What Exactly Is The U.S. Constitution?

SmarterthanYou said:
please tell me you aren't stupid enough to believe the founders had no clue about technological advancements...........which is why they said ARMS, not your idiot muskets
Click to expand...

You know what they meant by “bearing arms”, dumbshit?

I’ll leave that open for you to answer, rather than give you the answer.
 
(a)  The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32 , under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b)  The classes of the militia are--

(1)  the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;  and

(2)  the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.



Read this complete 10 U.S.C. § 311 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 10. Armed Forces § 311. Militia:  composition and classes on Westlaw
 
Fentoine Lum said:
It's rather like the bible, meaningless other than as a blunt intrument with which to bludgeon ideological opponents.
Click to expand...

You make a good point, however, some people actually think the Constitution is the Holy Bible and our forefathers were Gods.

Our forefathers were humans, and what they were trying to do, was create a government by the people for the people.

And then suddenly the inevitable happened- SPECIAL INTEREST set in!

And Special Interest has been trying to take the power away from the people ever since!
 
kudzu said:
(a)  The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32 , under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b)  The classes of the militia are--

(1)  the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;  and

(2)  the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.



Read this complete 10 U.S.C. § 311 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 10. Armed Forces § 311. Militia:  composition and classes on Westlaw
Click to expand...

congress alone cannot alter or abolish the constitution or bill of rights
 
kudzu said:
You think they wrote "well-regulated militia" just to fill up the page?
Click to expand...

how did the framers define 'well regulated militia'?

it is the absolute height of stupidity to believe that the framers would guarantee the right of a standing army to keep and bear arms after having just experienced their former standing army of trying to oppress them by confiscating their arms.
 
Wex


Second Amendment
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."


On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense.

Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.



https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment



In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ."
 
Last edited:
kudzu said:
Second Amendment
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."




On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense.

Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.



https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment



In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita . . . ."
Click to expand...

factually incorrect, every bit of it, except that people have theories.

The 2nd Amendment gives nobody a right because the founders believed that the right already existed. the 2nd was written to prohibit any federal government involvement over the arms of the people.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America — Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.

There are other things so clearly out of the power of Congress, that the bare recital of them is sufficient, I mean the "...rights of bearing arms for defence, or for killing game..." These things seem to have been inserted among their objections, merely to induce the ignorant to believe that Congress would have a power over such objects and to infer from their being refused a place in the Constitution, their intention to exercise that power to the oppression of the people. —ALEXANDER WHITE (1787)

The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people; or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion. —ST. GEORGE TUCKER'S BLACKSTONE

The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. — William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)
Click to expand...

US v Miller did not adopt the collective rights theory. What it did was tell us that they had no evidence to determine whether short barreled shotguns qualified as protected arms for a well regulated militia. It was basically a drop kick of the courts saying they were deciding nothing.
 
Adolf_Twitler said:
You make a good point, however, some people actually think the Constitution is the Holy Bible and our forefathers were Gods.

Our forefathers were humans, and what they were trying to do, was create a government by the people for the people.
--
And then suddenly the inevitable happened- SPECIAL INTEREST set in!

And Special Interest has been trying to take the power away from the people ever since!
Click to expand...

We are all special interests--environmentalists, gun groups and gun control groups, males, females, minorities, workers, business owners, educators, immigration control and immigration rights groups, liberal groups, conservative groups, etc.

The founders were very aware of special interests and Madison said the main function of government is to control factions (groups) and sought to create a government to prevent any faction from imposing its policies on others even when that faction is a majority.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
factually incorrect, every bit of it, except that people have theories.

The 2nd Amendment gives nobody a right because the founders believed that the right already existed. the 2nd was written to prohibit any federal government involvement over the arms of the people.



US v Miller did not adopt the collective rights theory. What it did was tell us that they had no evidence to determine whether short barreled shotguns qualified as protected arms for a well regulated militia. It was basically a drop kick of the courts saying they were deciding nothing.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court disagreed by an 8-0 vote. Justice James C. McReynolds wrote the opinion, saying:

U.S. Supreme Court (1939): In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
 
kudzu said:
The Supreme Court disagreed by an 8-0 vote. Justice James C. McReynolds wrote the opinion, saying:

U.S. Supreme Court (1939): In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Click to expand...

you're simply reading in to this what you want to read. your bias against the 2nd Amendment makes that clear. the opinion makes clear that they made no decision whatsoever, good or bad and that's what 8 justices agreed upon.
 
Flash said:
We are all special interests--environmentalists, gun groups and gun control groups, males, females, minorities, workers, business owners, educators, immigration control and immigration rights groups, liberal groups, conservative groups, etc.

The founders were very aware of special interests and Madison said the main function of government is to control factions (groups) and sought to create a government to prevent any faction from imposing its policies on others even when that faction is a majority.
Click to expand...

Smart politicians know what special interests of the vocal majority are, and they work on issues that the vocal majority want to see progress come to fore with.

Naturally, Immigration is on everyone's minds, and it's only because politicians of the past were afraid to make the tough decisions it takes to push through an immigration Bill, so it is already 50 years behind schedule.

The problem with Donald Trump is he is dancing to the tune of Racists that have been trying to end immigration as a whole, and he has been lock step with them. This is America, and our country was formed out of immigrants, and has always welcomed legal immigration. It is one of America's shining attributes that we Americans are most proud of. And so, we do not intend to end Immigration as a whole, but we do intend to have an immigration policy that works for everyone and one that the vocal majority can live with and accept.

But hear me out, we are not going to do it Donald Trump's way. We are going to work together to form a new immigration policy.

We are not racists, nor or we an autocracy!

So, if Donald Trump wants an immigration policy as part of his legacy, he will now have to hear from the Democrats, or it will not happen!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top