Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5131415
Results 141 to 146 of 146
Thanks Tree55Thanks

Thread: The US constitution

  1. #141
    DEEP STATE CEO Blues63's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    9,184
    Thanks
    6629

    From
    SPECTRE HQ
    Quote Originally Posted by libertariat720 View Post
    Something like the constitution had never been done before. There were either dictatorships or monarchies.
    Incorrect. The Athenians and the Romans blow that claim out of the water. Look up Aristotle on the Athenian Constitution.

  2. #142
    DEEP STATE CEO Blues63's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    9,184
    Thanks
    6629

    From
    SPECTRE HQ
    Quote Originally Posted by libertariat720 View Post
    And you are misinterpreting what they meant by well-regulated.

    Regulated meant to be in a state of preparedness, to be ready to fight. That makes much more sense than what you are saying.

    Think about it. If the second amendment was written to protect citizens against the tyranny of the state, why in the ever loving fuck would they give the state the power to "regulate" them, so well? Lol, Jesus use your critical thinking skills.

    You guys talk about social evolution without talking about linguistic evolution.
    The militias were designed to supplement any current or future standing army against the threat of the British trying to retake the colony.

  3. #143
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    61,052
    Thanks
    30297

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    Jefferson (author of the Declaration of Independence and contributing writer to the constitution as I'm sure you know) is well known for the quote: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants".
    1. He was not the sole author of the Declaration, which was actually done by a committee.

    2. He did not contribute to the Constitution, as he (like John Adams) was out of the country during the Constitutional Convention and the ratification of the Constitution, as well as during the time the Bill of Rights was being written by Congress. And as U.S. Secretary of State, it is unlikely he contributed heavily to the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

    3. While the quote is accurate, it is not relevant to an understanding of the Constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    Considering they themselves had to form a rebellion to wrestle their rights from a tyrannical monarch I think it's safe to say they were thinking of tyrants and despots when they came up with the second amendment. I seriously doubt rebellions by the people were foremost on their mind.
    Remember that the tyrannical monarch was also enforcing laws made by Parliament, not making up his own stuff, and the colonies were not represented in Parliament.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    In any case: the second amendment is pretty clear in what it is saying. That the right of the people to bear arms must not be infringed so they can defend their freedom.
    Not as against the United States government, however, given that the Constitution empowers Congress to put down such rebellions.

  4. #144
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    61,052
    Thanks
    30297

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    Link please.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tennyson View Post
    Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 1st Congress, 1st Session.
    https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampag...1.db&recNum=51

    Note, however, that without at least a reference to a specific page or pages, finding what was described will be difficult and time-consuming. I did a research project in college that had me reading from the Annals on microfilm (this was before the Annals were available online, IIRC), and that was a really annoying procedure.

  5. #145
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    61,052
    Thanks
    30297

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Blues63 View Post
    Incorrect. The Athenians and the Romans blow that claim out of the water. Look up Aristotle on the Athenian Constitution.
    These were discussed in some of the Federalist Papers as well.

  6. #146
    A Character Tennyson's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    2,266
    Thanks
    503

    From
    Barsoom
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampag...1.db&recNum=51

    Note, however, that without at least a reference to a specific page or pages, finding what was described will be difficult and time-consuming. I did a research project in college that had me reading from the Annals on microfilm (this was before the Annals were available online, IIRC), and that was a really annoying procedure.
    I can narrow it down to August 17 and 20, 1789 without having to slog through the Annals as I have never been able to search them online.

    Seegars v. Ashcroft (2004), summed it up nicely also:

    Thus, the Articles provide further evidence that a "militia" was understood to be a state military entity. Moreover, and of particular significance to the Court's opinion about the meaning of the term "militia" is the Ninth Circuit's discussion in Silveira about the reasons underlying the inclusion of the phrase "necessary to the security of a free State" in the Second Amendment.

    This choice of language was far from accidental: [James] Madison's first draft of the amendment stated that a well-regulated militia was `the best security of a free country.' Anti-Federalist Elbridge Gerry explained that changing the language to `necessary to the security of a free State' emphasized the primacy of the state militia over the federal standing army: `A well-regulated militia being the best security of a free state, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one.'" 230*230 Id. (citing David Yassky, The Second Amendment: Structure, History and Constitutional Change, 99 Mich. L.Rev. 588, 610 (2000) (quoting The Congressional Register, August 17, 1789)). As this Court will more fully explore below in subsection E, infra at 232-35, it is apparent that the phrase "a well regulated militia" in the Second Amendment refers to the maintenance of an effective state fighting force, which was specifically included by the drafters of the Bill of Rights to protect the states against a potentially oppressive federal government. It was only through strong state militias that the drafters believed the people of our nation could be secure in the blessings of liberty and no longer fear a tyrannical federal government which had a standing army at its disposal.

Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5131415

Similar Threads

  1. Where in the Constitution??
    By Wrangler in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 120
    Last Post: 23rd May 2016, 02:47 PM
  2. The US Needs A New Constitution
    By TrueMan in forum Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 9th September 2014, 06:51 AM
  3. Replies: 400
    Last Post: 27th March 2013, 06:02 PM
  4. what does the Constitution say?
    By nonsqtr in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10th November 2009, 07:25 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed