SmarterthanYou
rebel
go take a history class and LEARN IT!!!!!!!
where and how do you think the alien and sedition clause came about?
Today's lesson in the constitution
- Thread starter Craig234
- Start date
go take a history class and LEARN IT!!!!!!!
where and how do you think the alien and sedition clause came about?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
and show us framer documentation on how they defined this, thanks
SmarterthanYou
rebel
wow, you are an absolute moron. don't you realize that there were lengthy debates on this that included anti federalists? and you forget who actually are the owners of the constitution? why did the bill of rights come in to existence?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
and EVERY founder claimed that WE THE PEOPLE are the militia. got it, fuckstick? and since you like to go by exact wording of letter of the law, THAT version doesn't even count because it isn't in the bill of rights, so THAT intent is irrelevant.
You really are a lazy ignoramus, aren’t you?
Ignorant fucktard, EVERY founder didn’t agree on EVERYTHING in the Constitution or B of R. There was plenty of disagreement to go around.
You wanted original intent? I gave it to you. Regardless of the removal of the conscientious objector clause, the INTENT remains obvious. That you fail to recognize that proves your massive stupidity.
Been to the courthouse yet, coward?
evince
Truthmatters
evince
Truthmatters
well regulated
evince
Truthmatters
evince
Truthmatters
Federalist No. 84 is an Alexander Hamilton essay titled "Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered", the eighty-fourth of The Federalist Papers, published under the pseudonym Publius on July 16, July 26, and August 9, 1788.
Federalist No. 84 is notable for presenting the idea that a Bill of Rights was not a necessary component of the proposed United States Constitution. The Constitution, as originally written, did not specifically enumerate or protect the rights of the people. It is alleged that many Americans at the time opposed the inclusion of a bill of rights: if such a bill were created, they feared, this might later be interpreted as a list of the only rights that people had. Hamilton wrote:
It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Carta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John...It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. "We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government....
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.
Federalist No. 84 is notable for presenting the idea that a Bill of Rights was not a necessary component of the proposed United States Constitution. The Constitution, as originally written, did not specifically enumerate or protect the rights of the people. It is alleged that many Americans at the time opposed the inclusion of a bill of rights: if such a bill were created, they feared, this might later be interpreted as a list of the only rights that people had. Hamilton wrote:
It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Carta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John...It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. "We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government....
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.
evince
Truthmatters
see
the entire tea tard type arguments about the constitution are anti fed arguments
ones that failed to be adpoted by the founders
its designed by people who hate this country and want to weaken it by making a show of this crap because they KNOW we dont teach ot tp our kids well anymore
this is why the republicans tried so hard to tear our schools up
refusing to fund public schools with the idito argument of "throwing money at the problem"
every time we tried to improve our schools by properly funding them they REFUSED
the entire tea tard type arguments about the constitution are anti fed arguments
ones that failed to be adpoted by the founders
its designed by people who hate this country and want to weaken it by making a show of this crap because they KNOW we dont teach ot tp our kids well anymore
this is why the republicans tried so hard to tear our schools up
refusing to fund public schools with the idito argument of "throwing money at the problem"
every time we tried to improve our schools by properly funding them they REFUSED
The first thing Hamilton did was to propose powers not granted in the Constitution by creating a national bank.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
can't back up your claim with proof? thought so.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
which is why it took so long to come up with the constitution and bill of rights, THEN it all had to be ratified by WE THE PEOPLE. you really should just stop talking before you look any more moronic.
the 'intent' is all about the end result. not anything that WAS NOT RATIFIED.
don't go away mad, just go away.......moron.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
i've done that dozens of times on this board, that you have such a short memory and attention span is your problem and not mine.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
how did the framers define 'well regulated'?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
looks like he was right, you bunch of fucking statists want those rights regulated when there is no such power to do so.
Do you understand how that proves you and your "well regulated" mantra wrong?
The right to arms is not granted, given, created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment, thus the right is in no manner dependent on the words of the Constitution. AND, because the organized, official militia is a structure that is itself entirely dependent upon the Constitution for its existence, the right to arms can not be argued to be qualified upon a citizen's membership in the organized militia (established by Art I, § 8, cl's 15 & 16), or conditioned upon a citizen meeting any training standard that is created under militia law authorized by the militia clauses of the Constitution.
Face it, you are just irredeemably wrong on every point you present. When SCOTUS says, neither is the right to arms in any manner dependent on the Constitution it means, THE RIGHT IS IN NO MANNER DEPENDENT ON THE CONSTITUTION . . .
SCOTUS has been boringly consistent re-re-re-affirming this principle for 131 years and counting:
Supreme Court, 1876: "The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ."
Supreme Court, 1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . . "
Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”
Sweetpea, the ONLY thing that can be concluded from reading the 2nd Amendment is that, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
.