College of Political Knowledge
Subject: Early American History
This is my final paper (for now) on the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution….I have looked at historical events that lead to the inclusion of the 2nd into the Constitution……we have the first person to mention the guns, the events that lead to the inclusion and a look into the use of the word, ‘militia’ in the writing of the document…….and finally my conclusions on this part of the Constitution…….
Hopefully, my readers will remind themselves that my research was along historical lines, not from an ideological or judicial perspective……so there will be NO emotional ramblings, just historical facts and events……and I pray that the reader will read this for the historical content and not as a diatribe condemning or condoning………
Let’s look at the republican (small “r”) thinking of the day…….as it pertains to guns……”standing armies are dangerous and should be avoided.” As the Constitution is being written the ideas put forth in 1787 were…….1) separation of powers, 2) authority of Congress to declare war, 3) guarantee the legality of slavery, 4) creation of electoral college, 5) provision for impeachment, 6) presidential state of the union message, 7) provision for ratifying the Constitution, 8) federalism, 9) bicameral legislature, 10) enumeration of powers of Congress, 11) finally, the 3/5ths compromise……and when it was ratified there is NO inclusion of an arms provision….that would come later, 1791 to be exact…….
At the time of the ratification of the Constitution there was NO American standing army to speak of, however each state had its armed factions that we call militias…..back in the days between the 7 years war and the revolution states had border skirmishes with neighbor states and even skirmishes within the borders of a single state had its share of in fighting…Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island quickly come to mind……..in other words arms were necessary to protect ones self from ones neighbor.
The only mention of ‘arms’ in the constitution is the 2nd amendment……I believe that the key words in that amendment is “a well regulated militia”…………because of the always present conflicts between states and groups and the lack of a standing army…..it was necessary to keep a militia on stand by to help quell any and all uprisings…..I continue to believe that it was not included because the founders were concerned that government might intrude on the people but rather to keep the people from intruding on government.
The two leading thinkers of the constitutional era were Jefferson and Hamilton……different sides of the same coin, if you will……..as far as the document goes….Hamilton favored an interpretive approach to the constitution and then there is Jefferson who believe in a strict interpretation of the document…..
If the constitutional convention had taken more time to write and ratify I believe that it would have been substantially different in its make up……..with more time from inception to ratification the constitution would have had a different feel about it…….why do I say that? Look at some of the items NOT included in the final draft……1) 2 term limit for prez, 2) universal manhood suffrage, 3) presidential cabinet, 4) direct election of senators, 5) political parties……..most of these became part of the laws of the country and if there had been more time in the drafting of the document they might have been included………… since there are NO founders left alive we are left with what others tell us the content of the constitution means…….and few of these analysis are from a historical perspective but rather from an emotional, ideological and judicial point of view……..the 2nd is here to stay…..and NO amount of scrutiny will change that and NO amount of debate will ever venture beyond the emotional or the ideological…….personally, it is something that the founders NEVER intended…..
College of Political Knowledge
Subject: Early American History
Part 3 of my series on the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution…..my look at historical events that could have led to the inclusion of the 2nd into the Constitution……may I emphasize the words “historical events”? Try to leave your emotions and your ideology on the curb and think independently……..
When I was in grad school my studies were basically the era in American history, 1750-1815, this was a most fascinating time in the colonies…….and the Constitution…..I have attempted in some small way to get into the minds of our Founders…..we can read what they wrote but we cannot speak with them to see what they were thinking at the time……I looked at situations and issues and feelings of the time to try and explain why they felt it necessary to write parts of the Constitution……..this part is the examination of the term “a well armed militia” was placed into the document that set up the United States of America.
I have looked into the reason behind the 2nd amendment…….I have looked at the necessity for the inclusion and I have researched who thought it necessary……..and now I will write on the whole “militia” thing……..
The 2nd amendment states……..”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.” First what was the militia?
From Old English milite meaning soldiers (plural), militisc meaning military and also classical Latin milit-, miles meaning soldier.
The Modern English term militia dates to the year 1590, with the original meaning now obsolete: “the body of soldiers in the service of a sovereign or a state”. Subsequently, since approximately 1665 militia has taken the meaning “a military force raised from the civilian population of a country or region, especially to supplement a regular army in an emergency, frequently as distinguished from mercenaries or professional soldiers.”
For me, the term “a well regulated militia” is the key to the amendment…….more so than the right to keep and bear arms……..why? First, we look at the founding document the Articles of Confederation……..article 6 paragraph 4…..
No vessels of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any state, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united states in congress assembled, for the defence of such state, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any state, in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgment of the united states, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defence of such state; but every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
This document was the set of governing laws during the war and was replaced by the Constitution in 1789 when it was ratified by 11 states……..keep in mind the the Bill of Rights, which includes the 2nd, was added to the Constitution in 1791…….in the original document in amendment 1 section 8 states……..
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress
During the debate for the new laws of the land a point was made in Federalist #29……….
If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people? Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by exciting the detestation of the very instruments of their intended usurpations? Do they usually commence their career by wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and execration? Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs.
In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition. This was frequently the case, in respect to the first object, in the course of the late war; and this mutual succor is, indeed, a principal end of our political association. If the power of affording it be placed under the direction of the Union, there will be no danger of a supine and listless inattention to the dangers of a neighbor, till its near approach had superadded the incitements of self-preservation to the too feeble impulses of duty and sympathy.
The Continental Army was disbanded in 1783 after the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown in 1781……..the Constitution was ratified in 1789 and the United States had been without a standing army for 6 years…..that made the necessity for the different state militias to be used in the case of invasion, rebellion or war……..so a well regulated and armed militia would have been a dire necessity until the re-establishing of a standing army……….for the protection of the nation.
The facts and the events of history lead me to believe that the second was included into the Constitution to benefit the government/country……not necessarily for the people……
Once again I would like to remind the reader that this is a historical analysis….and is in NO way a pro or con look at the second amendment…..only a look at why it would be included in the Constitution…..what made the authors feel it necessary to include it…….if it cannot be read with an objective eye then I prefer that it not be read………
I have not been the kindest person to the Mississippi state government, my state, they pretend and promise so much and deliver nothing……I guess we could say that about a lot of politicians but Mississippi can take the prize…….every politician in the state ran on an education promise and it has been that way for 40 years and yet the state still has one of the worse educational records in the country and yet the voter keeps believing the lie…….maybe that is a good indictment of their educational standards.
The latest session just started and has already made the news……
By Jerry Mitchell, Clarion Ledge
More than a half century ago, Mississippi created a state Sovereignty Commission to block enforcement of federal laws.
Now two key state lawmakers are introducing legislation to attempt to do much the same thing. House Bill 490 would create a committee to help neutralize federal laws and regulations “outside the scope of the powers delegated by the people to the federal government in the United States Constitution.”
Robert McElvaine, professor of history at Millsaps College, said all this bill will accomplish is to put Mississippi up for ridicule. “ ‘The Neutralization of Federal Law’?” he said. “I am astounded to see such a measure introduced in the 21st century. Do the authors of the bill see Mississippi as part of the United States?”
He pointed out that the issue of state sovereignty “was settled by a terrible war 150 years ago as well as by numerous Supreme Court decisions.”
Are you really surprised? No matter what law is enacted in DC there will always be a movement to circumvent it by the states and always it is under the pretext of the 10th amendment…….a contrarian’s favorite part of the Constitution. Really does not matter which political group is in power….it is always the 10th that is used to justify any and all opposition to Washington…….
But wait! There is more from the great state of Mississippi…..
(Newser) – Mississippi has officially ratified the 13th Amendment to the Constitution—a mere 148 years after the amendment outlawing slavery cleared Congress and was sent to state legislatures for approval. Mississippi’s legislature voted to ratify the amendment in 1995, but it never became official because the state never notified the United States Archivist, the Clarion-Ledger reports. The oversight was cleared up after a doctor saw the movie Lincoln and did some research into when different states had ratified the slavery ban.
The doctor—a recent immigrant from India—and a colleague contacted state officials, who sent in the paperwork to finally make ratification official. The next-to-last state to ratify the 13th Amendment, Kentucky, did so in 1976. “We’re very deliberate in our state. We finally got it right,” says state Sen. Hillman Frazier, the Democrat who introduced the resolution to ratify the amendment in 1995. It passed the Mississippi Senate and House unanimously, with some lawmakers abstaining.
Better late than never….I guess…….I bet you thought it was a done deal…the banning of slavery……..now you see why I say, “if you visit Mississippi set your watch back 150 years”…….goes to show what happens when no one is watching….
College of Political Knowledge
Subject: Early American History
First, I would like to apologize to my readers, this part of my series was suppose to be the opening to be followed by my first post here, Why The 2nd? Age and brain worms have made me a bit rattled brain (that is humor in case you missed it)……..My first post got a couple of people worried about my writing….let me say here that this is NOT a look at the 2nd amendment from an ideological or judicial perspective, but rather from historical events….I will leave the emotional ramblings to others…….
All the screaming has begun……the country seems to want some sort of commonsense approach to assault weapons and extended magazines…..and of course, we have NRA and related interests doing everything possible to prevent any such thing ever happening……I read as much of the debate as I can stomach and there are a few things I need to point out…….there are a couple of Jefferson quotes making all the rounds…..
The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.
When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Really telling quotes from one of our Founders…..the problem is after searching Jefferson’s papers, letters and other works…..he never said or wrote these thoughts……and there is part of the problem…….so much crap floating around and too many lies….can we really know the truth about the 2nd?
Since NONE of the original Founders remain…..all we can do is work with what they left us in the writings and such and make up our own minds as to the truth of the 2nd and why it was inserted into the Constitution.
During my years of attempting to finish my dissertation I did massive amounts of research….most of it about the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution…..trying to get a handle on what our Founders were thinking……..I realize most of thinking came from philosophers like Hume and Burke and Locke…even Rousseau to some……but how did these thoughts influence such things as the 2nd amendment?
My research back in those days I found what I believe was the earliest mention of guns in the constitution……….And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. Samuel Adams, (February 6, 1788), reported in Charles Hale, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1856), p. 86. This language was proposed in the Massachusetts convention for ratification of the U.S. Constitution to be added to Article I of that document.
Some say that Madison was the father of the militia clause………but was he the originator of the 2nd amendment? Not in my mind….but that is yet to been seen…….
Samuel Adams? Now there is a fact I can believe. Why? Samuel Adams was about the only real radical that was in the whole process from the beginning.
In case your sole exposure to Samuel Adams is from a beer allow me to help you understand the man……..
He had been the first of American statesmen to come to the conclusion that independence was the only remedy for the troubles of the time; and since 1768 he had acted upon this conviction without publicly avowing it. The “Boston tea party” made war inevitable. In April, 1774, parliament retorted with the acts for closing the port of Boston and annulling the charter of Massachusetts. This alarmed all the colonies, and led to the first meeting of the continental congress. In this matter the other colonies invited Massachusetts to take the lead, and the work was managed by Mr. Adams with his accustomed shrewdness and daring. When the legislature met at Salem, 17 June, 1774, in conformity to the new acts of parliament, he locked the door, put the key into his pocket, and carried through the measures for assembling a congress at Philadelphia in September. A Tory member, feigning sudden illness, was allowed to go out, and ran straight to the governor with the news. The governor lost no time in drawing up the writ dissolving the legislature, but when his clerk reached the hall he found the door locked and could not serve the writ. When the business was accomplished the legislature adjourned sine die. It was the last Massachusetts legislature assembled in obedience to the sovereign authority of Great Britain. The acts of April were henceforth entirely disregarded in Massachusetts.
Unlike the two Virginians, Patrick Henry and Richard Lee, he did not actively oppose the new constitution of 1787. In the Massachusetts convention of 1788, for considering the federal constitution, he was by far the most influential member. For two weeks he sat in silence listening to the arguments of other members. Then he decided to support the constitution and urge its ratification unconditionally, but with a general understanding that Massachusetts would submit to the new congress sundry amendments equivalent in effect to a bill of rights. His decision carried the convention in favor of ratification by the narrow majority of 187 yeas to 108 nays. But for this ratification on the part of Massachusetts the constitution would not have been adopted, and of all the great services rendered by Samuel Adams to his country none was greater than this. The example of Massachusetts in proposing amendments was followed by other states, and it was thus that the first ten amendments, declared in force 15 Dec., 1791, originated. And it was in these amendments that the 2nd was first considered and after some debate was subsequently added to the Bill of Rights in 1791.
I am sure that this will not please many people….who desperately want it to be Thomas Jefferson’s idea……it was not……and contrary to popular belief…..Jefferson was not part of the Constitutional Convention as a member. Samuel Adams was a radical and a rebel and never considered anything but independence for the colonies….unlike many of his fellow founders that wanted, in the beginning, a reconciliation with England.
Samuel Adams may well be the father of the 2nd amendment….shattering oh so many dreams.
College of Political Knowledge
Subject: Early American History
We have once again returned to the debate over guns since the horrible shooting deaths of children at Sandy Hook……all the yelling and screaming about guns, all the interpretations, all the threats, all the hoopla…..all this got me to thinking about a paper I wrote back in my college days about the 2nd amendment…..so I started going through my archives, which is in sad shape since Katrina, to see if I could locate the paper…..sad to say the paper is not around….but I did find the notebook that had some of the notes I taken for the paper…….I apologize but this is a re-construction of the paper from notes and recollection….and I am an old fart some my memory is a bit sketchy…….
The question is….why was the 2nd amendment put into the Constitution? Since there is NO one left that can answer that question we need to look at events, situations and issues of the time of the writing of the Constitution…….I’m sure we will hear from someone that will quote the Jefferson thing about the tree of liberty…..let’s put that to rest now…..that was NOT a public statement he made, it was written in a private letter to a close friend and was never intended to be published……now that is out of the way……
First, we need to examine the conditions in the country……….Let’s begin at the end of the war……Cornwallis surrenders at Yorktown on October, 1781……..once the hostilities had ceased the Brits did not immediately leave……and the Continental Army dwindle down to about 1000 men….most of the fighters had left to return to their families and their businesses which had suffered much during the war……..by 1783 when the Treaty of Paris was signed the American army sole purpose was to keep an eye on the remaining Brit troops until they were removed……….
The Continental Army had been officially disbanded in November of 1783………
The year is 1783 and the troops that remained were disgruntled….disgruntle about the lack of back pay or the pensions they were promised if they continued the fight…….ever hear of the Newburgh Conspiracy? (That is a rhetorical question)……..the Continental Army was camped near Newburgh, New York their mission was to watch the Brits in NYC…….during this time officers became disgruntled with the Congress and were threatening to march on Washington and bringing the rest of the Army with them…..the whole affair was settled by compromise but the Army had made a statement that they would do whatever necessary to get their way and their demands…….
After the ceasefire there was a concern that the Tories that had not fled back to England would re-group and form some sort of 5th column to undermine the government of the newly independent America…….
1786, there was a conflict between Maryland and Virginia called the “Oyster War”……….this conflict had raged for many years before the revolution and picked up again once the shooting had ceased……basically, it was a quiet war fought over control of the Potomac and at times was a bloody conflict…….
And then in 1786 was Shay’s Rebellion……..named for a Mass. rebel named Daniel Shay……..Seeking debt relief through the issuance of paper currency and lower taxes, they attempted to prevent the courts from seizing property from indebted farmers by forcing the closure of courts in western Massachusetts. The participants in Shays’ Rebellion believed they were acting in the spirit of the Revolution and modeled their tactics after the crowd activities of the 1760s and 1770s, using “liberty poles” and “liberty trees” to symbolize their cause.
Then there are the usual culprits post war…….Americans suffer from post-war economic depression including a shortage of currency, high taxes, nagging creditors, farm foreclosures and bankruptcies…………these problems effected all 13 states……and in doing so the population was becoming more and more resentful……..in short times were tough and government was not really helping as much as the people had wanted……..
The year is now 1787 and the new country was living under the Articles Of Confederation……..and a convention was convened to draft a new constitution…..which would become the law of the land…….and this is where our story grows to the analysis on my part…….the convention by September of 1787 had a written document and was waiting for the states to ratify it. Now the first 10 amendments were known as the Bill of Rights, which were proposed to a joint session of Congress in 1789 and formally became part of the Constitution in 1791, December to be exact…………(Another rebellion in the making was the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791)……..
Like I said, NO one can say for sure what the Founding Fathers were thinking at the time….but a check of the events proceeding the constitution leads me to believe that the 2nd amendment was put in to make up for the lack of a standing army…..the government did not have the manpower to enforce many of its new laws….and for that reason the 2nd was inserted to make sure that there would be a well armed pool from which to draw from in the event of rebellion……I mean Jefferson conned Washington into staying another 4 years because he was worried that if Washington left it would leave a void and might incite rebellion……and end this country short history of independence………..
We all know the interpretations by the Left and the Right…….but the problem is it is their opinions which are no more valid or silly than anyone else…..do I think that the 2nd was suppose to be a permanent thing….nope, I feel that the Founders thought that when the country was stabilized and at real peace the amendment would be modified…….personally, I do not believe the 2nd was about protecting citizens from the government but rather protecting the government from its citizens……….
Daily we are bombarded with accusations of this or that is unconstitutional….just about everything the Obama utters is claimed to be unconstitutional…….if one mentions the 2nd amendment, then the counter is that whatever is said is unconstitutional, the same with economic stimulus or well the list goes on and on and ………….
Recently the GOP in Congress has introduced a bill that basically says, “No Budget, No Pay”……meaning that if the US Congress does not pass a budget this year then the elected officials will not get their pay. Personally, I like the idea of no work, no pay but I would like it to be about ALL issues not just the issue du jour…….I have written this often….but as much as I like my idea or the GOP idea there is a problem……..
And what would the problem be? The Constitution!
But first, what is this all about?
“No Budget, No Pay” was originally proposed by No Labels, a group of Democrats, Republicans and independents dedicated to the politics of problem-solving. I helped found the citizens’ group in 2010 with Mark McKinnon, Nancy Jacobson, Bill Galston, Lisa Borders, Kiki McLean, David Walker and many others. The proposal was the cornerstone of the “Make Congress Work” plan released last year.
Now Boehner has jumped on this band wagon……The House has passed its “no budget, no pay” bill, which suspends the debt ceiling for three months and calls upon both chambers of Congress to pass a budget resolution for fiscal year 2014 by April 15. Under terms of the legislation, if lawmakers miss that deadline their salaries are withheld. That’s where the “no pay” part of the thing kicks in.
And now the constitutional part of this thing…….the 27th amendment to the US Constitution states……..”No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.”
Oops! You would think that the very person who wanted ALL legislation would be accompanied by a Constitutional verification would do a better job……you would think!
I have called our elected officials morons and idiots and NOTHING they do changes my opinion of them. If anything….I think less of them………
Well the gun debate has begun and if you write about it you will be lambasted from all sides……you will be a survival nut or some Leftist that wants all guns……..but I recently found sides of the debate and thought I would give both to my readers….without taking sides……
(Newser) – The debate over gun laws brings renewed attention to the debate over the Second Amendment, with two very different takes today from the left and right:
- Noble intent: Erick Erickson as RedState offers a history lesson. “On April 19, 1775, British regulars marched on Lexington and Concord to seize the guns of American colonists that had been stockpiled in case of revolution,” he writes. “It may be an abstract concept for us. It may be distant. But when the 1st Congress of the United States met in 1789, the memory of 1775 was fresh.” The amendment is all about protecting citizens from the abuses of their own government. Full post here.
- Awful intent: Nope, writes Thom Hartmann at Alternet. The Second Amendment was written to protect slavery. The slave states needed militias to keep rebellions in check and were worried the federal government would disband them. That’s why the line about a “well regulated militia being the best security of a free country” got changed to “free state” in the final version. Read the full post here.
I know that this will not change anyone’s mind on where they stand on guns…….it is not my inyention to try and make a case for one side or the other…..all I wanted was to try and put both sides of the debate in one place and maybe people would read the two and see that there is common ground for the hard core people on either side of the issue…….
Remember these are opinions and not one of them is mine………..(like that disclosure will make a difference)…….
For all my liberal friends that were applauding the demise of SOPA…..i suggest we wake up and smell the coffee!
SOPA is NOT dead! SOPA has morphed into CISPA…..that is right SOPA is not going away…the trickery bastards are renaming it……On November 30, 2011 representatives Michael “Mike” Rogers (R-MI) and C.A. Ruppersberger (D-MD) introduced H.R. 3523: Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011, which has 106 co-sponsors.
Govtrack.us reveals the synopsis of H.R. 3523:
“Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 – Amends the National Security Act of 1947 to add provisions concerning cyber threat intelligence and information sharing. Defines “cyber threat intelligence” as information in the possession of an element of the intelligence community directly pertaining to a vulnerability of, or threat to, a system or network of a government or private entity, including information pertaining to the protection of a system or network from: (1) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or (2) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information. Requires the Director of National Intelligence to: (1) establish procedures to allow intelligence community elements to share cyber threat intelligence with private-sector entities, and (2) encourage the sharing of such intelligence. Requires the procedures established to ensure that such intelligence is only: (1) shared with certified entities or a person with an appropriate security clearance, (2) shared consistent with the need to protect U.S. national security, and (3) used in a manner that protects such intelligence from unauthorized disclosure. Provides for guidelines for the granting of security clearance approvals to certified entities or officers or employees of such entities. Authorizes a cybersecurity provider (a non-governmental entity that provides goods or services intended to be used for cybersecurity purposes), with the express consent of a protected entity (an entity that contracts with a cybersecurity provider) to: (1) use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information in order to protect the rights and property of the protected entity; and (2) share cyber threat information with any other entity designated by the protected entity, including the federal government. Regulates the use and protection of shared information, including prohibiting the use of such information to gain a competitive advantage and, if shared with the federal government, exempts such information from public disclosure. Prohibits a civil or criminal cause of action against a protected entity, a self-protected entity (an entity that provides goods or services for cybersecurity purposes to itself), or a cybersecurity provider acting in good faith under the above circumstances. Directs the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to submit annually to Congress a review of the sharing and use of such information by the federal government, as well as recommendations for improvements and modifications to address privacy and civil liberties concerns. Preempts any state statute that restricts or otherwise regulates an activity authorized by the Act.”
Do not be so proud of the victory with SOPA and PIPA……your 1st amendment is at risk yet again……if you are opposed to SOPA then learn as much as possible on the new attack on your rights…..CISPA!
Or you could just go along with the flow and lose your rights……no biggies….but YOU NEED TO CHOOSE! Or shut up!
College of Political Knowledge
I detest it when politician and others use the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence as a spring board or as some sort of prop for their campaign…..if they actually knew these documents or the history behind the it would be different but they do not…..they take every opportunity to use them as an attention getter at rallies, townhalls, etc…..
Recently Santorum while talking to a crowd said….”all those brave men and women who wrote these words….’we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor’…..history will tell you that is just wrong……women were not allowed to participate in the writing of that or any other founding document….second, Santorum does not hold to those ideas….just look at his campaign and his words……
How many of you have actually read the Federalist Papers? All this debate about this issue or that issue is unconstitutional or not……try reading the Papers and you might see what the Founders had in mind when they put together the new American Constitution……for instance, he persuasive power of money in Washington….we all have bitched about it and moaned about it and did you know that it was covered in the Federalist Papers?
Number 62 written by James Madison and he wrote….
To trace the mischievous effects of a mutable government, would fill a volume. I will hint a few only, each of which will be perceived to be a source of innumerable others…
The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessings of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood: if they be repealed or revised before they are promulg[at]ed, or undergo such incessant changes, that no man who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known and less fixed.
Another effect of public instability, is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the monied few, over the industrious and uninformed mass of the people. Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any manner affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said, with some truth, that laws are made for the few, not for the many.
Basically Madison observes that every piece of government legislation opens up opportunities for profit by a “sagacious and monied few” to take advantage of their less well-informed fellow citizens.
Does that sound like what you were thinking about the Congress and our illustrious politicians?