How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199:2834]

[AllanHampton]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Do you realize that when the Dick Act was passed that women were not even allowed to vote?

Not according to the Constitution. The only "constitutional" Officials the people's vote elect are Representatives and the wording for voter is "People"; Article I, Section 2, clause 1, "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States".

 

[LiberalAvenger]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Not according to the Constitution. The only "constitutional" Officials the people's vote elect are Representatives and the wording for voter is "People"; Article I, Section 2, clause 1, "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States".

Then why did it take 17 years after the dick act for women to have the right to vote?

It was not a supreme court decision that allowed them the right to vote.

 

[Trip]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Then why did it take 17 years after the dick act for women to have the right to vote?

It was not a supreme court decision that allowed them the right to vote.

Minor v Happersett established that "suffrage" is not tied to citizenship. Voting is not a "right". At that point in time women were not recognized as having the ability to vote because, frankly, they were not generally recognized to be responsible members of society. "Voting" is not technically "a right" despite being loosely referenced as such.

 

[AllanHampton]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Then why did it take 17 years after the dick act for women to have the right to vote?

It was not a supreme court decision that allowed them the right to vote.

Amendment #19
(Ratified Aug. 26, 1920)v Woodrow Wilson 1913-1921

The right of the 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.

A worthless amendment, don't you think?

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Amendment #19
(Ratified Aug. 26, 1920)v Woodrow Wilson 1913-1921

The right of the 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.

A worthless amendment, don't you think?

Probably not if you're a woman...

 

[LiberalAvenger]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Minor v Happersett established that "suffrage" is not tied to citizenship. Voting is not a "right". At that point in time women were not recognized as having the ability to vote because, frankly, they were not generally recognized to be responsible members of society. "Voting" is not technically "a right" despite being loosely referenced as such.

Times change and word meanings change with the living document.

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

we are not subject to federal regulation until we are in the federal armed forces. most militias were never under federal control. thus the arms we own are not subject to federal rules-only when we are actually in the militia and serving in the organized federal militia could we be told what arms to use in said service

The Constitution says otherwise. You cannot have it both ways.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Times change and word meanings change with the living document.

What "living" document would that be? If you're referring to the U.S. Constitution, would you point me to date of its birth...

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

You mean this part of Article 1, Section 8?

"To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;"​

Or this?

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"​

No. Article I. Section8. Clause 16.

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;

It is the same militia referenced in Amendment 2. The terms are identical. The Constitution is clearly giving Congress the power to regulate the arming of the militia - of which we are all said to be members.

 

[AllanHampton]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Probably not if you're a woman...

What if you are an American?

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

What if you are an American?

What if you ask a relevant question relating to my response to your post?

 

[LiberalAvenger]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

What "living" document would that be? If you're referring to the U.S. Constitution, would you point me to date of its birth...

here, U.S. Constitution | The Birth of Freedom

 

[AllanHampton]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

What if you ask a relevant question relating to my response to your post?

So you think an amendment giving women the vote is not worthless to women? I think it is a terrible amendment and another nibble, maybe a big bite, at eroding the value of the Constitution.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

So you think an amendment giving women the vote is not worthless to women? I think it is a terrible amendment and another nibble, maybe a big bite, at eroding the value of the Constitution.

Oh snap!:doh

 

[Master PO]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

I am happy to have some agreement. Agreement of the citizenry on the Constitution and citizen's Duty in Citizenship is essential for the preservation, and or maintenance, of Constitutional America.

To secure natural rights is written in the Declaration of Independence and is not written in the Constitution.

For its purpose, a declaration of revolt against a King or government, the D of I is the greatest document ever written.

For its purpose, to create a government of a country of a free people, the Constitution is the greatest document ever written. The Constitution designated the citizenry as owner of a peaceful method to keep their freedom from government abuse, rendering a D of I in the U.S. unnecessary forevermore.

i have been pretty much agreement with just about everything you said now and before.

but as discussed before the preamble, which the DOES SAY THE SECURE LIBERTY, which is the aim (overall goal) of the constitution.

 

[AllanHampton]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Minor v Happersett established that "suffrage" is not tied to citizenship. Voting is not a "right". At that point in time women were not recognized as having the ability to vote because, frankly, they were not generally recognized to be responsible members of society. "Voting" is not technically "a right" despite being loosely referenced as such.

Voting not a Right, huh? Then what do you call "chosen" as in Article I, Section 2, clause 1, is that not a Right?

 

[AllanHampton]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

What "living" document would that be? If you're referring to the U.S. Constitution, would you point me to date of its birth...

Matters not how old the Constitution is, time cannot amend it; Article V.

 

[Master PO]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Voting not a Right, huh? Then what do you call "chosen" as in Article I, Section 2, clause 1, is that not a Right?

voting under the founders in not a right, if you read the founders letters and early court cases where people have sued because they could not vote, the court, says, in its rendering........you sold you land, and you not paying taxes no longer, therefore you have no longer have a vote.

the constitution just states the people will vote, voting is regulated..... it does not put any right into the Constitution for that.....voting is a privilege as spelled out by the founders.

 

[AllanHampton]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

i have been pretty much agreement with just about everything you said now and before.

but as discussed before the preamble, which the DOES SAY THE SECURE LIBERTY, which is the aim (overall goal) of the constitution.

Yes, the preamble does say "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity", and Amendment 4, The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated". Those are the only (two) places I find the word secure; once in the preamble and once in the Bill of Rights.

The question to me is how is government to accomplish securing Liberty for every citizen? I see no better way than to leave the people alone and protect their playground (physical USA) of freedom.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

voting under the founders in not a right, if you read the founders letters and early court cases where people have sued because they could not vote, the court, says, in its rendering........you sold you land, and you not paying taxes not longer, therefore you have no longer have a vote.

the constitution just states the people will vote, voting is regulated..... it does not put any right into the Constitution for that.....voting is a privilege as spelled out by the founders.

Belief in something is very hard to overcome even if it never existed...

 

[Master PO]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Yes, the preamble does say "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity", and Amendment 4, The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated". Those are the only (two) places I find the word secure; once in the preamble and once in the Bill of Rights.

The question to me is how is government to accomplish securing Liberty for every citizen? I see no better way than to leave the people alone and protect their playground (physical USA) of freedom.

and i stated this before, if a state were to violate its own constitution against a citizen or citizens, then they can take the case to state court, but that does always mean justice.

because the state which has violated rights, now in the case ........is arbitrating that case also.

the founders state no man should never be the arbitrator of his own case, and this applies to governments to.......if i am suing a state government and they are also trying the case, does not the case look some what ----->lop-sided.

 

[Master PO]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Belief in something is very hard to overcome even if it never existed...

all what i stated comes from the founders.

Madison himself says it is regulated, but the founders did have ideas later in life to change the way voting was regulated, but under the creation of the constitution it is as i stated before.

The right of suffrage is a fundamental Article in Republican Constitutions. The (regulation) of it is, at the same time, a task of peculiar delicacy. Allow the right exclusively to property, and the rights of persons may be oppressed. The feudal polity alone sufficiently proves it. Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property or the claims of justice may be overruled by a majority without property, or interested in measures of injustice. Of this abundant proof is afforded by other popular Govts. and is not without examples in our own, particularly in the laws impairing the obligation of contracts.

 

[AllanHampton]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

voting under the founders in not a right, if you read the founders letters and early court cases where people have sued because they could not vote, the court, says, in its rendering........you sold you land, and you not paying taxes no longer, therefore you have no longer have a vote.

the constitution just states the people will vote, voting is regulated..... it does not put any right into the Constitution for that.....voting is a privilege as spelled out by the founders.

We differ on "chosen", I believe it is a Right and one of only two Rights that has a force with it (not counting the Right of defense from physical attack, arms). Chosen has the force of unseating an Incumbent "Lawmaker" and the jury boxes have the force to forbid the courts unjustly punishing the accused (nullify legislation). There are regulations concerning "chosen" or voting, but regulations and courts cannot amend the constitution, and particularly of this discussion Article I, Section 2, clause 1; reference Article V. Citizens are the only entity that has the Right/power of "chosen" and use the of the jury boxes.

Of interest, Amendment 14, Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States,.

 

[AllanHampton]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

and i stated this before, if a state were to violate its own constitution against a citizen or citizens, then they can take the case to state court, but that does always mean justice.

because the state which has violated rights, now in the case ........is arbitrating that case also.

the founders state no man should never be the arbitrator of his own case, and this applies to governments to.......if i am suing a state government and they are also trying the case, does not the case look some what ----->lop-sided.

Yes, lopsided. I believe the citizen jury is the proper dispenser of justice in U.S. courts.

 

[Master PO]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

We differ on "chosen", I believe it is a Right and one of only two Rights that has a force with it (not counting the Right of defense from physical attack, arms). Chosen has the force of unseating an Incumbent "Lawmaker" and the jury boxes have the force to forbid the courts unjustly punishing the accused (nullify legislation). There are regulations concerning "chosen" or voting, but regulations and courts cannot amend the constitution, and particularly of this discussion Article I, Section 2, clause 1; reference Article V. Citizens are the only entity that has the Right/power of "chosen" and use the of the jury boxes.

Of interest, Amendment 14, Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States,.

remember that anything outside of the first ten amendment to the Constitution can be repealed..... the BOR cannot ...according to the founders.

the 14th could be repealed and done away with ,so it does not bestow any rights, because government cannot create them........they are only privileges............as in civil rights........they are not rights but civil privileges created by government.

The right of suffrage is a fundamental Article in Republican Constitutions. The (regulation) of it is, at the same time, a task of peculiar delicacy. Allow the right exclusively to property, and the rights of persons may be oppressed. The feudal polity alone sufficiently proves it. Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property or the claims of justice may be overruled by a majority without property, or interested in measures of injustice. Of this abundant proof is afforded by other popular Govts. and is not without examples in our own, particularly in the laws impairing the obligation of contracts.

translation of Madison below:

the right to voting is fundamental in Republican constitutions, but it regulation is a delicate thing, if we allow voting to property owners only, the rights of all the people may be oppressed, the middle age feudal policies of the monarchies proves that........ BUT if we give it to all the people, then the rights of property and those who own it, may be overruled by the majority rule vote (democracy) without property, they will seek injustice against those that do own property.....there is abundant proof of this in democratic government, and in our time under other government.....particularly in laws impairing the obligation of contracts.

the founders wanted the American people to use contract law, with many aspects of our life's.....