Posted on 07/13/2006 12:51:11 AM PDT by neverdem
considered as individuals...
The actual quote:
"The whole of that Bill of Rights is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals..."Poor, poor you.
Some. Keep shooting your foot!
"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482
Some. Yes. Because the Constitution doesn't GIVE us Rights, it establishes protections for some of them considered most necessary for freedom.
Silly little troll...
Article the first ... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.Article the second ... No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
Although the originally proposed 2nd Amendment was put into effect through Amendment XXVII ratified in 1992.
You're learning! The people have rights individually and collectively that are viewed as inherent, such as state police powers.
Pow! Another foot shot!
it establishes protections for some of them considered most necessary for freedom.
Like the right of our nation's people to govern themselves collectively through their representatives in Congress.
Do you have any toes left?
I wonder what you deliberately left out of that quote? Let's take a look, shall we?
"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country."Geez, you're so easy.
POW... yet another shot to your foot, as you never get tired of saying.
Also, State police powers have limits. Those limits are the protections for individual Rights in the Fed and State Constitutions. A line which no "police power" was ever to cross, but which you seem to think is just peachy.
This make you a socialist.
I'd love to stay and kick your sorry trollish, flame war staerrting arse all over this forum, but I'm off to the range to exercise my Second Amendment Rights...
Collectively. Bing, pow!
You are hopeless.
"No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion. I know but one code of morality for men whether acting singly or collectively." -Thomas Jefferson
>>>If 99 cases are decided as a collective right and one case is an individual right, how do you think the USSC would vote.<<<
Since anti-gun, "living constitution" liberals currently hold the majority of the seats on the Supreme Court, I would think they would rule the 2nd to be a collective right. However to do so they would have to ignore numerous contrary statements by our founding fathers, and one very important historical fact that occurred during the debates:
On September 9, 1789, during the Senate debate on the Bill of Rights, there was a proposed amendment to the 5th Article (the 2nd Amendment) which would have inserted the words 'for the common defence' next to the words 'bear arms'. This attempt by some senators to make the right to keep and bear arms a 'collective right' failed.
See: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:2:./temp/~ammem_QuYH::
Note that one of the earliest proposals (if not the earliest) on the RKBA, which occurred in the House on June 27, 1788, read as follows: "That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
Note also the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is the first clause, and distinct from the others.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:10:./temp/~ammem_QuYH::
Presser v. Illinois. USSC, 1886:
"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government."
The antis are eager to cite precedent whenever it suits their purpose, but they ignore it when it doesn't. IMHO in Presser the USSC set a pretty clear precedent for the 2nd Amendment's militia clause as a protector of the RKBA against violation by a state or local legislative body, but that precedent has been ignored by practically all 20th century federal courts. Although, if properly interpreted Miller doesn't contradict Presser at all. The court simply said that no evidence was presented to show that the firearm in Miller's possession had any utility as a militia weapon.
The rightful resource referred to is the power enjoyed by Congress under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions...
>>>United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 was an 1875 case where the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the 2nd Amendment "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government".<<<
It said more than that. The exact statement was: "The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress."
Note the court stated the RKBA was not granted by the Constitution, nor dependent on it for its existence. In other words, the RKBA was a retained right.
The lower court interpretation was similar: "With regard to those acknowledged rights and privileges of the citizen, which form a part of his political inheritance derived from the mother country, and which were challenged and vindicated by centuries of stubborn resistance to arbitrary power, they belong to him as his birthright, and it is the duty of the particular state of which he is a citizen to protect and enforce them, and to do naught to deprive him of their full enjoyment. When any of these rights and privileges are secured in the constitution of the United States only by a declaration that the state or the United States shall not violate or abridge them, it is at once understood that they are not created or conferred by the constitution, but that the constitution only guaranties that they shall not be impaired by the state, or the United States, as the case may be."
A reference was made to Dred Scott which had listed the rights of citizenship which African-americans would be entitled should they be considered citizens, including the right "to keep and carry arms wherever they went".
>>>Although, if properly interpreted Miller doesn't contradict Presser at all. The court simply said that no evidence was presented to show that the firearm in Miller's possession had any utility as a militia weapon.<<<
Properly interpreted, Miller concludes that every citizen has a right to keep and bear and M-16.
Protected solely against federal infringement by the 2nd Amendment. State and local protections are the province of state and local laws.
In Presser the court did not rely on the 2nd Amendment's militia clause for it's declaration that a state could not deny it's citizens the RKBA. It only referenced the militia to show that the federal government has a vested interest in an armed militia in as much as the militia is the body of men from which the federal government obtains troops for it's armed forces.
In any event, it is still true that the cited portion of the Presser decision says that a state can't enact a law which denies it's citizens the RKBA, and that the restriction on the states is based on the federal government's power to raise it's armed forces from the body of citizens which comprise the militia.
>>>State and local protections are the province of state and local laws.<<<
But then you have that pesky Presser decision. LOL.
Right. But the problem is that virtually every lower court has misinterpreted Miller, and knowingly and deliberately misinterpreted IMHO. Simple logic would lead any unbiased court to see that the only reason Miller was decided in favor of the prosecution was that no evidence was presented to prove that Miller's weapon did indeed have utility as a military weapon. The decision was based almost solely on the court's ignorant assumption that Miller's shotgun was not suitable for militia use. The language used in Miller clearly indicates that the court would have upheld the lower court's innocent verdict if it had been shown evidence that the the shotgun in question was suitable for militia use.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.