Too often in a debate or discussion about the Constitution, its creation and meaning, the fact that the federal government is a “product of the states” and not the other way around, is completely overlooked.
Today, most talk about “the government”, meaning the federal government, completely bypasses the fact that without the states, there would be no federal government. The Articles of Confederation proved that a “loose knit” organization does not have sufficient power to perform the basic and vital services required.
When the Framers convened in “filthy” Philadelphia in the heat of the summer of 1787, they set about defining what, in their minds, constituted an appropriate form and the extent of the powers which should be assigned to it. None of them expressed the idea of “unlimited” power. Rather, they focused on what they considered were essential services and powers necessary to preserve and protect the hard-won freedom the colonies had secured as a result of the revolutionary war.
To a delegate, they recognized that the states would have to give up some of their sovereignty if the federal government was to succeed. However, they were jealous individuals and did not want to give up any more than was absolutely necessary. Having witnessed the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation and having an exceptional knowledge of history, they “hammered together” a set of conditions which they believed would create a federal government to which they, each state, could adhere. They wanted a federal government strong enough to protect them from outside predators; one that could provide a stable economy and serve as a “referee” in enforcing the rules the legislature would enact. Yet they wanted it severely restricted as to how many different powers it had, the extent of such powers and the prohibitions against intrusions on the lives and businesses of individual citizens (re-read the Bill of Rights)!
The fact that the states have succumbed like Pavlov’s dogs is no excuse or obliteration of the fact that the states created the union. Their submission is only evidence of the weakness of man in terms of resisting temptation. The offer by the federal government to provide monies for specific functions or activities does not remove the potential or right of any state to refuse! While it is not new, we are seeing a resurgence of this attitude in the “nullification” proclamations introduced by a number of states. They are asserting their rights to disagree and refuse acceptance of a federal mandate! Perhaps they are realizing the cost of acceptance and the federal control that comes with such acceptance. While this may be to Alexander Hamilton’s liking, it is far afield from Jefferson’s dictum of “that government is best that governs least!”
When one considers that the 10 Amendments added immediately following ratification of the basic Constitution incorporated two that addressed the specific question of state sovereignty, there should be little doubt in any reader’s mind. Let’s look at those two amendments.
IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
and Xth. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
While legal scholars have argued that the two amendments are redundant, a careful reading should clearly reveal that they are reinforcing the basic point that the United States is a creature of the States and not vice verse.
That’s my view. What’s yours? Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com
©Copyright 2011 Hillard W. Welch
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Friday, March 18, 2011
Guts and Fortitude!
We’re thinking about the people who populated this land that became known as America and finally created the United States.
Many of them did not know where they were going, whether they would live through the transatlantic ordeal in the “skiff” on which they embarked, or if they could survive once they arrived.
Could it be that the “love of freedom” and the willingness to sacrifice almost everything to secure it was at the root of their decision? Certainly they did not think in terms of “building a business and reaping great monetary rewards”. Many felt persecuted for their religious beliefs. The motivation inspired them to pick up whatever belongings they had or could carry and venture off to an unknown continent where they didn’t even know if they could survive, let alone that they would arrive there safely.
Yet, come they did. By the thousands. They sought “freedom of religion” not “freedom from religion”. They sought security in their persons and possessions. Note the clause in the Constitution about seizure, warrants and the taking of property without due process of law. (See Amendments I and IV)
They sought “freedom of speech”. They did not fear critical comments or disagreements. In fact, it appears that they welcomed them. The pamphlets, letters of correspondence, public assemblies and other acts of defiance toward their “oppressors” reached the boiling point prior to the outbreak of hostilities that became a war for independence. (See Amendment I)
They had a genuine mistrust of government. This was the result of the arbitrary laws and taxes imposed upon them as colonies of Great Britain. Under the feudal approach many were considered more slaves than citizens. Some countries, notably Britain, were making strides in the direction of more freedom for their citizens. However, the fact remained that the government in the person of the King, dictated the rules and set the taxes.
The colonials exhibited a strong sense of independence and self-reliance. They did not look to, nor expect, assistance from government. They espoused what became a Jefferson axiom, “that government is best which governs least”. They looked to themselves and their neighbors in time of need. A well known example are the “barn raising events” that were common during the early days.
Despite the hardships they encountered once here, they stuck it out. There appears to be little evidence of any “giving up” and attempting to return to their mother country. They exhibited a high degree of determination, particularly when you consider that almost every one of them was starting from scratch with only those possessions they were able to bring with them.
There was a strong pioneering spirit and a willingness to confront all obstacles. Few may recall that a number of the early settlements in this land were essentially socialistic. All members of the particular group were expected to “serve the good of the whole”. That approach proved a disaster and the settlers abolished it early on, substituting “individual property rights” versus communal. The new approach was not only successful, it taught the colonials a lesson they never forgot. (See Amendments IV and V).
To paraphrase Ben Franklin, “America spawned a new breed, a heartier more resilient group of people who needed a new nation.”
Yes, those who came first and populated this country were a breed apart. They stood on their own two feet, were totally independent and pursued their desires without interference from a government. Do we today have individuals with the same guts and fortitude as our forbears? It would appear unlikely when you consider that today almost half the population is accepting government handouts. Hardly a sign of individualism and independence.
Many of them did not know where they were going, whether they would live through the transatlantic ordeal in the “skiff” on which they embarked, or if they could survive once they arrived.
Could it be that the “love of freedom” and the willingness to sacrifice almost everything to secure it was at the root of their decision? Certainly they did not think in terms of “building a business and reaping great monetary rewards”. Many felt persecuted for their religious beliefs. The motivation inspired them to pick up whatever belongings they had or could carry and venture off to an unknown continent where they didn’t even know if they could survive, let alone that they would arrive there safely.
Yet, come they did. By the thousands. They sought “freedom of religion” not “freedom from religion”. They sought security in their persons and possessions. Note the clause in the Constitution about seizure, warrants and the taking of property without due process of law. (See Amendments I and IV)
They sought “freedom of speech”. They did not fear critical comments or disagreements. In fact, it appears that they welcomed them. The pamphlets, letters of correspondence, public assemblies and other acts of defiance toward their “oppressors” reached the boiling point prior to the outbreak of hostilities that became a war for independence. (See Amendment I)
They had a genuine mistrust of government. This was the result of the arbitrary laws and taxes imposed upon them as colonies of Great Britain. Under the feudal approach many were considered more slaves than citizens. Some countries, notably Britain, were making strides in the direction of more freedom for their citizens. However, the fact remained that the government in the person of the King, dictated the rules and set the taxes.
The colonials exhibited a strong sense of independence and self-reliance. They did not look to, nor expect, assistance from government. They espoused what became a Jefferson axiom, “that government is best which governs least”. They looked to themselves and their neighbors in time of need. A well known example are the “barn raising events” that were common during the early days.
Despite the hardships they encountered once here, they stuck it out. There appears to be little evidence of any “giving up” and attempting to return to their mother country. They exhibited a high degree of determination, particularly when you consider that almost every one of them was starting from scratch with only those possessions they were able to bring with them.
There was a strong pioneering spirit and a willingness to confront all obstacles. Few may recall that a number of the early settlements in this land were essentially socialistic. All members of the particular group were expected to “serve the good of the whole”. That approach proved a disaster and the settlers abolished it early on, substituting “individual property rights” versus communal. The new approach was not only successful, it taught the colonials a lesson they never forgot. (See Amendments IV and V).
To paraphrase Ben Franklin, “America spawned a new breed, a heartier more resilient group of people who needed a new nation.”
Yes, those who came first and populated this country were a breed apart. They stood on their own two feet, were totally independent and pursued their desires without interference from a government. Do we today have individuals with the same guts and fortitude as our forbears? It would appear unlikely when you consider that today almost half the population is accepting government handouts. Hardly a sign of individualism and independence.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Who is in charge?
The Constitution is fairly explicit in defining the responsibilities and duties of the three branches of government created by that document. So, let’s start with Congress.
Art. I, Sec. 1. “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.
The Article then goes on to define the makeup of both the House and the Senate as well as the attributes each elected member must have (e.g. age, residency, etc.)
Sec. 8 very carefully defines the 17 specific powers granted to Congress, adding an 18th, “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers . . .”
The Bill of Rights state 8 areas where Congress may not act.
Art. II, Sec. 1, 2 & 3. The Executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States. Before entering on the execution of his office, he must swear or affirm that he will, “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” He shall be the commander-in-chief of the Army, Navy and Militia of the several states. He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make treaties (2/3 of the senate must approve). He may fill vacancies by appointment during a senate recess, such appointments shall expire at the end of their next session. He shall also provide a “state of the union” report to Congress and can recommend for their consideration such Measures as he
judges necessary and expedient. He may also convene both houses on extraordinary occasions. He shall “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.” There is no mention of Executive Orders!
Art. III, Sec. 1 The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. . . . In all Cases . . . in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.
The separation of powers and delegation of responsibilities made each branch serve as a check on the transgression of the others. How far we have strayed from that noble concept. We find judges making laws as well as Presidents issuing executive orders that take on the force of law. We find departments within the government issuing regulations with the force of law but without Congressional approval.
John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” With the attacks on our religious foundations and liberal desire to remove God from all aspects of both the government and civilian life, the question must be asked: “are we no longer a moral and religious people?”
In the true sense of the Constitution, all acts should be consistent with the proscriptions of that document. Anything outside of that would be considered null and void since it would not be authorized.
Today we have a strong desire on the part of even Supreme Court justices to apply case law instead of constitutional law. In fact, it goes so far as to have some justices stating that the Court should take into consideration foreign law and standards rather than apply the restraint of the Constitution in deciding the outcome of a case. Case law uses precedent rather than principal for its foundation. Thus, if something was permitted in the past, whether right or wrong, it may be used in support of further deviation from the original intent of the Constitution.
Art. I, Sec. 1. “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.
The Article then goes on to define the makeup of both the House and the Senate as well as the attributes each elected member must have (e.g. age, residency, etc.)
Sec. 8 very carefully defines the 17 specific powers granted to Congress, adding an 18th, “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers . . .”
The Bill of Rights state 8 areas where Congress may not act.
Art. II, Sec. 1, 2 & 3. The Executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States. Before entering on the execution of his office, he must swear or affirm that he will, “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” He shall be the commander-in-chief of the Army, Navy and Militia of the several states. He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make treaties (2/3 of the senate must approve). He may fill vacancies by appointment during a senate recess, such appointments shall expire at the end of their next session. He shall also provide a “state of the union” report to Congress and can recommend for their consideration such Measures as he
judges necessary and expedient. He may also convene both houses on extraordinary occasions. He shall “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.” There is no mention of Executive Orders!
Art. III, Sec. 1 The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. . . . In all Cases . . . in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.
The separation of powers and delegation of responsibilities made each branch serve as a check on the transgression of the others. How far we have strayed from that noble concept. We find judges making laws as well as Presidents issuing executive orders that take on the force of law. We find departments within the government issuing regulations with the force of law but without Congressional approval.
John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” With the attacks on our religious foundations and liberal desire to remove God from all aspects of both the government and civilian life, the question must be asked: “are we no longer a moral and religious people?”
In the true sense of the Constitution, all acts should be consistent with the proscriptions of that document. Anything outside of that would be considered null and void since it would not be authorized.
Today we have a strong desire on the part of even Supreme Court justices to apply case law instead of constitutional law. In fact, it goes so far as to have some justices stating that the Court should take into consideration foreign law and standards rather than apply the restraint of the Constitution in deciding the outcome of a case. Case law uses precedent rather than principal for its foundation. Thus, if something was permitted in the past, whether right or wrong, it may be used in support of further deviation from the original intent of the Constitution.
Monday, January 31, 2011
The Electoral College – as “amended”
In our first article about the Electoral College, we tried to develop the thinking we believed the Founding Fathers employed in devising the system. There can be no question but what they considered the selection of a President and Vice President as a singularly important undertaking. With the purpose of “selecting the best qualified individuals for the positions”, they devised the unique situation whereby the “electors” of each state have no other function than to nominate the person (or persons) they consider most qualified for the position. The electors were to have been either appointed by a state’s legislature or voted upon by the citizens of the state.
One thing was absolutely clear in the original: the states were to elect the President and Vice-president as sovereign entities (Art. II, Sec. 1, §2). Citizen participation was at the will of the state’s legislature. There was no such thing as a “popular election”. This was intentional, the Framers believing that it should be a careful, thoughtful deliberative process in order to be sure of selecting the most qualified person for the position.
However, almost immediately upon the ratification of the Constitution, the desire to “change the system” began circulating. The XIIth Amendment sought to clarify the selection of the individual for President and the one for Vice President. Now distinct lists for each office were to be prepared by the electors appointed in each state. The prohibition against the two citizens coming from the same state was continued. The other details were left untouched.
The Founding Fathers idea of an independent body of electors disappeared with the arrival of the political parties. Political parties began offering their own “slate of electors” for each state with electors pledged to vote for a specific individual of the party’s choice. Rarely did an elector “break ranks”. In fact, several states passed laws binding an elector to the result of the popular vote. Thus, the deliberative process of individual citizens thoughtfully selecting someone considered best qualified to be an “elector” was thwarted by the appearance of the political parties.
Each state legislature had the power and authority to determine the method by which their electors would be chosen. The legislature could appoint them directly or allow the citizens to cast votes for individual electors. In 1788, Pennsylvania began allowing its citizens to vote for presidential electors. Today, all states follow this procedure.
An important sidelight is the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (Bush v. Gore 2000) that a state legislature could take back the power to appoint electors at any time. This overrode a state having previously installed the practice of allowing the citizens to vote for such electors.
Two other amendments, XXth and XXVth address the question of possible problems when an elected President dies prior to taking office. In both, the conclusion was reached that the “elected Vice President” should immediately take over.
While there have not been any amendments that sought to abolish the Electoral College, it can be seen that the original intent of such a body has been completely eviscerated by the actions of the political parties. The Founding Fathers never contemplated the inordinate growth of such organizations nor the power they could wield in shaping the discourse surrounding the selection of a President and Vice President. Gone almost completely is the knowledge that the states elect the President and Vice President and not the citizens per se. Mass media and political barnstorming serve to persuade the citizen to vote for a particular candidate, at times irrespective of the individual’s qualifications for the position.
The question remains: could the original intent still work or has the process become so manipulated, that it focuses more on political showmanship and financial backing?
One thing was absolutely clear in the original: the states were to elect the President and Vice-president as sovereign entities (Art. II, Sec. 1, §2). Citizen participation was at the will of the state’s legislature. There was no such thing as a “popular election”. This was intentional, the Framers believing that it should be a careful, thoughtful deliberative process in order to be sure of selecting the most qualified person for the position.
However, almost immediately upon the ratification of the Constitution, the desire to “change the system” began circulating. The XIIth Amendment sought to clarify the selection of the individual for President and the one for Vice President. Now distinct lists for each office were to be prepared by the electors appointed in each state. The prohibition against the two citizens coming from the same state was continued. The other details were left untouched.
The Founding Fathers idea of an independent body of electors disappeared with the arrival of the political parties. Political parties began offering their own “slate of electors” for each state with electors pledged to vote for a specific individual of the party’s choice. Rarely did an elector “break ranks”. In fact, several states passed laws binding an elector to the result of the popular vote. Thus, the deliberative process of individual citizens thoughtfully selecting someone considered best qualified to be an “elector” was thwarted by the appearance of the political parties.
Each state legislature had the power and authority to determine the method by which their electors would be chosen. The legislature could appoint them directly or allow the citizens to cast votes for individual electors. In 1788, Pennsylvania began allowing its citizens to vote for presidential electors. Today, all states follow this procedure.
An important sidelight is the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (Bush v. Gore 2000) that a state legislature could take back the power to appoint electors at any time. This overrode a state having previously installed the practice of allowing the citizens to vote for such electors.
Two other amendments, XXth and XXVth address the question of possible problems when an elected President dies prior to taking office. In both, the conclusion was reached that the “elected Vice President” should immediately take over.
While there have not been any amendments that sought to abolish the Electoral College, it can be seen that the original intent of such a body has been completely eviscerated by the actions of the political parties. The Founding Fathers never contemplated the inordinate growth of such organizations nor the power they could wield in shaping the discourse surrounding the selection of a President and Vice President. Gone almost completely is the knowledge that the states elect the President and Vice President and not the citizens per se. Mass media and political barnstorming serve to persuade the citizen to vote for a particular candidate, at times irrespective of the individual’s qualifications for the position.
The question remains: could the original intent still work or has the process become so manipulated, that it focuses more on political showmanship and financial backing?
Thursday, December 23, 2010
The Electoral College as intended.
Not enough is understood about the background and reasoning that went into the development of the Electoral College. It was devised by the Founders as a method of safeguarding the highest office of the land and protecting it from being occupied by a demagogue or megalomaniac.
While desirous of having the individual citizens of each state participate in the procedure, they did not think the election of the president should be a national event! Rather, it should be the result of the careful deliberations of a select group of individuals in each state (called electors) chosen according to the procedure established by the state’s legislature. The number of electors would be equal to the total of the state’s representatives and senators in congress. The “electors” would then convene with each elector casting a vote for two individuals (one of whom must be from a different state) considered properly qualified to be the Chief Executive of the country. Remember, the citizen voted for an elector, not a President and while an elector might have a predilection toward a particular individual, the process was to insulate the citizen from the usual propaganda and publicity approach so common today.
Each state, being considered sovereign in its own right, certified the results of the balloting, which certification was sent to the seat of the Government of the United States. There, the President of the Senate, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, opened all of the certificates and the votes would be counted.
Conceivably, there could be 5 or 6 nominees for the highest office. The Constitution provided that the individual receiving the highest number of votes in the Electoral College would be the President. The individual receiving the second highest number would be the Vice President.
Now let’s review exactly what was intended and why.
The idea of a national election where everybody voted for an individual was not acceptable since this would encourage the worst possible outcome of a democratic approach. The individual with the most charisma and best rhetoric could win under such a procedure, irrespective of qualifications. At this point, it must be noted that the development of the two party system has destroyed most of the benefit provided by the original concept of the Electoral College.
The reasoning of the Founding Fathers appears to have gone something like this: The average citizen would know members of his own community best. Thus, the idea in the Constitution for the individuals in each state to vote for an “elector” from their area to represent them in the state’s council of electors. These state electors were delegated the responsibility of voting for that individual they considered best qualified for the highest office in the land.
Such a procedure could easily lead to a multiplicity of names being placed in nomination and did so in several instances. To safeguard the procedure from the intrigue of politics by current office holders, no office holder in the federal government could serve as an elector in any state.
The only truly democratic element in all this was the initial voting done by the citizens in their own state for their local elector. From that point forward, the process was judgmental by those involved in casting their votes.
Article II, Sec. 1 provides all the specifics of the original procedure and should be required reading for those wishing to appreciate the genius of the Founding Fathers. Had the concept embodied therein been followed, we might have a totally different situation today. Note that Amendments XII and XX made substantive changes to the original Article and will be discussed in a subsequent writing.
While desirous of having the individual citizens of each state participate in the procedure, they did not think the election of the president should be a national event! Rather, it should be the result of the careful deliberations of a select group of individuals in each state (called electors) chosen according to the procedure established by the state’s legislature. The number of electors would be equal to the total of the state’s representatives and senators in congress. The “electors” would then convene with each elector casting a vote for two individuals (one of whom must be from a different state) considered properly qualified to be the Chief Executive of the country. Remember, the citizen voted for an elector, not a President and while an elector might have a predilection toward a particular individual, the process was to insulate the citizen from the usual propaganda and publicity approach so common today.
Each state, being considered sovereign in its own right, certified the results of the balloting, which certification was sent to the seat of the Government of the United States. There, the President of the Senate, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, opened all of the certificates and the votes would be counted.
Conceivably, there could be 5 or 6 nominees for the highest office. The Constitution provided that the individual receiving the highest number of votes in the Electoral College would be the President. The individual receiving the second highest number would be the Vice President.
Now let’s review exactly what was intended and why.
The idea of a national election where everybody voted for an individual was not acceptable since this would encourage the worst possible outcome of a democratic approach. The individual with the most charisma and best rhetoric could win under such a procedure, irrespective of qualifications. At this point, it must be noted that the development of the two party system has destroyed most of the benefit provided by the original concept of the Electoral College.
The reasoning of the Founding Fathers appears to have gone something like this: The average citizen would know members of his own community best. Thus, the idea in the Constitution for the individuals in each state to vote for an “elector” from their area to represent them in the state’s council of electors. These state electors were delegated the responsibility of voting for that individual they considered best qualified for the highest office in the land.
Such a procedure could easily lead to a multiplicity of names being placed in nomination and did so in several instances. To safeguard the procedure from the intrigue of politics by current office holders, no office holder in the federal government could serve as an elector in any state.
The only truly democratic element in all this was the initial voting done by the citizens in their own state for their local elector. From that point forward, the process was judgmental by those involved in casting their votes.
Article II, Sec. 1 provides all the specifics of the original procedure and should be required reading for those wishing to appreciate the genius of the Founding Fathers. Had the concept embodied therein been followed, we might have a totally different situation today. Note that Amendments XII and XX made substantive changes to the original Article and will be discussed in a subsequent writing.
Friday, December 3, 2010
2nd Amendment in Print
“A man with a gun is a citizen. A man without a gun is a subject.” Attributed to D. Michael Wiechman, May 14, 1996.
In 1776, Thomas Jefferson said, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
The meaning of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is best addressed by re-reading the actual words.
“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.”
Two words appear to be critical to an understanding of the amendment.
First, Militia. A militia in the original text refers to a citizen body capable of protecting the freedom of the state in which it resides should an invasion, attack or other hostility take place. There was no consideration at the time of “federal troops” arriving to manage the situation. Each state was expected to be capable of defending itself. In order to do so, it expected all able bodied males to be equipped with their own “arms”.
And therein lies the second word for consideration. “Arms” are undefined. Did the Founders mean “firearms” as we interpret the word so often today? In truth, “Arms” includes any implement that may be used for self-defense or defense of a community. Thus, a club, a machete, a bowing knife or even a cross-bow may be considered an “arm” in the true sense.
Perhaps the argument is really a question of whether a citizen has the right to self-defense. There do not appear to be any court decisions that would eliminate or prohibit such a right! In fact, the majority of such court decisions have come down on the side of self-defense with the defendant being cleared of any incrimination.
The point is that an individual with the right of self-defense should be able to use whatever implement is “at hand” to protect themselves against an intruder, marauder, rapist, thief or other criminal who may or may not be intent on rendering bodily harm to the citizen.
Judgment is critical on the part of every citizen with respect to when force, of any type, is required to resolve a dangerous condition or confrontation. Disagreement is not a sound basis for employing physical force.
Does any one expect a criminal to stop if the subject threatens to call 911. Yes, 911 is a great help in many emergencies, particularly those where a person’s health is involved. Many heart attack victims have been saved as a result of the emergency services provided by the 911 team. But, as an anonymous individual stated, “I carry a gun because I can’t carry a cop.”
Statistically, the number of firearms in the possession of law-abiding citizens is in the tens of millions. Yet, they don’t show up as the ones involved in criminal activities. Only a criminal seeks to have a firearm (often illegally) with which to enforce his or her desires on the victim. This supports the oft-repeated idea that if guns are taken away from the lawful citizens, only the criminals will have guns! The Founding Fathers could not anticipate modern times but they could and did recognize the importance of self-defense whether it be in the face of a criminal or a tyrannical government. Otherwise, they would never have included the 2nd Amendment.
In 1776, Thomas Jefferson said, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
The meaning of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is best addressed by re-reading the actual words.
“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.”
Two words appear to be critical to an understanding of the amendment.
First, Militia. A militia in the original text refers to a citizen body capable of protecting the freedom of the state in which it resides should an invasion, attack or other hostility take place. There was no consideration at the time of “federal troops” arriving to manage the situation. Each state was expected to be capable of defending itself. In order to do so, it expected all able bodied males to be equipped with their own “arms”.
And therein lies the second word for consideration. “Arms” are undefined. Did the Founders mean “firearms” as we interpret the word so often today? In truth, “Arms” includes any implement that may be used for self-defense or defense of a community. Thus, a club, a machete, a bowing knife or even a cross-bow may be considered an “arm” in the true sense.
Perhaps the argument is really a question of whether a citizen has the right to self-defense. There do not appear to be any court decisions that would eliminate or prohibit such a right! In fact, the majority of such court decisions have come down on the side of self-defense with the defendant being cleared of any incrimination.
The point is that an individual with the right of self-defense should be able to use whatever implement is “at hand” to protect themselves against an intruder, marauder, rapist, thief or other criminal who may or may not be intent on rendering bodily harm to the citizen.
Judgment is critical on the part of every citizen with respect to when force, of any type, is required to resolve a dangerous condition or confrontation. Disagreement is not a sound basis for employing physical force.
Does any one expect a criminal to stop if the subject threatens to call 911. Yes, 911 is a great help in many emergencies, particularly those where a person’s health is involved. Many heart attack victims have been saved as a result of the emergency services provided by the 911 team. But, as an anonymous individual stated, “I carry a gun because I can’t carry a cop.”
Statistically, the number of firearms in the possession of law-abiding citizens is in the tens of millions. Yet, they don’t show up as the ones involved in criminal activities. Only a criminal seeks to have a firearm (often illegally) with which to enforce his or her desires on the victim. This supports the oft-repeated idea that if guns are taken away from the lawful citizens, only the criminals will have guns! The Founding Fathers could not anticipate modern times but they could and did recognize the importance of self-defense whether it be in the face of a criminal or a tyrannical government. Otherwise, they would never have included the 2nd Amendment.
Monday, November 1, 2010
From The Patriot Post
"Most people whom we elect to Congress are either ignorant of, have contempt for or are just plain stupid about the United States Constitution. ... Here, in part, is the oath of office that each congressman takes: 'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same....' Here's my question to you: If one takes an oath to uphold and defend, and bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution, at the minimum, shouldn't he know what he's supposed to uphold, defend and be faithful to? If congressmen, judges, the president and other government officials were merely ignorant of our Constitution, there'd be hope -- ignorance is curable through education. .....Read More here http://patriotpost.us/edition/2010/11/01/brief/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)