Subject:
|
Re: 2nd Amendment -- Bare Bones
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 25 Sep 2002 19:43:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
235 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> Here is the quote part:
> "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."
>
> This could just as easily read:
>
> Because a free state must protect itself against internal violence,
> invaders, and tyrannical rulers by using the posse comitatus...
>
> [note: this part is just the explanation]
>
> ...the right of the people to keep and bear arms is noted and will remain
> unlimited.
>
> [note: this is the salient part]
Heh. I think that this is the exact crux of the problem. I confess that
I am not as well-read on this subject as my peers here, but a lot of what
I've read identifies the first clause of the amendment as the vital part. I
can't get too deep into a defense of that viewpoint, given my lack of
extensive reading, but I've seen numerous references to cases like Miller
1939, in which the following appears:
> The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- '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.'
> U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and
> render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and
> guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and
> applied with that end in view.
I don't know what to make of that, beyond the straightforward meaning.
But at the same time, I know better than to put all of my decision-making
eggs in one basket. Still, for me, several questions remain. One of them
is, if Section 8 gives Congress the power of "calling forth the Militia to
execute the Laws of the Union, [and] suppress Insurrections," then how can
the militia be said to be the instrument by which the people might overthrow
that government, which is by definition insurrection, and the suppression of
which is part of the express purpose of the militia?
I'm not trying to be obtuse or disingenuous, but what's the resolution?
For the moment, I'd prefer to avoid appeals to extra-constitutional
documents and writings from the period and rather stick with the text of The
Constitution as written. Any ideas?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: 2nd Amendment -- Bare Bones
|
| (...) Well, perhaps there is no resolution -- we certainly have more than one instance of bad law, bad stare decisis, coming down from the high court...and it does annoy. The court has, in particular, been guilty of making bad law that is in the way (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 2nd Amendment -- Bare Bones
|
| Here is the quote part: "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." This could just as easily read: Because a free state must protect itself (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
