Go to Personal Poetry
- Add a comment
- Go to The Constitution as Contract
Re: Perhaps you should read some of the statements and writings......
I have and I find those quotes incomplete and unconvincing, besides being not altogether relevant. It does not matter what the Framers were trying to accomplish, anymore than a lawyer's intent matters in a contract. The only thing that matters is what the ratifiers thought they were agreeing to. The relevance of the quotes is solely in giving us a view of the matters being debated amongst the people as they were deciding whether to vote for or against ratification.
It is in that sense that I find these quotes incomplete. Obviously, Grayson was placating Henry by pointing out that, directly or indirectly, the Bill of Rights sought to protect personal liberty, hence his use of the word "respected" instead of, say, "protect" or "assure". By defending the right of the people to have a local militia with an armory to defend their community, despite the Congressional right to arm the militia in actual service of the United States, the Second Amendment indirectly seeks to protect the personal liberty of the members of that community from both highwaymen and the federal government.
Lee's quote is a bit more explicit in describing the mechanics, being "the whole body of the people" who are armed, not individuals, and the type of military education, but not in the purpose, which is obviously to create the local militia. The quotation leaves out, though it might have been elsewhere or simply assumed because of other provisions in the body of the Constitution, the equally essential military requirement of liberty, namely that all other armies in the United States, both state and federal, should be dependent on the Militia and only actuated with the Militia through a declaration of war by the people's representatives in Congress.
By the way, the Constitution never refers to a "State militia", the very term being nonsensical. Militia are local citizen armies, necessarily under local control until called into service by a higher level of government. The States are specifically prohibited from keeping troops in time of peace without the consent of Congress. There cannot be a State militia under the Constitution, so the Second Amendment also does not apply to any standing army of the State. Rather, the local militia is the concern of the Second Amendment. As such, it is a strong argument against a draft into the federal army. The right of the people to bear arms in their local militia is also a right to not have its citizens compelled to bear arms for a federal army.
posted by
cpklapper
on July 22, 2010 at 9:29 AM
| link to this | reply
Perhaps you should read some of the statements and writings......
of the men who put out Constitution together.......they were there at the time and fully knew what their intentions were.....
The intent of these amendments was to protect individuals from government powers. They were meant as a guarantee to the individual state governments as well as the American citizens that the Federal government would not try to take away the freedoms which many of them had so recently fought for. Senator William Grayson wrote to Patrick Henry; "Last Monday, a string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these altogether respected personal liberty…" (p. 76).
"To preserve Liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, and member of the first Continental Congress, which passed the Bill of Rights)
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on July 22, 2010 at 5:48 AM
| link to this | reply
Re:
I am saying that when the Constitution superseded the Articles, its legitimacy was based on the people agreeing to the new contract via ratification in each of the States. Monetary policy was one of the weakest arguments for it since it handcuffed the States in their fiscal policies -- to the absurd point that they are all in violation of the Constitution today by taking greenbacks rather than gold and silver in payment -- while preventing an efficient trade between them by refusing them the ability to issue their own free floating currencies and didn't prohibit the federal government from borrowing. The monetary policy of the Constitution has been an unmitigated disaster further compounded by the Federal Reserve.
posted by
cpklapper
on July 21, 2010 at 8:15 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: The context of the time
Not only that, but it makes sense out of what would be otherwise nonsensical. The typical conservative NRA view of the Second Amendment makes about as much sense as a right to keep kitchen knives.
posted by
cpklapper
on July 21, 2010 at 8:01 PM
| link to this | reply
Ok. So what are you saying here? That there was a time when the Articles of Cofederation didn't work? Well, we did need a monetary policy--even if it was Species Silver.
posted by
jfm32
on July 21, 2010 at 7:23 PM
| link to this | reply
Very important it is to take into account the context of the time. When looking at that one's view of the constitution and its Amendments is bound to change, I am sure.
posted by
FormerStudentIntern
on July 21, 2010 at 3:48 PM
| link to this | reply
That was very interesting! It has been give and take from the inception! sam
posted by
sam444
on July 21, 2010 at 3:33 PM
| link to this | reply