Coxe addressed the right to keep and bear arms: “The power of the sword, [opponents] say … is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY … Who are the militia? are they not ourselves[?].”

Coxe added, “The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('dailycaller_inline3'); });

In other words, all able-bodied adult men have the right to keep and bear arms — not just law enforcement and the military. (Since ratification of the 14th Amendment, women also possess the right.)

Coxe also addressed the kinds of arms included: “Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American.” In other words, the right to keep and bear includes military arms, not just hunting pieces. Rifles such as the AR-15 (misleadingly branded “assault weapons”) are protected — not despite the fact that they are military weapons, but precisely because they are military weapons!

Coxe’s view is hardly surprising to those of us who study the founders: The Revolutionary War had ended only five years before. If American citizens had not possessed military-style weapons, we would have lost.

Coxe wrote further, “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. What clause in the state or federal constitution hath given away that important right[?]”

This passage was composed well before the Second Amendment was proposed. Even then, Congress had no power to disarm the people. This was part of Coxe’s wider argument that federal powers were strictly limited. In other op-eds, Coxe listed many other matters outside the federal sphere and reserved exclusively to the states: education, social services, agriculture, most business regulation, and others.

Despite the fact that Americans relied on such representations when ratifying the Constitution, the federal government now asserts almost unlimited authority. Since politicians always seek to expand their power, that is understandable. Unfortunately, writers on the Constitution often pervert history and constitutional meaning to provide “cover” to the politicians. An example is the ludicrous claim — promoted by some leading law professors — that the Constitution’s Commerce Clause granted Congress vast power over our national life.

Tench Coxe’s writings provide a useful corrective. They are valuable reading for anyone who wants to understand what the Constitution actually says.


Poster Comment:

Have you hugged your nukes today? (1 image)

Subscribe to *Bang List*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Hondo68 (#0)

Seems obscure, not really a Founder.

He was 11 years old in 1776. He had apparent Royalist sympathies as a youth. He did finally join a state militia when he was 25 and there was no danger of having to actually fight Redcoats.

I'm not sure how influential he was in the era. He wasn't a leader or fighter during the Revolutionary War and he didn't sign the Declaration or participate in the earliest legislative bodies, the First Continental Congress (1774) and the Second Continental Congress (1775-1781).

Tooconservative  posted on  2019-10-21   0:19:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: All (#0)

When interpreting the Constitution, judges and scholars consider what people said about the document around the time it was adopted. Writings by the Constitution’s advocates explaining its meaning to the general public are particularly helpful, because Americans relied on those explanations in deciding to ratify the document.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570, 576-77 (2008)

II

We turn first to the meaning of the Second Amendment.

A

The Second Amendment provides: “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.” In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Aldridge v. Williams, 44 U.S. 9, 24 (1845)

In expounding this law, the judgment of the Court cannot in any degree be influenced by the construction placed upon it by individual members of Congress in the debate which took place on its passage nor by the motives or reasons assigned by them for supporting or opposing amendments that were offered. The law as it passed is the will of the majority of both houses, and the only mode in which that will is spoken is in the act itself, and we must gather their intention from the language there used, comparing it, when any ambiguity exists, with the laws upon the same subject and looking, if necessary, to the public history of the times in which it was passed.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

United States v Union Pacific Railroad Company, 91 U.S. 72 (1875)

In construing an act of Congress, we are not at liberty to recur to the views of individual members in debate nor to consider the motives which influenced them to vote for or against its passage. The act itself speaks the will of Congress, and this is to be ascertained from the language used. But courts, in construing a statute, may with propriety recur to the history of the times when it was passed, and this is frequently necessary in order to ascertain the reason as well as the meaning of particular provisions in it. Aldridge v. Williams, 3 How. 24; Preston v. Browder, 1 Wheat. 115, 120 [argument of counsel -- omitted].

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 254 (1901)

In expounding this law, the judgment of the Court cannot in any degree be influenced by the construction placed upon it by individual members of Congress in the debate which took place on its passage nor by the motives or reasons assigned by them for supporting or opposing amendments that were offered. The law as it passed is the will of the majority of both houses, and the only mode in which that will is spoken is in the act itself, and we must gather their intention from the language there used, comparing it, when any ambiguity exists, with the laws upon the same subject and looking, if necessary, to the public history of the times in which it was passed.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 86, 108-09 (1925)

The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Conventions of. the thirteen States, were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them, but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-21   12:32:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: nolu chan (#2)

The Founding Father Who Told Americans We Have A Right To Military Weapons

Tench Coxe was not a Founding Father.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-10-21   12:52:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Hondo68 (#0)

The Revolutionary War had ended only five years before. If American citizens had not possessed military-style weapons, we would have lost.

The American citizens who could afford arms owned rifles for self-defense and hunting. Rifles were well-made, accurate and expensive, and their proud owners displayed them above the fireplace.

The militia used smooth-bore muskets -- cheap and fast loading, but inaccurate. When used in volley fire, however, they were very effective.

Today's citizen would have, say, a Model 70 for hunting (and self-defense). Well-made, accurate and expensive. Not really a weapon used by today's military.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-10-21   13:13:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: misterwhite (#3)

The Founding Father Who Told Americans We Have A Right To Military Weapons

That's the title of the article. I did not post the article.

Tench Coxe was not a Founding Father.

I did not say anything about Tench Coxe. However, you are correct, Tench Coxe was not a Founding Father. He was a contemporary of the Framers.

He was Secretary of the Annapolis Convention (1786) and a delegate to the Continental Congress (1787-88).

I did post excerpts from five U.S. Supreme Court opinions showing that the Constitution and statutes are interpreted by the ordinary meaning of the plain text at the time written.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-10-21   14:10:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: misterwhite, WMDs common (#4)

Many WMD's were privately owned, for instance canons to fend off the Barbary Pirates and such.



Ron Paul - Lake Jackson Texas Values

Hondo68  posted on  2019-10-21   14:41:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Hondo68 (#6)

Many WMD's were privately owned, for instance canons to fend off the Barbary Pirates and such.

True. But if Congress wrote a law back then banning the private ownership of cannons, I'm not sure the second amendment would have protected them.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-10-21   15:00:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: nolu chan (#5)

Sorry. That post was meant for Hondo68.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-10-21   15:02:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: misterwhite (#7)

if Congress wrote a law back then banning the private ownership of cannons, I'm not sure the second amendment would have protected them.

That's what the canons & nukes are for, scofflaw .gov tyrants.



Ron Paul - Lake Jackson Texas Values

Hondo68  posted on  2019-10-21   23:46:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Hondo68 (#9)

That's what the canons & nukes are for,

Those weapons were to be controlled by the militia of each State, not individual militia members.

misterwhite  posted on  2019-10-22   9:37:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: misterwhite, shuck 'n jive (#10)

Those weapons were to be controlled by the militia of each State, not individual militia members.

BS, you just made that crap up.



Ron Paul - Lake Jackson Texas Values

Hondo68  posted on  2019-10-22   12:59:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com