 |
| |
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Boris, I had no idea you were such an Original Intentist. In that case, you should have no problem accepting the argument that since the Founders didn't intend restrictions on firearms to become law, gun control is unconstitutional. |
Except that the Constitution explicitly says well-regulated. 
quote:
Actually that doesn't make sense at all, because a branch of the United States federal government has too much a vested interest in the matter to make a proper decision. Therefore, it must be up to the States themselves, and this is backed up by the 10th Amendment. |
It doesn't make sense that a body composed of representatives from the states would have that power, when they have the power to induct states? I disagree.
quote:
Because neither secession nor the proper method for secession are spelled out in the Constitution, and because neither one is prohibited to the States, then both the question of secession and the method of doing so must be up to the states themselves. |
And it has been pointed out that secession is indeed covered under the president's rights to quell uprising and sedition, so under those grounds it is prohibited.
quote:
US soldiers have no right to stay within the boundaries of a foreign nation or entity, when that entity asks them to leave. Hence, just because the US owns a military base is Saudi Arabia or Kuwait doesn't mean that Saudi Arabia or Kuwait can't force the US to leave. |
Apples and oranges, Davey. The Constitution says that Federal property, even within a state's borders, is no longer that state's sovereign territory, it is the sovereign territory of the U.S. Government, and irrevocably so. When a state joins the Union, any territory given to the Federal government is forfeit. That's right--it is permanently the property of the U.S. Government. Even if the states seceded legally, which they didn't, that property remained U.S. property. Therefore the seizure of that property was a hostile act of aggression on U.S. sovereign territory, and the firing on Fort Sumter was a violent act of war against U.S. troops.
quote:
There was no rebellion, because the government of one nation or entity can't rebel against the government of another. |
Too bad secession wasn't legal. 
quote:
So did Hitler. Good thing we don't use that standard in determining whether someone is evil or not, eh? |
So David Floyd equates Lincoln to Hitler...  funny.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
Except that the Constitution explicitly says well-regulated. |
Regulated meant something different back then. It didn't mean government regulation, in that context.
Further, the 2nd Amendment says the PEOPLE have a right to bear arms, and the section that says that is the primary clause of the sentence.
quote:
It doesn't make sense that a body composed of representatives from the states would have that power, when they have the power to induct states? I disagree. |
Ah, but Congress can't induct a state without the consent of the state. Therefore, if a a piece of territory doesn't want to enter the US, it can't be forcefully annexed (not legally at least). This implies that the consent of the state is needed to remain in the US, as well.
quote:
And it has been pointed out that secession is indeed covered under the president's rights to quell uprising and sedition, so under those grounds it is prohibited. |
The President has no rights to quell uprising and sedition. Go re-read Article II.
And the power to quell sedition is by no means mentioned in ANY part of the Constitution, although the 1st Amendment protects sedition.
And finally, secession has nothing to do with an uprising.
quote:
The Constitution says that Federal property, even within a state's borders, is no longer that state's sovereign territory, it is the sovereign territory of the U.S. Government, and irrevocably so. When a state joins the Union, any territory given to the Federal government is forfeit. That's right--it is permanently the property of the U.S. Government. Even if the states seceded legally, which they didn't, that property remained U.S. property. |
Are you talking about this clause, in Article 1 Section 8?
"...and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings"
Because if you are referring to this, then your summary has nothing to do with what is actually stated, and my example still holds for all intents and purposes.
quote:
Too bad secession wasn't legal. |
10th Amendment.
quote:
So David Floyd equates Lincoln to Hitler... |
No, I'm telling you that judging someone solely by the fact that "they did what they thought was right" is stupid.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Regulated meant something different back then. It didn't mean government regulation, in that context. |
And I still don't buy that argument, but it's Off-topic.
quote:
Ah, but Congress can't induct a state without the consent of the state. Therefore, if a a piece of territory doesn't want to enter the US, it can't be forcefully annexed (not legally at least). This implies that the consent of the state is needed to remain in the US, as well. |
Or, it implies the consent of congress is needed to withdraw from the Union, looking it it from the other angle.
quote:
The President has no rights to quell uprising and sedition. Go re-read Article II.
And the power to quell sedition is by no means mentioned in ANY part of the Constitution, although the 1st Amendment protects sedition. |
Wouldn't you define it as an insurrection? I certainly would.
quote:
Are you talking about this clause, in Article 1 Section 8?
"...and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings"
Because if you are referring to this, then your summary has nothing to do with what is actually stated, and my example still holds for all intents and purposes. |
Now tell, me how is this not a direct statement that Federal property us the sovereign territory of the United States government, and not the states? You know that is not the case, as the federal government exercises full authority and control over them. If you commit a crime on federal property, you are charged under federal law, not the laws of the state surrounding that property.
U.S. troops at arsenals and at Ft. Sumter were not on foreign soil, even if you assume secession was legal, as that land had been ceded to the federal government by the state and was no longer part of the state. You know full well the same is true at U.S. embassies around the world. The land they are on is sovereign U.S. soil, not that of the country that surrounds it. If a nation attacked a U.S. Embassy within their country, it would be no different than had they attacked part of the mainland U.S. It would be an invasion of sovereign U.S. land.
So when the Southern militias attacked and seized arsenals and fired at Fort Sumter, they were either A) in violent uprising against the U.S. government, or B) violently invading U.S. territory, depending on how you view the legality of secession. Either way, they were the indisputable aggressors, not the North.
Article 6. 
quote:
No, I'm telling you that judging someone solely by the fact that "they did what they thought was right" is stupid. |
And I never did judge Lincoln solely on that basis, did I?
Last edited by Boris Godunov on 05-09-2002 at 06:27
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
"Well regulated" as it is used in the 2nd amendment means properly trained and disiplined. It has nothing to do with being regulated by law. The "law" that provides for and "regulates" the militia is the second amendment. A study of the history behind the 2nd amendment makes it clear that the right to bear arms and have militias is directly opposed to the notion that those militias or that right must be regulated by the federal government. A state militia (or the national guard) however may fit under the definition of "militia" but only if the use of that state militia is not restricted by the federal government. In the case of a future rebellion of the states I think that perhaps because the weapons are in the hands of each state then they would probably be used to defend the states from the federal government. Private militias are also constitutional. The idea of the 2nd amendment was to give power to the people and the states as opposed to the federal government. If the federal government claims to have authority over the individual militias then the 2nd amendment is a farse. UNLESS they are used with the permission of the states and the people to fight a common enemy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
And I still don't buy that argument, but it's Off-topic. |
Why not? And it isn't off topic, because it helps to establish whether or not you actually believe that original intent stuff, or if you were just using it in this one case.
quote:
Or, it implies the consent of congress is needed to withdraw from the Union, looking it it from the other angle. |
I don't see why. If a state came in of its own free will, it can leave of its own free will.
quote:
Wouldn't you define it as an insurrection? I certainly would. |
How is speaking against a war an insurrection?
quote:
...You know full well the same is true at U.S. embassies around the world. The land they are on is sovereign U.S. soil, not that of the country that surrounds it. If a nation attacked a U.S. Embassy within their country, it would be no different than had they attacked part of the mainland U.S. It would be an invasion of sovereign U.S. land. |
This is the whole point of the argument. The nation of Germany, for example, could force, say, Italy, to vacate the Italian embassy. Yes, the embassy is Italian soil, but only for as long as Italy occupies the embassy. If Germany asks Italy to leave, they have to leave. If Italy refuses to leave, I see no reason why Germany couldn't use force to close the embassy.
And let me ask you this, just out of curiosity. If South Carolina had blockaded Ft Sumter, and refused to let supplies in, and as a consequence the US troops in the fort starved because they refused to vacate, would that be an act of war too?
Sorry. All the Supremacy Clause means is that (constitutional) federal laws are superior to state laws. That has nothing to do with the question of secession, because Congress can't pass a law in violation of the 10th Amendment.
quote:
And I never did judge Lincoln solely on that basis, did I? |
OK, my mistake.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Why not? And it isn't off topic, because it helps to establish whether or not you actually believe that original intent stuff, or if you were just using it in this one case. |
Original intent matters, but is very hard to discern, and you will be hard pressed to find a consistent point of view from the Founding Fathers on issues. It's a matter of opinion and who one choosed to look to for their intent.
quote:
I don't see why. If a state came in of its own free will, it can leave of its own free will. |
Texas aside, most states not in the original 13 were Federal territority before becoming states. They were the recipient of millions in Federal dollars and largesse. In this light, one can view the granting of statehood and all of its benefits as also a bit of largesse from America. Then, should the state secede, it is, in effect, stealing territory that was property of the American people.
And let's not forget that in many of those states, you can't speak for the free will of the people, as only the will of white male voters was being considered, and even that was not unanimously in favor of of secession. What about the ardently Unionist areas of Alabama, Florida, N. Carolina, Tennessee and Texas, where it was dangerous to travel during the war if you were a Confederate? What about E. Tennessee, where the confederates had to occupy it by force to prevent it from following w. Virginia in sticking with the Union? All over the South refused to accept secession. What about Winn Parish, LA, or Winston County, AL, or Jones County, MS? What about their free will?
And then there's the free will and natural rights of the black populations, and the non-voting women...
quote:
How is speaking against a war an insurrection? |
Insurrection is simply a rising up against established authority. The Federal Government was the established authority, superior to the state government. Firing on Ft. Sumter and seizing arsenals was indeed insurrection.
quote:
This is the whole point of the argument. The nation of Germany, for example, could force, say, Italy, to vacate the Italian embassy. Yes, the embassy is Italian soil, but only for as long as Italy occupies the embassy. If Germany asks Italy to leave, they have to leave. If Italy refuses to leave, I see no reason why Germany couldn't use force to close the embassy. |
And I disagree. AFAIK, the U.S. secures the territory of embassies (and possibly bases, I don't know) via treaty/agreement with the nation it is in, and that nation agrees the land is sovereign U.S. soil. That's why people can claim asylum when they breech the U.S. embassy compound. I don't know how Italy works, but in the above scenario if it were the U.S. instead, I don't think Germany would have any legal right to demand the personal leave the embassy any more than they could demand I leave New York. Realistically, the U.S. would probably (depending on the situation) acquiesce anyway, but should it choose to refuse, it would be within it its rights to do so. Should Germany seize the Embassy by force then, it would be an act of war.
At any rate, the states willfully entered into the Union, and in doing so willfully and deliberately ceded some of their sovereign territory to the federal government, and there is no provision to make this revocable. It was part of the deal of becoming a state that such land would cease to be theirs. It was not on lease or loan, as there are seperate provisions the Federal government undertakes for leasing state land. That land was the U.S. Government's, and the South committed an act of insurrection/war when attacking it.
quote:
And let me ask you this, just out of curiosity. If South Carolina had blockaded Ft Sumter, and refused to let supplies in, and as a consequence the US troops in the fort starved because they refused to vacate, would that be an act of war too? |
First, I have no idea the status of the water ways around Ft Sumter at the time of the insurrection. If the Federal government had claimed waters that gave it access to the Fort, then no. Barring that, such a blockade would have certainly been far more legal than firing on it. However, assuming the soldiers died of starvation and SC troops then entered the Fort and seized it, that would be an act of insurrection/war.
But no, I don't think blockading it would be legal, either. It is still an attack, albeit perhaps indirect, on, Federal property. And wouldn't they have to attack Federal ships attempting to break the blockade?
quote:
Sorry. All the Supremacy Clause means is that (constitutional) federal laws are superior to state laws. That has nothing to do with the question of secession, because Congress can't pass a law in violation of the 10th Amendment. |
I was referring to the Oath, wherein all those guys who voted for secession had previously sworn, "bound by Oath of Affirmation," to support the Constitution. There therefore had no legal ability whatsoever to vote for secession, as it would be illegally removing themselves from that Oath. I don't accept poo-pooing of the Oath, as some do, as a mere formality that they could just toss aside.
Secession may not be illegal in all circumstances, but the manner by which the CSA did it was indeed illegal, IMO. Had the states held referendums to secede, I would find their case much stronger. Had they not illegally attacked sovereign US territory, I also would give them a little modicum of more sympathy. Had that not been essentially trying to kidnap millions of people so they could continue to keep them in bondage, and in fact expand that bondage to other realms, they would get a lot more sympathy.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Article One, Section 8 again:
"15 To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16 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 discipline prescribed by Congress;"
It is certainly within the perview of Congress to use state militias. So the federal government does indeed have control over them. And notice how it's the federal government's responsibility to arm them.
Consent of the state is not needed. |
Well you were doing good until you got to the last line. Consent of the state is needed if the state is choosing to resist what they have determined is an unwarrented intrusion into the rights of the people (and the states). Of course in the normal use of the militia the states and the federal government are in agreement (or at least the states are not prepared to start another civil war over an issue (such as segregation in the 60's). The problem is really an academic one at this point because no one seriously believes that there will be another rebellion of the states. BUT, the constitution provides for the states and the people to resist by force of arms such a theoritical intrusion on the people's rights.
This issue is clearly spelled out in the federalist papers. The idea is that the local governments are closer to the people than the federal one. Therefore the people along with their local government (the state) have the power to determine when their rights are being violated. This check is on the power of a federal government which has become tyranical like England supposedly did. That threat on human rights was resisted by force of arms by people who had guns that permited them to resist. That same principle exists in the Bill of Rights, especially the 2nd amendment. The states agreed to the union if the Bill of Rights was included so that they could have power over the federal government if they eventually became like England. That was one of the main fears, and the Bill of Rights was supposed to pacify the states and the people and give them power to resist.
To now say that the states or the people do not have power now to protect their rights would be a complete reversal of the intent of the founders
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Federalist No. 46
The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared
From the New York Packet.
Tuesday, January 29, 1788.
Author: James Madison
To the People of the State of New York:
RESUMING the subject of the last paper, I proceed to inquire whether the federal government or the State governments will have the advantage with regard to the predilection and support of the people. Notwithstanding the different modes in which they are appointed, we must consider both of them as substantially dependent on the great body of the citizens of the United States.
I assume this position here as it respects the first, reserving the proofs for another place. The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes. The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other.
Truth, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents. Many considerations, besides those suggested on a former occasion, seem to place it beyond doubt that the first and most natural attachment of the people will be to the governments of their respective States.
Into the administration of these a greater number of individuals will expect to rise. From the gift of these a greater number of offices and emoluments will flow. By the superintending care of these, all the more domestic and personal interests of the people will be regulated and provided for. With the affairs of these, the people will be more familiarly and minutely conversant. And with the members of these, will a greater proportion of the people have the ties of personal acquaintance and friendship, and of family and party attachments; on the side of these, therefore, the popular bias may well be expected most strongly to incline. Experience speaks the same language in this case. The federal administration, though hitherto very defective in comparison with what may be hoped under a better system, had, during the war, and particularly whilst the independent fund of paper emissions was in credit, an activity and importance as great as it can well have in any future circumstances whatever.
It was engaged, too, in a course of measures which had for their object the protection of everything that was dear, and the acquisition of everything that could be desirable to the people at large. It was, nevertheless, invariably found, after the transient enthusiasm for the early Congresses was over, that the attention and attachment of the people were turned anew to their own particular governments; that the federal council was at no time the idol of popular favor; and that opposition to proposed enlargements of its powers and importance was the side usually taken by the men who wished to build their political consequence on the prepossessions of their fellow-citizens. If, therefore, as has been elsewhere remarked, the people should in future become more partial to the federal than to the State governments, the change can only result from such manifest and irresistible proofs of a better administration, as will overcome all their antecedent propensities. And in that case, the people ought not surely to be precluded from giving most of their confidence where they may discover it to be most due; but even in that case the State governments could have little to apprehend, because it is only within a certain sphere that the federal power can, in the nature of things, be advantageously administered.
The remaining points on which I propose to compare the federal and State governments, are the disposition and the faculty they may respectively possess, to resist and frustrate the measures of each other. It has been already proved that the members of the federal will be more dependent on the members of the State governments, than the latter will be on the former. It has appeared also, that the prepossessions of the people, on whom both will depend, will be more on the side of the State governments, than of the federal government. So far as the disposition of each towards the other may be influenced by these causes, the State governments must clearly have the advantage.
But in a distinct and very important point of view, the advantage will lie on the same side.
The prepossessions, which the members themselves will carry into the federal government, will generally be favorable to the States; whilst it will rarely happen, that the members of the State governments will carry into the public councils a bias in favor of the general government. A local spirit will infallibly prevail much more in the members of Congress, than a national spirit will prevail in the legislatures of the particular States. Every one knows that a great proportion of the errors committed by the State legislatures proceeds from the disposition of the members to sacrifice the comprehensive and permanent interest of the State, to the particular and separate views of the counties or districts in which they reside.
And if they do not sufficiently enlarge their policy to embrace the collective welfare of their particular State, how can it be imagined that they will make the aggregate prosperity of the Union, and the dignity and respectability of its government, the objects of their affections and consultations? For the same reason that the members of the State legislatures will be unlikely to attach themselves sufficiently to national objects, the members of the federal legislature will be likely to attach themselves too much to local objects. The States will be to the latter what counties and towns are to the former. Measures will too often be decided according to their probable effect, not on the national prosperity and happiness, but on the prejudices, interests, and pursuits of the governments and people of the individual States. What is the spirit that has in general characterized the proceedings of Congress? A perusal of their journals, as well as the candid acknowledgments of such as have had a seat in that assembly, will inform us, that the members have but too frequently displayed the character, rather of partisans of their respective States, than of impartial guardians of a common interest; that where on one occasion improper sacrifices have been made of local considerations, to the aggrandizement of the federal government, the great interests of the nation have suffered on a hundred, from an undue attention to the local prejudices, interests, and views of the particular States.
I mean not by these reflections to insinuate, that the new federal government will not embrace a more enlarged plan of policy than the existing government may have pursued; much less, that its views will be as confined as those of the State legislatures; but only that it will partake sufficiently of the spirit of both, to be disinclined to invade the rights of the individual States, or the preorgatives of their governments. The motives on the part of the State governments, to augment their prerogatives by defalcations from the federal government, will be overruled by no reciprocal predispositions in the members. Were it admitted, however, that the Federal government may feel an equal disposition with the State governments to extend its power beyond the due limits, the latter would still have the advantage in the means of defeating such encroachments. If an act of a particular State, though unfriendly to the national government, be generally popular in that State and should not too grossly violate the oaths of the State officers, it is executed immediately and, of course, by means on the spot and depending on the State alone. The opposition of the federal government, or the interposition of federal officers, would but inflame the zeal of all parties on the side of the State, and the evil could not be prevented or repaired, if at all, without the employment of means which must always be resorted to with reluctance and difficulty.
On the other hand, should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.
But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity. In the contest with Great Britain, one part of the empire was employed against the other.
The more numerous part invaded the rights of the less numerous part. The attempt was unjust and unwise; but it was not in speculation absolutely chimerical.
But what would be the contest in the case we are supposing? Who would be the parties? A few representatives of the people would be opposed to the people themselves; or rather one set of representatives would be contending against thirteen sets of representatives, with the whole body of their common constituents on the side of the latter. The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition.
The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger.
That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.
It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it. The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive.
Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people. On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States, as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them.
PUBLIUS.
Second Amendment
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.
Comment:
1. Power rests in the people, not the Federal Government. The state and federal governments are agents of the people.
2. The states are closer to the people than the federal government and the local towns etc. are even more representative of the peoples will.
3. The state governments and the people should be able to defend themselves against the federal government should the federal government lose sight of the will of the people.
4. Armed citizens should be able to choose their own officers etc. in an effort to overthrow a tyranical federal government. The power of those militias should overposer the power of the standing federal army (assuming their was a standing army.)
5. The federal government is comparred to Great Britain in the Revolutionary War, and the people and the states to the colonists.
6. Oppresive governments are afraid to trust their people with arms. The US Consititution was to prevent the federal government from disarming the people as a pledge that the people would be trusted as opposed to the national government.
7. The citizens have the right to defend their rights with arms.
8. The power of the Federal Government is to be less than that afforded to the States as supported by the people to the extent that they should have the power to overthrow the national government.
Conclusion:
The people have the right to bear arms to an even greater extent than the federal government does. They have the right to organize themselves in agreement with the individual states and train and appoint officers and otherwise prepare to defend themselves from a federal government which may prove to be tyranical. The whole idea of the Second Ammendment is to allow a force to exist among the people and the states suffucuent to overthrow the national government.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
I had it stored on my computer already so I just copied it here. I debated this issue on another forum before. The first part though is available online by searching "federalist papers" (# 46)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
Well you were doing good until you got to the last line. Consent of the state is needed if the state is choosing to resist what they have determined is an unwarrented intrusion into the rights of the people (and the states). Of course in the normal use of the militia the states and the federal government are in agreement (or at least the states are not prepared to start another civil war over an issue (such as segregation in the 60's). The problem is really an academic one at this point because no one seriously believes that there will be another rebellion of the states. BUT, the constitution provides for the states and the people to resist by force of arms such a theoritical intrusion on the people's rights.
|
Naturally, the ability of Congress to call up the militias would depend on whether not it was doing so in a Constitutional manner and for a purpose deemed legitimate by the Constitution. But insofar as the purpose is legal, the authority over the militias is absolute.
As relating to the Civil War, the CSA did not make a reasonable case for secession. It's grounds were quite tenuous, both legally and ethically. They failed, IMO, to demonstrate just cause in nullifying the authority of the Constitution within their borders, as the Federal Government had by no means, up to that point, acted with tyrannical and unconstitutional malice towards the South. They were just in a snit over a few things they didn't like, especially the prospect slavery might not be allowed to expand to the new states. That in and of itself does not constitute the kind of scenario Monroe is invisioning. I think the Founding Fathers would have found the South's rationale for seceeding very dubious, at best.
So, SC goes into insurrection and attacks US government property. That's certainly militia-worthy in the Constitution. So they're called up. But the remaining Southern states refuse and join in on the insurrection. They also have no justification, as Congress had every right to call upon their militias.
If it's a question of warranted action, Congress is clearly in the right to call up the militias, and the states are expected, constitutionally, to comply.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
By the way, I think that Lincoln was justified in putting down the rebellion. The states had no legitimate claim to protecting the rights of the people while not giving rights to all of the people (i.e., the slaves). Of course the same could be said of the Revolutionary War with England. I guess we are all a bunch of hypocrites... Lincoln did not own slaves however so he escapes some of the censure at least.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
You mean you want to say something else totally irrelevant?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-09-2002 01:28
Ming 
Boris 
|