Posted on 05/09/2018 4:15:32 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
Has it? In case you didn't notice, Representative Bill Foster believes in word substitution and the living and breathing constitutional doctrine. He said:
It always has been up for reinterpretation. The technology changes, and the weapons thought to be too dangerous to be in private hands change. A civil war cannon is frankly much less dangerous than weapons we are allowed to carry on the streets in many of the states and cities in our country today. This is something where technology changes and public attitude changes and both are important in each of the generations.
Of course, if one part of the Constitution is up for reinterpretation, the whole thing is. But that's less important than the fact that Representative Foster is disagreeing with his own forefathers here. He would have you believe that the Constitution has always been living and breathing - this is a common refrain with progressives. They want to push this ideal that what they believe, the progressives, that's how it has always been. Well, a historian worth his salt would see through this. His own founding fathers, in the early 1900s, sung a very different tune. As I pointed out in January, in 1912, the constitution was not "living and breathing". Here is a brief snippet of what the progressives' own founding fathers were saying:
Can a practically unamendable constitution, adopted in the conditions and under the influences of the political thought prevailing at the end of the eighteenth century, be adapted by judicial interpretation to the needs and thought of the twentieth century without causing us to lose the advantages which are commonly regarded as attached to a written constitution?
That's Frank Johnson Goodnow, who was at one point President of John's Hopkins University. Walter Weyl, who quotes (agreeing with) Goodnow in a different writing: (page 111)
According to Prof. Frank J. Goodnow, there are some measures " which many believe to be absolutely necessary either now or in the future . . . which we in the United States are probably precluded from adopting because of the attitude now taken by the courts towards our practically unamendable federal constitution."
Charles Beard, one of the first revisionist historians of progressivism, wrote the following: (page 56)
The new Constitution bound every state to an amendment, in case it was approved bv two-thirds of both houses of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the states. Even this system, as events have proved, has required such extraordinary majorities as to make amendments by regular process well-nigh impossible.
The Progressive(Bull Moose) Party platform of 1912 laid out in its platform the necessity of easier amendment - the first plank! Additionally, Roosevelt talked about the importance of this, such as:
We propose to make the process of Constitutional amendment far easier, speedier, and simpler than at present.
Bill Foster believes it was always open to reinterpretation and change.
The original progressives did not believe it was always open to reinterpretation and whined that it was impossible to change.
Both cannot be correct.
He said: It always has been up for reinterpretation. The technology changes, and the weapons thought to be too dangerous to be in private hands change.
Said General Gage...
Sometimes I wonder if it is viewed by others as a waste of time knowing so much of the history of progressivism, but I think this is a great example of how useful this knowledge is and how the progressives own history can be weaponized against them.
Yes. Abortion too.
If he didn’t write this with a quill pen, I won’t read it.
The Second Amendment is absolute.
When it was written the common American Man owned the same Weapons of War as his Enemy.
The Second Amendment isn’t about Duck Hunting unless the Ducks learn how to arm themselves.
Put up or shut up prog faggots.
And they would reinterpret your status as a carbon-based viable lifeform if they can get away with it.
Obviously, Bill Foster has never seen what a triple load of canister will do...
I don’t see what has need for reinterpretation. I understand what our constitution says and learned that while back in school so many years ago. Being able to quote the document word for word, I have no need because I can still read and comprehend quite nicely.
I just wonder; what if the “right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” could possibly mean that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
When the red coated British gun grabbers went to Lexington and Concord, some of the things that they were looking for were privately owned cannons.
Obviously, Representative Bill Foster either never heard of (or simply doesn’t give a damn about) the clause in Article 1, Section 8 that gives Congress the power to “grant letters of marque and reprisal.”
What are those? Basically, the right (after Congressional authorization) to act like a pirate against the enemies of the United States. Such Letters were granted by the Continental Congress, and later (under this very clause) during the War of 1812 (and at other times, but principally then). This meant that private citizens could attack British commercial AND MILITARY ships.
Well, how does one attack the navy of the most powerful empire on Earth? The answer is simple - and explains a lot about the 2nd Amendment and the “arms” that are protected therein: You attack them with your own large ships, armed to the teeth with YOUR OWN PERSONALLY-OWNED CANNON. Yeah, “arms” included the 18th and 19th Century equivalent of today’s naval artillery. “Arms” includes ALL armaments, with the possible exception of WMDs (because there really was no such thing back then, except possibly for a blanket loaded with live smallpox). In today’s terms, it means not just de-tuned versions of the armed forces’ main rifle, but identical versions, plus grenades, suppressors, rocket launchers, crew-served .50 cal. machine guns, etc. Oh, and YES, also artillery and tanks. Why? Because Congress could grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal (against Somali pirates, for example - there were some well-done ads for that “cruise” on the internet a while back), and we’d have to have modern weapons and ammunition in order to be able to use them effectively. That is what a militia is supposed to be able to do.
As for the Constitution being difficult to amend...hey, Representative Bill Foster, it was always SUPPOSED TO BE THAT WAY. We need a consistent law, one that doesn’t change with a change in the direction of the wind. EVERY SINGLE STATE which ratified the Constitution has accepted the entire Constitution, including the rather burdensome amendment process.
Suck it up, buttercup!
This cannot be said too often. The farmer owned the same rifle as the British soldier. American merchants owned the same cannons to protect their ships as the British military.
Using that logic, the 1st Amendment needs adjustment as the internet and instant communication tools and not been invented in 1776.
>>Bill Foster believes it was always open to reinterpretation and change.
>>The original progressives did not believe it was always open to reinterpretation and whined that it was impossible to change.
>>Both cannot be correct.
The author’s conclusion is badly flawed. The early Progs believed that it was open to reinterpretation, but the process to do it was too hard. They were no different that today, except for the party designator after their name. This was “change we can believe in” (Obama) but held back by “people who don’t know how to make democracy work” (Hogg).
There is no contradiction. They think that THEY (and only they) should be able to amend the Constitution on a whim, like Facebook trends. But, they also think that WE should never be able to change anything that they support.
The technology involving our 1st. Amendment right has vastly changed equally or in many cases more so. Abortion is not in the Constitution but life and liberty are inherent god given rights. Going after the Second Amendment is for one purpose and that is to silence opponents of liberalism and to destroy all other amendments in their way.
This guy Foster is the reason we have the 2nd Ammendment in writing.
“a practically unamendable constitution”
27 amendments over 230 years: that’s more than one per decade. Not exactly “unamendable”. I think he means to say that he has merchandise that America doesn’t want to buy.
It’s ok. The time is coming when people like this will overreaching and find out the real reason rope was invented.
I’m tired of all these want to be tyrants telling us to live.
The other day in Canada, a group of moslems asked Trudeau to ban semi auto rifles. Same garbage over and over. This is nothing more than the fox telling the farmer to get rid of his dogs guarding the hen house.
It’s insulting that they think we’re this dumb.
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.