D.C. vs Heller Decision - Page 3 - Political Fever

Jagger · #21 (**permalink**) 08-13-2008, 07:04 PM

In D. C. v. Heller, Scalia says the text of the Second Amendment should be understood as the voters understood it, then he rewrites the Amendment, not according to the understanding of the voters, but according to the understanding of Joel Tiffany.

In interpreting this text, we are guided by the
principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood
by the voters; its words and phrases were used in
their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical
meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731
(1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824).
Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic
meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that
would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the
founding generation.....

.....The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two
parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The
former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather
announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased,
“Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See §585,
p. 394 (1867) J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law

Joel Tiffany wasn't even a voter of the founding generation. However, he did subscribe to my view that the meaning of the constitution must be ascertained by the application of such rules of interpretation as existent at the time the constitution was framed and adopted. (See section 125 of Tiffany's A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law at the link provided below) Scalia's own authority on the meaning of the Second Amendment rejects Scalia's principle in favor of mine.

A Treatise on Government, and ... - Google Book Search

Jagger · #22 (**permalink**) 08-22-2008, 04:55 PM

Activist Judges Use Old Foreign Law To Interpret U. S. Constitution

"‘It is nothing unusual in acts . . . for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.’ ” J. Bishop, Commentaries on Written Laws and Their Interpretation §51, p. 49 (1882) (quoting Rex v. Marks, 3 East, 157, 165 (K. B. 1802)).

--D. C. v. Heller

Did anyone notice that Rex v. Marks was an English case? The five judicial activist are using very old foreign law to interpret the U. S. Constitution.

Jagger · #23 (**permalink**) 08-26-2008, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Is "a well regulated militia" still necessary, in 2008, for the security of the free state?

The fact that we don't have a militia anymore is all the proof one needs that a militia isn't necessary.

Novus Collectus · #24 (**permalink**) 08-26-2008, 08:49 PM

We still have militias in this country. There are often state guards that are not federally controlled even in time of war, but in part are federally funded when called to serve.
They exist and they have had to be utilized in recent years. Also the unorganized militia which is like a militia reserve is composed of most Americans and in some states is all able bodied residents of any adult age and of any gender.

We had this discussion before I believe.
The U. S. Constitution is Ambiguous? - Page 2 - Maryland Shooters

BoneDaddy · #25 (**permalink**) 08-26-2008, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Novus Collectus

We still have militias in this country. There are often state guards that are not federally controlled even in time of war, but in part are federally funded when called to serve.
They exist and they have had to be utilized in recent years. Also the unorganized militia which is like a militia reserve is composed of most Americans and in some states is all able bodied residents of any adult age and of any gender.

We had this discussion before I believe.
The U. S. Constitution is Ambiguous? - Page 2 - Maryland Shooters

Correct...most, if called, fall under the authority of the county sheriff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tench Coxe, 1788

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."

The Battle of Athens is a perfect example, in somewhat modern times, when the local militia took matters into their own hands.

Jagger · #26 (**permalink**) 08-29-2008, 09:57 AM

Let the Citizens of Massachusetts be disarmed.

--Elbridge Gerry at the Convention that framed the U. S. Constitution

BoneDaddy · #27 (**permalink**) 08-29-2008, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jagger

Let the Citizens of Massachusetts be disarmed.

--Elbridge Gerry at the Convention that framed the U. S. Constitution

Boy talk about taking statements out of context to push your agenda......You get the award this month Jagger. If you did this intentionally, you are a disengenuous debater. Do no misrepresent people's positions.

Here is what was actually recorded:

Quote:

This power in the U. S. as explained is making the States drill-sergeants. He had as lief let the Citizens of Massachussets be disarmed, as to take the command from the States, and subject them to the Genl. Legislature. It would be regarded as a system of Despotism.

This 'power' he speaks of is FEDERAL involvement in making "laws for organizing, arming & disciplining the Militia"
As you see from his response, he was AGAINST federal involvement. You should learn your history before posting something that makes you look bad. In modern english he is saying that 'you might as well disarm them, then subject them to the 'general (federal) legislature.'

Here is the transcript: Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787: August 23

Mr. Gary went on to opine later in the day:

Quote:

Let us at once destroy the State Govts. have an Executive for life or hereditary, and a proper Senate, and then there would be some consistency in giving full powers to the Genl. Govt. but as the States are not to be abolished, he wondered at the attempts that were made to give powers inconsistent with their existence. He warned the Convention agst. pushing the experiment too far. Some people will support a plan of vigorous Government at every risk. Others of a more democratic cast will oppose it with equal determination, and a Civil war may be produced by the conflict.

Quite prophetic...don't you think?

The previous week (Aug 17) he said:

Quote:

Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.

That is what exists, or attempting to be established, today. Many wish to take arms away from the citizens so that only 'the army' can have weapons. I'd rather die that be subjected to this type of despotism.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

User Name		Remember Me?
Password