The Second Amendment

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

"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."

The men that drafted the Constitution of The United States added the Amendments in the order of their moral priority. If one looks at the Constitution and the Amendments with an eye on practicality, the Second Amendment then becomes at least, par with the First Amendment in importance. The Second Amendment is the guardian and guarantor of the Bill of Rights, preventing the Federal Government from writing any law that would deny the citizens of this nation the arms they would need to defend the nation, their State and to defend the rights that were secured under the new government.

Without the Second Amendment, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution would have little meaning and no defense against a corrupt government. Let us not forget that the men who drafted the Constitution had also written into the Declaration of Independence “…whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.” It is clear that they possessed a deep and abiding distrust of governments in general and while they labored to create a nation founded in freedom, they recognized that this Republic was a supreme experiment and the outcome was yet to be proven.

Many opponents of the private ownership of firearms use the first few words of this amendment to say that this was strictly to provide for the arming of a State Militia; that it was never intended as a right for the common citizen to possess firearms. Well, once again we will delve into the Federalist Papers. That is where you will always find the clear intent of the men that wrote the Constitution and the Amendments. An excerpt taken from a document written by Alexander Hamilton on January 10, 1788 says:

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."

It was the intent of this Amendment to insure that the citizens are armed to defend this fledgling nation and it is clear by this passage alone, that the entire populace was expected to be armed. The “Militia only” interpretation the detractors of the Second Amendment say is implied in the Constitution clearly does not exist. The “regulation” that is implied in the Constitution was directed at insuring the Citizens were properly armed and is not meant to say that those that may bear arms can only exist as part of a National Guard or regular Army and in fact, this passage indicates that was not to be expected of the people.

Bear in mind that Congress had already created an army that had just secured our independence from Great Britain and there were provisions written into the draft of the Constitution that provided Congress with the means and the authority to raise an army, a navy and to secure the funds to provide for them both. If a militia was the sole intent of the Second Amendment, it would be the one and only redundant provision that appeared in the whole of the Constitution.

I find it mildly interesting that those that claim the intuitive insight to interpret the Constitution on our behalf tend to ignore the very store of documents that are the road map through the minds of the men that wrote it. To ignore the Federalist papers is a gross injustice to the American people and an insult to the honor of the founding fathers of this nation.

So why do I feel that the right to bear arms is so important? I could point to the article I posted here yesterday as one good reason. Pravda has all but written off the United States and quite honestly, if we do not put a stop to the insanity of 3.6 trillion dollar budgets, trillion dollar deficits and the wholesale looting of the treasury by “community organizers”, I agree with them. Rather than spell out a scenario of doom and gloom I will name my second reason, or rather Thomas Jefferson will...

"…whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it."

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) is quoted as saying: "If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all." Let’s face it; only someone that intends to deny or destroy our rights and freedoms would be fearful of the people that would stand to defend them. It further tells me that if he could find a way around the Second Amendment, they would have already started collecting guns.

Henry Waxman is one of the authors of the Waxman-Markey or Climate Bill. This bill is supposed to protect the environment by reducing the carbon output of the United States. To do so, this bill will severely cripple the manufacturing industries in this nation and place draconian restrictions on personal power consumption by raising the price of energy to a point that will be unsustainable for the average American household.

The truly criminal part of that legislation is that it will have no effect on the environment whatsoever. China and India are the largest producers of carbon emissions and refuse to hamper their economic growth by enacting similar measures. The bill will certainly reduce carbon emissions in our country but not because we are cleaner. The emissions will be reduced as manufacturing industries relocate to other nations that do not possess costly restrictions on manufacturing and are truly happy for the opportunity to put their citizens to work doing the jobs we once had. Is this why Henry Waxman is nervous?

Gun opponents would cite crime statistics involving the use of firearms. The statistics they ignore is that the vast majority of those crimes are committed with unlawfully obtained firearms and in many cases, by people that are already prohibited from owning firearms because of a felony criminal record. You see, criminals by definition, do not obey the law so weapon legislation does not stop them. They also ignore the statistics that say that gun violence is predominately highest in the cities where they already possess stringent gun ownership laws. That is because the criminals aren’t quite so brave when there is an even chance that you might have a weapon too.

The text written by Alexander Hamilton that was posted above is a clear indication that the nation’s founders looked at the citizens very differently than Congress does now. We were the nation then, equal in status and rights. Now we are treated as the subjects of this massive government, nearly as much as we were under King George and that alone is sufficient to reinforce the need for the Second Amendment.

To make things worse, the Federal government continues to expand its powers beyond those granted to it under the Enumerated Powers Act, which is highly dangerous in a government that is full of people that think they are the new aristocracy. Remember, criminals by definition, do not obey the law and that includes the elected ones.

Paul

Does the Healthcare Bill Violate the Constitution?

Yesterday we discussed the Constitutional issues that have become cause for alarm when one State is exempted from a tax that all others must pay. Today I wish to raise question with the Constitutional authority Congress claims to possess to enact healthcare reforms in the first place. When the question of Constitutional authority was posed to the members of Congress we got some very interesting answers. Nancy Pelosi would only ask rhetorically “Are you serious?” Mary Landrieu said “We have some very talented Constitutional lawyers on staff that can answer that.” which in the language of politics means “I don’t know”.

The closest thing to an answer we got from a member of Congress on this very serious issue came from Congressman James Clyburn (D-SC). Representative Clyburn said that “most of what we (Congress) do here (in Washington) is not authorized in the Constitution.” I can only take that as an admission that they know they are in direct violation of the Constitution and mean to keep violating the supreme law of the land in order to advance their agenda.

The Tenth Amendment states:

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Constitution also clearly spells out, or enumerates, the powers that were delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution under Section Eight. That section reads:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

1- The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
2- To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
3- To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
4- To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
5- To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
6- To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
7- To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
8- To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
9- To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
10- To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
11- To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
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;
15- To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
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;
17- To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
18- To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

For years the Congress has been forcing legislation upon us claiming to promote the “general welfare, taking their authority from the first paragraph of Section Eight. They have similarly misused the commerce clause which gives the Congress the authority to “regulate” commerce between the States (item 3 above). While that seems reasonable, at least to them, it does require an examination of what those phrases meant to the men that drafted the Constitution before Congress can derive authority from those clauses.

To “regulate” was a very specific term at the time the Constitution was drafted. It meant exactly what it says; to make regular. The commerce clause was intended to provide Congress with the tools it needed to inure that the conduct of business between the states was uniform. It was intended to allow businesses in any state, free and unfettered access to markets anywhere. It was never meant to give the Congress authority to license, impose regulatory control or provide federal oversight of American businesses.

The term “General Welfare” is responsible for more unlawful impositions by the Federal Government than any one phrase in the Constitution. To understand it, one must read it literally. Since the architects of the Constitution had taken great pains to use the words States, citizens and people in other areas of the document, to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States” only gives the Congress authority to provide for the “General Welfare” of the United States as a governmental entity; the United States as a body of states and not the people that reside within those states.

In the Federalist Papers, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.

It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.”

We can clearly see by Jefferson’s text that the “General Welfare” that Congress has been charged with providing for is the Welfare of the Union and not of its citizens. He adds further that to interpret the clause as the Congress is now doing, is dangerous and if allowed, could use that interpretation to do as much evil as good. I think it is fair to say that we have reached the point where the interpretation is being used by Congress to do great evil and this bill is only one example. A healthcare panel that will determine your care options in place of your doctor is about as evil as it gets. Oh your doctor can still provide the care he believes you need. He just can’t expect to get paid for his services if he strays from the mandates of the Health Benefits Panel.

Paul