A Thought Exercise on Originalism vs a More Activist Approach

[danielpalos]

I don't think it's unreasonable to wonder whether the "well regulated militia" qualifier opens up the "right to bear arms" clause for discussion. I happen to believe the 2A is an unqualified statement securing the right to own a gun, but I can see why others question it.

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws via the traditional police power of a State, meant for Individuals of the People. Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.

 

[NatMorton]

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws via the traditional police power of a State, meant for Individuals of the People. Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.

You don't need to make that argument to me. I'm a 2A rights supporter.

But that you have that argument well practiced supports my claim about the 2A's ambiguity. The layperson or the uninformed can read it and come away with a different interpretation. The framer's could have worded a right to own a gun more clearly. If you're looking for an example of how, contrast the 2A's qualified (and I might even say "muddled") language with the 1A's for freedom of speech or religion.

The sloppy wording is also fodder for those who oppose gun rights regardless of what the original intent of the 2A was.

 

[danielpalos]

You don't need to make that argument to me. I'm a 2A rights supporter.

But that you have that argument well practiced supports my claim about the 2A's ambiguity. The layperson or the uninformed can read it and come away with a different interpretation. The framer's could have worded a right to own a gun more clearly. If you're looking for an example of how, contrast the 2A's qualified (and I might even say "muddled") language with the 1A's for freedom of speech or religion.

The sloppy wording is also fodder for those who oppose gun rights regardless of what the original intent of the 2A was.

Don't take this personally, but you must appeal to ignorance of the terms involved to come up with that conclusion. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

 

[NatMorton]

Don't take this personally, but you must appeal to ignorance of the terms involved to come up with that conclusion. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

The first objective of any communication is to be understood. When you're crafting something as fundamental as a Bill of Rights I think the wording should be clear to any functioning adult, regardless of how much legal training they've have.

Let's suppose we uncovered two drafts of the second amendment in some long forgotten box of papers in the National Archives; they read:

Draft #1: 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.​

​

Draft #2: The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

Which version do you think does a more effective job of communicating the framer's intent?

 

[danielpalos]

The first objective of any communication is to be understood. When you're crafting something as fundamental as a Bill of Rights I think the wording should be clear to any functioning adult, regardless of how much legal training they've have.

Let's suppose we uncovered two drafts of the second amendment in some long forgotten box of papers in the National Archives; they read:

Draft #1: 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.​

​

Draft #2: The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

Which version do you think does a more effective job of communicating the framer's intent?

The words used are clear and unambiguous. There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment, they are All collective and plural. Our Constitution is Express not Implied in any way. If you have to imply, you are already, "barking up the wrong tree". It is about the security of our free States not individual liberty or natural rights.

 

[Rich2018]

What is not covered by our Ten simple Amendments?

I asked, because of your mention of Intelli9gent Design, if you were suggesting the input of some supernatural being into the draft of the Constitution.

To answer your question: how about slavery ?

 

[danielpalos]

I asked, because of your mention of Intelli9gent Design, if you were suggesting the input of some supernatural being into the draft of the Constitution.

To answer your question: how about slavery ?

I agree to disagree with your assessment. Any engineering effort should start with Intelligent Design, nothing supernatural required.

Slavery was supposed to begin to end naturally after 1808. And, the South had recourse to eminent domain as an expressed Constitutional right.

 

[Cordelier]

While it may speak to the intent of one individual; it does not speak to the consensus understanding of the many who ratified the law.
.

Good answer.... and what speaks more clearly to the consensus understanding of the many who ratified the law than the actual text of the law they ratified?

 

[Cordelier]

The first objective of any communication is to be understood. When you're crafting something as fundamental as a Bill of Rights I think the wording should be clear to any functioning adult, regardless of how much legal training they've have.

Let's suppose we uncovered two drafts of the second amendment in some long forgotten box of papers in the National Archives; they read:

Draft #1: 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.​

​

Draft #2: The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

Which version do you think does a more effective job of communicating the framer's intent?

Obviously Draft #1, since that what was actually ratified. Now you tell me... what is the operative difference between those two drafts?

 

[Rich2018]

I agree to disagree with your assessment. Any engineering effort should start with Intelligent Design, nothing supernatural required.

The term "Intelligent Design" is one used by many Christians (and other Theists) to support Creationism

If you were meaning it in a purely secular context, then why add "intelligent"? Is there such a thing as "unintelligent design" ?

Slavery was supposed to begin to end naturally after 1808. And, the South had recourse to eminent domain as an expressed Constitutional right.

Why couldn't it end suddenly withthe ratification of the Constitution ?

Why didn't the Constitution even mention slavery ?

 

[danielpalos]

Shouldn't natural rights require natural Intelligent Design?

It was prior to the Industrial Revolution and our understanding of economics was lacking.

Our federal Constitution is supposed to, make good on our Declaration of Independence.

 

[Rich2018]

Shouldn't natural rights require natural Intelligent Design?

"Natural intelligent design" is a contradiction in terms

Either something came about naturally or it came about by design
Something designed implies a designer and in the natural (as opposed to super natural) world, there is no such thing as "unintelligent design"
"Intelligent Design" is a phrase used by Theists to describe "The Creation", according to their scriptures

It was prior to the Industrial Revolution and our understanding of economics was lacking.

Why did it matter if Industrial Revolution changed views on slavery
It was wrong in 1787

Our federal Constitution is supposed to make good on our Declaration of Independence.

What ?

It was too late by the time the Constitution was ratified to be anything other than independent.[/QUOTE]

 

[danielpalos]

"Natural intelligent design" is a contradiction in terms

Either something came about naturally or it came about by design
Something designed implies a designer and in the natural (as opposed to super natural) world, there is no such thing as "unintelligent design"
"Intelligent Design" is a phrase used by Theists to describe "The Creation", according to their scriptures

Why did it matter if Industrial Revolution changed views on slavery
It was wrong in 1787

What ?

It was too late by the time the Constitution was ratified to be anything other than independent.

[/QUOTE]
However did you reach your conclusion? Any Thing designed should be designed Intelligently not the the opposite, nothing supernatural required.

Slavery was wrong since our Declaration of Independence was written. And, our understanding of economics was more deficient back then or the South would have asked for Eminent Domain instead of levying War on the Union.

Our federal Constitution is supposed to, make good, on our Declaration of Independence. It was a moral failure that it did not and is still lagging.

 

[Rich2018]

However did you reach your conclusion? Any Thing designed should be designed Intelligently not the the opposite, nothing supernatural required. [/quote]

How can you design without intelligence ?
Therefore anything designed must have a designer

But not everything created must have a creator, as things come into existence by natural means

The religions of the world dispute this and claim there MUST be a supernatural cause (ie: God or Gods)

Slavery was wrong since our Declaration of Independence was written. And, our understanding of economics was more deficient back then or the South would have asked for Eminent Domain instead of levying War on the Union.

Slavery was wrong BEFORE ant declaration of independence or any constitution
It was wrong when the Bible condoned it, it has been wrong for thousands of years

Our federal Constitution is supposed to, make good, on our Declaration of Independence. It was a moral failure that it did not and is still lagging.

The Declaration of Independence, wasn't written for the blacks (slaves), Indians and women

And neither was the Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

How can you design without intelligence ?
Therefore anything designed must have a designer

Like a bridge or a Constitution?

 

[danielpalos]

The Declaration of Independence, wasn't written for the blacks (slaves), Indians and women

And neither was the Constitution.

It wasn't written against them either. It was written for the People. Did you know there are no gender or race based terms in our original Constitution and Bill of Rights?

 

[Rich2018]

Like a bridge or a Constitution?

Or a watch

It wasn't written against them either. It was written for the People. Did you know there are no gender or race based terms in our original Constitution and Bill of Rights?

But who represented "the people"

White males with property

I read an estimate that less than 6% of the population had the vote.

 

[danielpalos]

The point is that Intelligent Design does not require anything supernatural and that the People affected had, and have a First Amendment and a right to petition Government for redress of grievances. There should have been no denials or disparagement of our privileges and immunities based on wealth since we have a Big Government nanny-State Republic not truer forms of Capitalism where wealth is the only thing that matters.

 

[Rich2018]

The point is that Intelligent Design does not require anything supernatural and that the People affected had, and have a First Amendment and a right to petition Government for redress of grievances. There should have been no denials or disparagement of our privileges and immunities based on wealth since we have a Big Government nanny-State Republic not truer forms of Capitalism where wealth is the only thing that matters.

"Intelligent Design" is the fundamental corner stone of Creationism - that is a supernatural being(s) "created" all life on Earth.

 

[danielpalos]

"Intelligent Design" is the fundamental corner stone of Creationism - that is a supernatural being(s) "created" all life on Earth.

Did they copyright that phrase? Intelligent design should be a requirement for anything consequential.

 

[Rich2018]

Did they copyright that phrase? Intelligent design should be a requirement for anything consequential.

No, but in anything other than a theological argument over how life came about, the phrase is meaningless.

In a secular context, there is no such thing as non-intelligent design.

 

[danielpalos]

No, but in anything other than a theological argument over how life came about, the phrase is meaningless.

In a secular context, there is no such thing as non-intelligent design.

Millions of years of evolution could seem like intelligent design from some perspectives.

 

[Rich2018]

Millions of years of evolution could seem like intelligent design from some perspectives.

Sure, from the religious, non-scientific perspective.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Does anyone have the ability to understand what was written by a group of men over two hundred years ago and what they actually meant at the time? No more than the founding fathers had the ability to see over two hundred years into the future in my opinion.

We are not a nation of laws, that's a lie. We have plenty of laws is more accurate. The republican party wants to drag us back into the past, they seem stuck in the 1950's where father knew best and mom served dinner in a dress. With this latest supreme court nomination the right will drag america backwards.

I don't see an argument as to why that is a bad thing.

Backwards would mean going back to letting states do what they were intended to do.

It would mean getting the federal government away from spending 20+ % of our GDP.

 

[bongsaway]

I don't see an argument as to why that is a bad thing.

Backwards would mean going back to letting states do what they were intended to do.

It would mean getting the federal government away from spending 20+ % of our GDP.

And what are states supposed to do that they aren't and if they aren't is that the fault of the federal government? Kentucky is one of the poorest states in america, is that the fault of the federal government?

And if we are going back does that mean dirt roads, no electricity and no indoor plumbing too? Can we stop going backwards when we are all living in caves again?