The US Constitution does not define any of its terms

Post Reply New Topic

That's gotta make things confusing, right?

In high school I heard a conversation between my American history teacher and a student.

Student: "What is the disagreement about the second amendment? Isn't it clear-cut that we should be able to have guns"?

Teacher: "No. The 'right to bear arms' in colonial times meant that ships could have armaments. Therefore, the second amendment is about the military's right to own armaments (guns), and not the individual's right to own guns".

Of course, what is the point of giving the military the right to own arms?

To kill people ? Perhaps your question is more complex?

I find this fascinating. Justice Scalia interprets a "natural right of self defense" from the second amendment, thus justifying an individual right to own guns. While, Justice Stevens opinion below captures the notion that the second amendment was intended only for people in the military.

Justice Scalia
"Justice Scalia, writing for the Court in Heller : "In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the 'natural right of self-defence' and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right":

Justice Stevens
"When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated by its drafters or is encompassed within its terms"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Ame ... nstitution

These justice boys need some history. It was because the British forbid citizens from having arms, or votes.

We did not have a standing army, we only had armed citizens.

If the citizens had to own arms, train themselves in their use, to join the militia, which was local, and elected their own leaders, it was a based on armed citizens, doing whatever they wanted.

A free people, well armed, ruling themselves by enlightened self interest, was the main founding principal.

Th United States Constitution is silent on its own interpretation.

Frameworks like Textualism, Strict Constructionism, Originalism, Stare Decisis and Living Constitution are all decisions made by courts; they are not themselves found in the text of the constitution.

The closest thing to a guiding principle for interpretation in the constitution is the 9th Amendment:

The 9th amendment is widely considered the foundation for the constitutional right to privacy in the US (Griswold, Lawrence, Roe), thus imposing a restrictive interpretation of the Federal and State powers in the constitution. However, the 9th Amendment is rarely used directly in majority opinions, so it is difficult to determine its actual impact on constitutional interpretation.

Currently, the "correct" way to interpret the US constitution is to count to 5 in the Supreme Court.

The Declaration of Independence didn't, either. Most terms were left up to the states to define.

For instance, in the phrase "All men are created equal", the states determined that the word "men" generally meant land-owning male adults of Northern European descent who were neither Catholic nor Jew. This was not expressly stated, but it was expressed in the laws that were passed limiting the right to vote to land-owning male adults of Northern European descent who were neither Catholic nor Jew.

1776-July-04: The founding of the United states of America when the Declaration of Independence is ratified.

1788-June-21: The U.S. Constitution is ratified.

1863-January-01: Lincoln issues an executive order call "The Emancipation Proclamation", 87 years after the founding of the United states of America, thus declaring that slavery is illegal.

1870-February 03: Ratification of the 15th Amendment, which states: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." This happened , 94 years after the founding of the United states of America.

1920-August-18: Ratification of the 19th Amendment, which states: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." This happened 144 years after the founding of the United states of America, 50 years after former slaves were granted the right to vote, and 57 years after the abolition of slavery.

Maybe the 2nd amendment is intended to allow humans to own ursine limbs?

When the U.S. Constitution was ratified there was no standing Army or Navy. All military forces were militia, locally controlled.

ruveyn

I find the concept laughable.

The problem is that people want to interpret the Constitution in TODAY'S language, and not the language of the time.

Before 9/11, many dictionaries defined "terrorism" as a political structure based on instilling fear and intimidation into the populace.

People wanted "terrorism" to mean something else, and so they got the definition changed.

But, before then, if your government ruled by fear and intimidation, it was a terrorist government.

The Constitution is straight forward and easy to interpret...if you bother to read the other documents available from that time (e.g., The Federalist Papers, etc.). If the drafters felt their language would be seen as ambiguous, they wouldn't have used it.

This is the EVIL that is law. Lawyers are trained to "reinterpret" the rule of law in the light most favorable to their position. After a while, the plain meaning gets lost. This deliberate twisting of semantics ultimately renders the law null and void of any purpose but serving those in power.

It has provided job security for many attorneys for many years

Uh, yeah, that's bullsh*t.

Even in the early days, there were many disputes about the constitutionality of government, structure of American governance, guiding principles, significance of the courts, etc. between Federalists and Jeffersonian Democrats.

The US practically has a third branch of government thanks to John Marshall.

I must say, though, that given all the American wrangling over "original intent", Jefferson's idea of a new constitution every 20 years seems appealing.

Actually, the Emancipation Proclamation did not abolish all slavery in the United States. This is what it says:



That was in the very first paragraph - the very first sentence of the Proclamation.

It says this later on in the Proclamation.



The Emancipation Proclamation, in reality, doesn't say anything, explicitly or otherwise, because it contradicts itself. And it didn't even mention the slave states that stayed with the Union.

Whoa, you really DO worship the founding fathers and everything. Even invoking "evil." Pretty sad, man!

Zer0netgain is an Alex Jones fan and paleoconservative.

Ah, sort of like a flavor of the month constitution. That way the powers to be can write a new one according to what they want and/or whatever's in vogue with the unwashed masses during that particular era. No thanks, call me non-progressive and backward (it would be a compliment)but I like the constitution the way it is. Even the original fist 10 amendments are fully applicable in the 21st century.