A question for fellow Americans.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Probably be aghast concerning the manipulation and ignoring the Constitution.

This

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Honestly. These gentlemen put deep thought, consideration, sweat, revisions and debate over this single piece of paper that would be the law of the land. Absolute. Instead, today, they would find a piece of paper with a large brown swath down the center and a empty toilet paper roll. Not how I would want my work to be handled in moving a country forward. The Constitution is not a living breathing document. It is not up for a change to accommodate an agenda.

This

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

This is my case and point:




Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz32YsGjEv7
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ress-gridlock/

So hey, let's change what the founding fathers designed for his own gain!! The Constitution is meaningless in this administration. Maybe the design was to assure poor agendas do not move forward. What do I know? I think the founding fathers would be appalled. I say job well done gents.

...and this.

The purpose of the Constitution is to put a leash on Federal power. The people in power don't like having a leash on, they want to be able to do whatever they want. I'd say politians for the last ~60 have been trying to take the leash off and once it's off, there's no putting it back on.

[Armistead]

Ben Franklin would probably be running a porn ring.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Ben Franklin would probably be running a porn ring.

zing!

[Kaptlt.Endrass]

They may not be too happy with the fact that the second amendment is being contested. And the first. Possibly the fourth and fifth.

They would also not be happy about the downsizing of the military (I'm not)

I do think they would be glad, however, about the equality that the African-Americans and other groups have received.

[Platapus]

They would probably say "Why the hell are you still using a 200+ year old Constitution?? We wrote that thing a long time ago for a country much different. We even put clauses where things could be changed as necessary. As things change, so must the constitution, dumbasses!"

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Kaptlt.Endrass

They would also not be happy about the downsizing of the military (I'm not)

Actually they believed that a national military was a dangerous thing.

"In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."
-James Madison, "Father of The Constitution", in a speech at the Constitutional Debates, June 29, 1787

"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army."
-Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789

"There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war."
-Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776

I believe that U.S. history has proved them wrong, and as long as all Americans are brought up to believe that way, then the military is not a danger. I'm just pointing out that the Founders would likely be glad to see the military downsized to nothing.

[Sinkmore]

Thank you, Sailor Steve, for not only appreciating the Constitution and the Founders, but for bothering to try to understand them, rather than uncritically (but patriotically!) revering the popular fictions.

[Sinkmore]

Originally Posted by Kaptlt.Endrass

They may not be too happy with the fact that the second amendment is being contested. And the first. Possibly the fourth and fifth.

They would also not be happy about the downsizing of the military (I'm not)

Have you read the 2nd Amendment? What do you suppose they meant by "well regulated militia?" And in context, who do you think they meant by "the people"?

Well regulated militia means individual State's "regular" armies, which were essentially militias. There was no national military - the entire Pentagon, Army, Navy, etc., are all unconstitutional. There's no such thing as a "well regulated scattering of discordant, unaffiliated, armed individuals". Carrying a gun into Chipotle is probably not what they had in mind by "the security of a free state". The amendment also never mentions hunting, hobby shooting, or self defense. It seems that those rights are not guaranteed or even contemplated anywhere in the Constitution.

It's plain as day to me that the 2nd amendment in no way authorizes -citizens- to have or carry or bear firearms, nor addresses the topic at all. However, lots of case law and black letter law does affirm those rights. So, thank activist judges, not the founders who had nothing to do with it.

When the Constitution refers to "the people" it seldom means "the persons" or "citizens"; it is in most cases referring to the 13 states. Really. Sounds weird in 2014, but it's true. IE, the 2nd Amendment originally prohibited the fed's from disarming state-led armies. Anyone who's ever attended a Michigan-Ohio State game should be glad that activist judges messed with original intent on that one.

I could also quibble with the popular interpretation of "to bear arms", which is not equivalent to "carry guns". Historically it meant nobles, who were feudal vassals, could wear armor (arms originally meant armor, and was the exclusive domain of the nobility, as in their "coat of arms", which no peasant then could have) as a sworn vassal in service to the crown. In constitutional context, it means what it says: to belong to and fight in the (well regulated, State led) military. One "bears arms" in defense if one's nation - you don't "bear arms" at Starbucks - that's just good old packing heat.

If you take the 2nd with its modern meaning, then where's the limit? By that (distorted) view, there seems to be nothing preventing individuals from owning nuclear weapons, or surface-to-air missiles, or from bringing them to airports, or to Navy stations. Where does the Constitution, under that view, permit the Feds to take away my nerve gas?

[Admiral Halsey]

(Should've guessed that eventually a post like that would happen. Either way let the fireworks fly!)

[les green01]

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.sorry we do have a militia its call the national guard.
The National Guard of the United States, part of the reserve components of the United States Armed Forces, is a reserve military force, composed of National Guard military members or units of each state and the territories of Guam, of the Virgin Islands, and of Puerto Rico, as well as of the District of Columbia, for a total of 54 separate organizations. All members of the National Guard of the United States are also members of the militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 311. The majority of National Guard soldiers and airmen hold a civilian job full-time while serving part-time as a National Guard member.[1][2] These part-time guardsmen are augmented by a full-time cadre of Active Guard & Reserve (AGR) personnel in both the Army National Guard and Air National Guard, plus Army Reserve Technicians in the Army National Guard and Air Reserve Technicians (ART) in the Air National Guard.
The National Guard is a joint activity of the United States Department of Defense (DoD) composed of reserve components of the United States Army and the United States Air Force: the Army National Guard of the United States[1] and the Air National Guard of the United States respectively.(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

i have read where the wigs and john adam had a law pass where you could be thrown in jail and poperty seize if you said something against the wigs or something they didnt like.founding fathers be shock how far the country have came as far as inventions,but how would they rate the presidents and congress after them.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Sinkmore

Have you read the 2nd Amendment? What do you suppose they meant by "well regulated militia?" And in context, who do you think they meant by "the people"?

Those questions have been discussed by the courts over and over again, sometimes with different answers. The biggest argument has been over the "People" issue. The usual understanding is that in the 1st Amendment "The People" refers to individuals. Gun control advocates try to insist that in the 2nd it's only a collective right. Some go so far as to claim it applies only to the Federal Government.

Well regulated militia means individual State's "regular" armies, which were essentially militias. There was no national military - the entire Pentagon, Army, Navy, etc., are all unconstitutional.

Umm...

Section 8
1: The Congress shall have Power To...provide for the common Defence

12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

It looks to me like the Constitution gives the power to Congress to create an army and navy and run them as they see fit, which means it absolutely is "Constitutional".

There's no such thing as a "well regulated scattering of discordant, unaffiliated, armed individuals". Carrying a gun into Chipotle is probably not what they had in mind by "the security of a free state". The amendment also never mentions hunting, hobby shooting, or self defense. It seems that those rights are not guaranteed or even contemplated anywhere in the Constitution.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
—George Mason, Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Until a navy could be organised, Letters of Marque were granted to individual ship owners, meaning the government authorized acts of war to private citizens who provided their own cannon-armed ships.

It's plain as day to me that the 2nd amendment in no way authorizes -citizens- to have or carry or bear firearms, nor addresses the topic at all. However, lots of case law and black letter law does affirm those rights. So, thank activist judges, not the founders who had nothing to do with it.

"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
—Tench Coxe, Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
—Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
—Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
—Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787

When the Constitution refers to "the people" it seldom means "the persons" or "citizens"; it is in most cases referring to the 13 states. Really. Sounds weird in 2014, but it's true. IE, the 2nd Amendment originally prohibited the fed's from disarming state-led armies.

Can you provide one single example of a statement or writing from the Framers themselves to support that claim? I think I've shown that they did indeed mean the individual citizens, and if not I can provide plenty more.

I could also quibble with the popular interpretation of "to bear arms", which is not equivalent to "carry guns". Historically it meant nobles, who were feudal vassals, could wear armor (arms originally meant armor, and was the exclusive domain of the nobility, as in their "coat of arms", which no peasant then could have) as a sworn vassal in service to the crown. In constitutional context, it means what it says: to belong to and fight in the (well regulated, State led) military.

Again, I think the quotes I've provided so far put the lie to that concept.

One "bears arms" in defense if one's nation - you don't "bear arms" at Starbucks - that's just good old packing heat.

That is certainly a valid point, and one which is the subject of much debate and certainly will garner more. Your stating it as fact, however, doesn't make it so.

If you take the 2nd with its modern meaning, then where's the limit? By that (distorted) view, there seems to be nothing preventing individuals from owning nuclear weapons, or surface-to-air missiles, or from bringing them to airports, or to Navy stations. Where does the Constitution, under that view, permit the Feds to take away my nerve gas?

That's another good question, and not the rhetorical one you pose it as. As I've pointed out earlier, at the time of the Revolution citizens owned everything the militias did, to the point of creating a makeshift navy out of privately owned ships bearing privately owned cannons. I'm not saying we should own everything entrusted to the military, but I am asking for honest debate rather than "proving" your point with rhetoric.

Addendum:

The amendment also never mentions hunting, hobby shooting, or self defense. It seems that those rights are not guaranteed or even contemplated anywhere in the Constitution.

One of James Madison's greatest fears, and the main reason he fought for so long against having a Bill of Rights, was that he believed that if he created a list of protected rights someone in the future could easily say "They didn't list that one, so they must not have meant it." Madison believed that all rights belonged to the people, and none to the government. The government only has the power to restrict rights when they infringe upon the rights of someone else. This is the reason for the 9th Amendment. ALL rights belong to the individual. I have the right to do anything I want, as long as I don't infringe on the rights of anyone else to do the same.

[August]

I figure they'd take one look at the nation today and start plotting the next revolution.

[Mr Quatro]

The first thing our founding fathers would do is take one look at this list of taxes and pass a bill that would enable them to be tax free: http://www.balancedpolitics.org/editorials/100_taxes_you_pay.htm

Personal/Consumer Taxes & Fees

1. Federal income tax
2. State income tax
3. Local income tax
4. Employee social security tax (your employer pays the other half)
5. Employee Medicare tax (your employer pays the other half)
6. Property taxes
7. Road toll charges
8. State sales tax
9. Driver's license renewal fee
10. TV Cable/Satellite fees & taxes
11. Federal telephone surtax, excise tax, and universal surcharge
12. State telephone excise tax and surcharge
13. Telephone minimum usage and recurring/nonrecurring charges tax
14. Gas/electric bill fees & taxes
15. Water/sewer fees & taxes
16. Cigarette tax
17. Alcohol tax
18. Federal gasoline tax
19. State gasoline tax
20. Local gasoline tax
21. Federal inheritance tax
22. State inheritance tax
23. Gift tax
24. Bridge toll charges
25. Marriage license
26. Hunting license
27. Fishing license
28. Bike license fee
29. Dog permit/license
30. State park permit
31. Watercraft registration & licensing fees
32. Sports stadium tax
33. Bike/nature trail permit
34. Court case filing fee
35. Retirement account early withdrawal penalty
36. Individual health insurance mandate tax
37. Hotel stay tax
38. Plastic surgery surcharge
39. Soda/fatty-food tax
40. Air transportation tax
41. Electronic transmission of tax return fees
42. Passport application/renewal fee
43. Luxury & gas-guzzler car taxes
44. New car surcharge
45. License plate and car ownership transfer taxes
46. Yacht and luxury boat taxes
47. Jewelry taxes & surcharges
48. State/local school tax
49. Recreational vehicle tax
50. Special assessments for road repairs or construction
51. Gun ownership permit
52. Kiddie tax (IRS form 8615)
53. Fuel gross receipts tax
54. Waste Management tax
55. Oil and gas assessment tax
56. Use taxes (on out-of-state purchase)
57. IRA rollover tax/withdrawal penalties
58. Tax on non-qualified health saving account distributions
59. Individual and small business surtax (page 336 of Obamacare)
60. Estimated income tax underpayment penalty
61. Alternative Minimum Tax on income Business Taxes & Fees
62. Federal corporate income tax
63. State corporate income tax
64. Tax registration fee for new businesses
65. Employer social security tax
66. Employer Medicare tax
67. Federal unemployment tax
68. State unemployment tax
69. Business registration renewal tax
70. Worker's compensation tax
71. Tax on imported/exported goods
72. Oil storage/inspection fees
73. Employer health insurance mandate tax
74. Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (page 2001/Sec. 9007 of Obamacare)
75. Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Page 2010/Sec. 9008 of Obamacare)
76. Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers (Page 2020/Sec. 9009 of Obamacare)
77. Tax on Health Insurers (Page 2026/Sec. 9010 of Obamacare)
78. Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans, i.e. "Cadillac" plans
79. Tax on indoor tanning services
80. Utility users tax
81. Internet transaction fee (passed in California; being considered in other states and at federal level)
82. Professional license fee (accountants, lawyers, barbers, dentists, plumbers, etc.)
83. Franchise business tax
84. Tourism and concession license fee
85. Wiring inspection fees
86. Household employment tax
87. Biodiesel fuel tax
88. FDIC tax (insurance premium on bank deposits)
89. Electronic waste recycling fee
90. Hazardous material disposal fee
91. Food & beverage license fee
92. Estimated income tax underpayment penalty
93. Building/construction permit
94. Zoning permit
95. Fire inspection fee
96. Well permit tax
97. Sales and Use tax seller's permit
98. Commercial driver's license fee
99. Bank ATM transaction tax
100. Occupation taxes and fees (annual charges required for a host of professions

The first thing our founding fathers would do is take one look at this list of taxes and pass a bill that would enable them to be tax free:

How many of those taxes had an equivalent form during the time of those people?
I would say that it is lots and lots of them.
So why would they suddenly go "tax free" on them now?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

I'd say politians for the last ~60 have been trying to take the leash off and once it's off, there's no putting it back on.

I'd say you're off by about 167 years. Politicians have been trying to subvert the Constitution from day one, including the ones who helped write it.

In my opinion many of the founders would indeed object to the treatment their ideal has recieved, but they also objected to that very treatment back in their day. Why do you think Madison and Jefferson ended up despising Hamilton, and vice versa? One of the great things about George Washington was his true love for his country an desire to do anything to make it work. Sadly, of all of them he seems to have been the only one.

I too dislike what is being done today. I'm just pointing out that it's nothing new. I think most of the Founders would recognize exactly what is happening, and would find it uncomfortably familiar.