Amendments 1 – 10: The Bill of Rights
Part One: 1st & 2nd Amendments
The first ten amendments to the US Constitution, now known as the Bill of Rights, were not considered necessary by the Constitutional Convention that wrote the Constitution during the hot summer of 1787. No powers over the individual actions of solvent, law-abiding persons, or the internal workings of the states, were delegated to the legislative branch; therefore, the new federal government (once formed after ratification of the Constitution) would have no jurisdiction over the rights of the people and the states. However, opposers and critics of the new Constitution (who became known as the “Anti-Federalists”) made the lack of a specific listing of areas where the federal government was forbidden to meddle a major argument against ratification. Some proponents of the new Constitution (including the brilliant and influential Thomas Jefferson) also called for a statement of rights to be appended. Jefferson wrote, “a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference. ” Once the new Congress formed (after ratification), 17 amendments were proposed and passed in the House, 12 passed the Senate and were sent to the states, and ten were ratified by the states in short order. These ten comprise what has become known as the Bill of Rights. This essay examines the first two.
Please note that ALL of the Amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights are further restrictions on the power of the federal government, in favor of the liberty of the people and areas falling to the purview of the states.
The 1st Amendment begins, “Congress shall make no law…” and Michael Badnarik (see ref’s) notes in his book and his talks that it is a shame they did not end the sentence right there. Unfortunately, that level of wisdom was not granted to the Framers. The sentence continues, “…respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Leaving aside grammatical concerns about run-on sentences, let us parse out the meaning of this amendment.
“...respecting an establishment of religion” is the first area where Congress is prohibited from making laws. What is an establishment of religion? It is what the Pilgrims, and the Quakers, and many others, came here to escape. It is a nationally-mandated, tax-receipt-supported, official religion of the country, which may or may not tolerate the existence of other religions. A religion where attendance at services is compulsory. Where general tax funds are used to support the church, usually at 10% of income (tithe) – after which one may donate to one’s own church. Where the ability to vote in civil elections can be limited to adherents of the one approved faith. The key point is coercion by the civil government in favor and for the support of the one “official” church. Support of one’s own, non-established, church was discretionary and voluntary.
At the time the Constitution was drafted, every state had its own official state religion (many dropped the requirements in the early decades after the Constitution was adopted). However, even as late as 1807, Presbyterians in Chester, NH seized a Quaker citizen’s cow for non-payment of the Minister’s Tax!
Knowing what an “establishment of religion” is, then – what does the 1st Amendment prohibit? It prohibits Congress from establishing a national, mandatory religion for the United States supported by tax receipts from the populace at large, and further prohibits Congress from interfering in any state’s establishment of its own internal religion. The next phrase, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” stops Congress from having ANY say whatsoever in the private OR PUBLIC exercise of religion on the part of the people. Let us also point out now that a display of the Ten Commandments is NOT an “establishment of religion” as those principles are espoused by many religions (not even solely Judeo-Christian religions). Additionally, those principles form the basis of our system of civil and criminal law; to have them on view by the populace does not establish a religion but rather reminds us of the underlying Rule of Law. It is very appropriate to have such a reminder in courthouses, schools, and other public places.
An excellent analysis of the perversion of this amendment to “prove” that no public faith is allowed and no public property can be the site of prayers, religious activities, and protestations of faith, can be found at http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/1st-amendment/ and I shall not replicate the very detailed historical discussion she presents. Instead, I will quote a pertinent sentence: “...the Constitution does not restrict religion to the “private sphere” – it forbids Congress from prohibiting its free exercise anywhere.” (Emphasis in original.) Further, I will note that early administrations held church services in the Capitol Building and many other public buildings, and that one of the first Congressional acts was to authorize an English-language Bible specifically geared for “use in the schools.” (They did not fund the printing with government money, however, as education is not an enumerated power of Congress and the members of this first Congress were aware of that restriction.)
“...or abridging freedom of speech;” Think: what type of speech needs protecting? Speech that lauds the then-current administration? That utters only statements agreed upon by the vast majority of people? No! The ONLY speech that needs protection is speech that is unpopular, or critical of government, or of the status quo – in short, speech of POLITICAL DISSENT. According to the Declaration of Independence, it is our right (and our duty) to alter or to abolish a government that becomes “destructive of these ends” – this is only possible when speech critical of that government is not suppressed by the government or its lackeys. The quote, “I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it” (widely attributed to Voltaire, although it does not appear in his writings) epitomizes this portion of the First Amendment. As for the widely-known maxim “you cannot cry “FIRE!” in a crowded theater” – that is wrong. You can. If the theater is on fire, it is your civic duty to do so! If the theater is not on fire, it is still your right. Every right has a concomitant responsibility; therefore it would be your responsibility to accept the consequences of your actions, which may include lawsuits by patrons and the theater for damages, injuries, lost revenues, and more, plus arrest/fine/possible jail for causing a riot and endangering the public. But it is your right. You may also call a spade a spade (a spade is different from a shovel and has a different purpose), and a miserly person a niggard (the use of which word pre-dates Chaucer). Another’s ignorance or offense (pretended or real) is not a reason not to use proper or appropriate terminology.
“... or of the press,” An informed populace was widely considered to be crucial to the health of the Republic. “The press” was the Internet of the day. We see the wisdom of the Framers every time a dictator or tyrant establishes control of a country: one of the first tasks is the takeover of all sources of information – print, radio, television, and now internet as well. Only accolades are permitted – perhaps small, local areas of complaint (corruption in the local dog catcher’s office, perhaps?) are allowed as examples to the people and the world of how the press is still “free” to criticize. The people must have non-government sources of information that they can trust to tell the truth. The federal government is forbidden from interfering with those sources. The Framers did not foresee a time when much of the press would be so degenerate as to be willfully complicit in presenting a fawning and wildly distorted view of a particular political agenda to the public at large.
“...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,” Publically talking about politics and religion, dissenting with the current policies of the government, is protected here. Congress may not stop, limit, or interfere with meetings, assemblies, or rallies. The only limitation on the people is that they are “peaceable” in their meetings. Note Congress still has no right to limit meetings – but the civil laws against destructive or violent behavior are still in force, limiting the people to peaceable meetings. Peaceable may be loud, vociferous, vehement, and obstreperous, and may include signs, flags and other props; it may even be rude and offensive – and still be peaceable. They may not be destructive of property or injurious to passers-by.
“...and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” If the government infringes on our rights or damages us in some way, we have the right to bring suit against it to fix what went wrong. A plethora of federally-funded attorneys ready to counter all arguments in our suits makes this more symbolic than practical today; it will be another item someday to address and correct.
Moving on to a topic under wild debate yet again – and showing the great wisdom of the Framers and Founders yet again – we reach the 2nd Amendment.
A brief preface before we move on to this examination of the 2nd Amendment: It is a defining characteristic of evil intent to make emotion-laden pleas to solve the WRONG "problem," thereby giving greater power to those whose intent (self-known or not) is itself drawn from evil. We have many laws against murder; yet still murder persists - the passing of laws has done nothing to end this crime. Men can be murdered by many means, and mankind has devised ways to commit this crime on the one, the many at once, at close quarters, at a distance, by proxy, in person, with sanctimoniousness, with hatred, with callousness, with greed, with covetousness, with utter disregard, with insanity, with cold logic, with tools, with hands, with refusal to admit the danger presented by the insane, with refusal to admit the right to protect self -- and with weapons ranging from sticks and stones through common household implements and more. It is neither the TOOL nor the METHOD that is evil; rather it is the desire to murder, and the act itself, that are evil. A thousand machetes and bazookas in the possession of a "Mother Theresa" is a danger to no one, while a strong shoelace (garrote) in the hands of a murderous thug is a danger to everyone in the vicinity. There is also a vast difference between defense of self and family from evil, and "murder." If one is a believer in any of the Bible-based religions, please read all the myriad texts (in the Old and New Testaments) requiring you to defend yourself from evildoers, even to the extent of killing those persons. There is an entire separate article on this topic alone elsewhere on this web site; we will leave this aspect aside in this discussion of the 2nd Amendment.
In 1787, when the Constitution was freshly written, what had happened in the prior twelve years? Our long-standing feud with our sovereign King, George III, came to a head in Lexington and Concord, Mass. The British Regulars (the standing army) was sent out under cover of darkness to confiscate the powder stores of the town militia in Concord, and to arrest, if possible, some of the most vocal critics of the King's actions. The War of Independence that followed was a war of a citizen’s militia against the largest, most well-trained, best-equipped standing army in the world. It took until 1781 and the surrender of General Cornwallis at Yorktown to win our independence – and even then it was not final until the Treaty of Paris was signed, in 1783. We were only FOUR years past a war where a semi-trained, citizen-militia-based army defeated British troops. Without a well-armed citizenry, today we would be singing “God Save the Queen” before baseball games. How on earth can anyone doubt that the Framers meant what they said – that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed?! (Please also recall, from earlier articles, that ALL rights are INDIVIDUAL rights; there is no such thing as “community” rights.)
The prime purpose of the 2nd Amendment is the last defense of the citizenry against a government turned tyrannical. “[T]o preserve these rights, governments are instituted...” If it is indeed our unalienable right (and duty!), as "the People," to alter or abolish a government “turned destructive of these ends” then it follows, by inevitable concatenation, that we must be armed in order to protect that right. The existence of a right to our own life demands and presupposes a right to defend that life from individuals or governments who endanger it.
I can do no better than to bring you words from those philosophical and analytical writings formed the understanding of the framers, and from those who wrote and advocated for the Constitution, propounded it to their contemporaries, worked hard for its adoption, and explained its meaning and its intent at the time of the passing of the Bill of Rights and in the first few decades thereafter. Who better to understand what was meant than those? And how can anyone today claim to know, better than they, what their clear, plain, words meant?
From Blackstone’s Commentaries, 1803, we read, “The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible.” [side note: remember “laws of nature and of nature’s God?] The Framers were well-versed in Blackstone and had seen first-hand the desire of “rulers to confine this right” – they owed their liberty to the success of their resistance to that desire. They were NOT about to allot a power to the new government that would have prevented that victory.
George Mason of Virginia wrote, "when the resolution of enslaving America was formed, the Parliament was advised to disarm the people; ...but that they should not do it openly, but let them sink gradually." This tactic of gradual encroachment is still in use today.
Richard Henry Lee of Virginia wrote, "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms."
The Pennsylvania Gazette published, on February 20, 1788, "The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
Thomas Paine wrote, "Arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world, as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
In Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution (1833, § 1890), he states, “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since if offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally , even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them” (emphasis mine; Joseph Story was appointed a US Supreme Court Justice in 1811 and is widely considered one of the most learned and brilliant men ever to sit on the Supreme Court). In a Discourse written in 1829, Justice Story also declares, "There can be no freedom where there is no safety to property or personal rights. Whenever legislation ...compels a surrender ...upon any pretext ...it is still in its essence tyranny."
William Rawle, in his book “A View of the Constitution of the United States” (1829) states, “In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. ...The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people.” (italics in original; boldface mine)
Additionally, case after case in the Supreme and other courts confirm the right to bear arms, that this right pertains to the individual and not to an organized militia, and that such right pre-dates our Constitution.
In 1876, a Supreme Court ruling states, "This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." Another SC decision furthers the extent by stating, "the States cannot ...prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms..." and later, that nearly all provisions of the Bill of Rights apply to the states through the 14th Amendment. I will add that those provisions clearly apply, in total, under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution itself.
There exists a specious argument that the 2nd Amendment pertains to the National Guard. Ridiculous. The National Guard was not formed until the early 1900’s. This “argument” implies that the 2nd Amendment had no meaning for over 100 years – and that the Framers were psychic, as well. No, the National Guard did not replace the citizen militias. They were originally considered an “organized militia” under the control of the states (they could not be state armies; those are prohibited by Article I, § 10). This distinction as an “organized militia” of a state has lapsed and they are now generally under federal rules (with some state control) as part of the armed services of the United States (part of the "standing army," of which concept the Founders were so justifiably suspicious), and are now sent to service outside their home states. The citizenry remains an “un-organized militia”, available to be called to the service and protection of their state.
The intent and the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to preserve inviolate the inherent right of the People to keep and bear arms for the protection of their own lives, their own families, their own property, the defense of their towns and states, the defense of the country as a whole, and of all the above from their very own government should that ever be required.
There is one additional note to make before ending this writing - we must address fears regarding the over-reach of the UN Small Arms Trade Treaty and how this underscores the importance of understanding the Constitution. Let us stipulate (in its meaning, "to accept for the sake or argument") that this is signed by a President and ratified a Senate, none of whom understand their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Would this treaty then be the "supreme law of the land" and supersede our Constitution? NO!! Not if we, the people, understand the Constitution.
The federal government is allowed to make treaties only in the areas where the Constitution authorizes them to act, as Jefferson points out in his writings. The Constitution says "...treaties made under the authority of the United States are the supreme law of the land." It does not say "treaties made by the United States." Nowhere does the Constitution grant powers to the federal government allowing them to sign away the rights of the people (or the states). Nor may the federal government give away sovereignty over this land; they have none to give! We, the People, retain sovereignty and grant the government privileges - enough power to carry out the duties with which we have charged it. They cannot sign away what they do not have - even as each of us has no power to sign up our neighbor to buy a new car. Madison clearly shows in Federalist #44 that a treaty that interferes with the Constitution has no effect, and the 10th Amendment clearly states that any power not delegated to the United States by the Constitution is reserved to the states or the people.
When we, the People, once again understand our Constitution and the limitations on the powers of the federal government, any such treaty, signed-and-ratified, would be utterly disregarded and without effect -- and the anti-American fools who signed and ratified it would be thrown out of office immediately.
.. © by the author, 2013
References:
1. U. S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence
2. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson 438, 440 (J. Boyd, ed., 1958)
3. Publius Huldah; publiushuldah.wordpress.com (see especially the essays on the First Amendment and the Treaty-Making Powers of the United States)
4. Michael Badnarik, “Good To Be King”, The Writers Collective, 2004 available only at www.constitutionpreservation.org
5. W. Cleon Skousen, “The 5,000 Year Leap”, National Center for Constitutional Studies, 1981
6. Online Library of Liberty
7. Blackstone's Commentaries, 1803 (Sir William Blackstone’s lectures on British common law of 1753; published in four volumes in subsequent years)
8. Rabbi Daniel Lapin, “The Ten Commandments” CD
9. Kurland & Lerner, “The Founder’s Constitution,” Vol. 5, Liberty Fund, Inc.
10. “Gun Control for Dummies,” YouTube http://youtu.be/F584p5kJL-U
11. “Innocents Betrayed – The True Story of Gun Control Worldwide” documentary by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, YouTube http://youtu.be/d7vNj2sb_00 hard going; worthwhile
12. Conservapedia
13. www.constitutiondecoded.com
Please note that ALL of the Amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights are further restrictions on the power of the federal government, in favor of the liberty of the people and areas falling to the purview of the states.
The 1st Amendment begins, “Congress shall make no law…” and Michael Badnarik (see ref’s) notes in his book and his talks that it is a shame they did not end the sentence right there. Unfortunately, that level of wisdom was not granted to the Framers. The sentence continues, “…respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Leaving aside grammatical concerns about run-on sentences, let us parse out the meaning of this amendment.
“...respecting an establishment of religion” is the first area where Congress is prohibited from making laws. What is an establishment of religion? It is what the Pilgrims, and the Quakers, and many others, came here to escape. It is a nationally-mandated, tax-receipt-supported, official religion of the country, which may or may not tolerate the existence of other religions. A religion where attendance at services is compulsory. Where general tax funds are used to support the church, usually at 10% of income (tithe) – after which one may donate to one’s own church. Where the ability to vote in civil elections can be limited to adherents of the one approved faith. The key point is coercion by the civil government in favor and for the support of the one “official” church. Support of one’s own, non-established, church was discretionary and voluntary.
At the time the Constitution was drafted, every state had its own official state religion (many dropped the requirements in the early decades after the Constitution was adopted). However, even as late as 1807, Presbyterians in Chester, NH seized a Quaker citizen’s cow for non-payment of the Minister’s Tax!
Knowing what an “establishment of religion” is, then – what does the 1st Amendment prohibit? It prohibits Congress from establishing a national, mandatory religion for the United States supported by tax receipts from the populace at large, and further prohibits Congress from interfering in any state’s establishment of its own internal religion. The next phrase, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” stops Congress from having ANY say whatsoever in the private OR PUBLIC exercise of religion on the part of the people. Let us also point out now that a display of the Ten Commandments is NOT an “establishment of religion” as those principles are espoused by many religions (not even solely Judeo-Christian religions). Additionally, those principles form the basis of our system of civil and criminal law; to have them on view by the populace does not establish a religion but rather reminds us of the underlying Rule of Law. It is very appropriate to have such a reminder in courthouses, schools, and other public places.
An excellent analysis of the perversion of this amendment to “prove” that no public faith is allowed and no public property can be the site of prayers, religious activities, and protestations of faith, can be found at http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/1st-amendment/ and I shall not replicate the very detailed historical discussion she presents. Instead, I will quote a pertinent sentence: “...the Constitution does not restrict religion to the “private sphere” – it forbids Congress from prohibiting its free exercise anywhere.” (Emphasis in original.) Further, I will note that early administrations held church services in the Capitol Building and many other public buildings, and that one of the first Congressional acts was to authorize an English-language Bible specifically geared for “use in the schools.” (They did not fund the printing with government money, however, as education is not an enumerated power of Congress and the members of this first Congress were aware of that restriction.)
“...or abridging freedom of speech;” Think: what type of speech needs protecting? Speech that lauds the then-current administration? That utters only statements agreed upon by the vast majority of people? No! The ONLY speech that needs protection is speech that is unpopular, or critical of government, or of the status quo – in short, speech of POLITICAL DISSENT. According to the Declaration of Independence, it is our right (and our duty) to alter or to abolish a government that becomes “destructive of these ends” – this is only possible when speech critical of that government is not suppressed by the government or its lackeys. The quote, “I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it” (widely attributed to Voltaire, although it does not appear in his writings) epitomizes this portion of the First Amendment. As for the widely-known maxim “you cannot cry “FIRE!” in a crowded theater” – that is wrong. You can. If the theater is on fire, it is your civic duty to do so! If the theater is not on fire, it is still your right. Every right has a concomitant responsibility; therefore it would be your responsibility to accept the consequences of your actions, which may include lawsuits by patrons and the theater for damages, injuries, lost revenues, and more, plus arrest/fine/possible jail for causing a riot and endangering the public. But it is your right. You may also call a spade a spade (a spade is different from a shovel and has a different purpose), and a miserly person a niggard (the use of which word pre-dates Chaucer). Another’s ignorance or offense (pretended or real) is not a reason not to use proper or appropriate terminology.
“... or of the press,” An informed populace was widely considered to be crucial to the health of the Republic. “The press” was the Internet of the day. We see the wisdom of the Framers every time a dictator or tyrant establishes control of a country: one of the first tasks is the takeover of all sources of information – print, radio, television, and now internet as well. Only accolades are permitted – perhaps small, local areas of complaint (corruption in the local dog catcher’s office, perhaps?) are allowed as examples to the people and the world of how the press is still “free” to criticize. The people must have non-government sources of information that they can trust to tell the truth. The federal government is forbidden from interfering with those sources. The Framers did not foresee a time when much of the press would be so degenerate as to be willfully complicit in presenting a fawning and wildly distorted view of a particular political agenda to the public at large.
“...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,” Publically talking about politics and religion, dissenting with the current policies of the government, is protected here. Congress may not stop, limit, or interfere with meetings, assemblies, or rallies. The only limitation on the people is that they are “peaceable” in their meetings. Note Congress still has no right to limit meetings – but the civil laws against destructive or violent behavior are still in force, limiting the people to peaceable meetings. Peaceable may be loud, vociferous, vehement, and obstreperous, and may include signs, flags and other props; it may even be rude and offensive – and still be peaceable. They may not be destructive of property or injurious to passers-by.
“...and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” If the government infringes on our rights or damages us in some way, we have the right to bring suit against it to fix what went wrong. A plethora of federally-funded attorneys ready to counter all arguments in our suits makes this more symbolic than practical today; it will be another item someday to address and correct.
Moving on to a topic under wild debate yet again – and showing the great wisdom of the Framers and Founders yet again – we reach the 2nd Amendment.
A brief preface before we move on to this examination of the 2nd Amendment: It is a defining characteristic of evil intent to make emotion-laden pleas to solve the WRONG "problem," thereby giving greater power to those whose intent (self-known or not) is itself drawn from evil. We have many laws against murder; yet still murder persists - the passing of laws has done nothing to end this crime. Men can be murdered by many means, and mankind has devised ways to commit this crime on the one, the many at once, at close quarters, at a distance, by proxy, in person, with sanctimoniousness, with hatred, with callousness, with greed, with covetousness, with utter disregard, with insanity, with cold logic, with tools, with hands, with refusal to admit the danger presented by the insane, with refusal to admit the right to protect self -- and with weapons ranging from sticks and stones through common household implements and more. It is neither the TOOL nor the METHOD that is evil; rather it is the desire to murder, and the act itself, that are evil. A thousand machetes and bazookas in the possession of a "Mother Theresa" is a danger to no one, while a strong shoelace (garrote) in the hands of a murderous thug is a danger to everyone in the vicinity. There is also a vast difference between defense of self and family from evil, and "murder." If one is a believer in any of the Bible-based religions, please read all the myriad texts (in the Old and New Testaments) requiring you to defend yourself from evildoers, even to the extent of killing those persons. There is an entire separate article on this topic alone elsewhere on this web site; we will leave this aspect aside in this discussion of the 2nd Amendment.
In 1787, when the Constitution was freshly written, what had happened in the prior twelve years? Our long-standing feud with our sovereign King, George III, came to a head in Lexington and Concord, Mass. The British Regulars (the standing army) was sent out under cover of darkness to confiscate the powder stores of the town militia in Concord, and to arrest, if possible, some of the most vocal critics of the King's actions. The War of Independence that followed was a war of a citizen’s militia against the largest, most well-trained, best-equipped standing army in the world. It took until 1781 and the surrender of General Cornwallis at Yorktown to win our independence – and even then it was not final until the Treaty of Paris was signed, in 1783. We were only FOUR years past a war where a semi-trained, citizen-militia-based army defeated British troops. Without a well-armed citizenry, today we would be singing “God Save the Queen” before baseball games. How on earth can anyone doubt that the Framers meant what they said – that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed?! (Please also recall, from earlier articles, that ALL rights are INDIVIDUAL rights; there is no such thing as “community” rights.)
The prime purpose of the 2nd Amendment is the last defense of the citizenry against a government turned tyrannical. “[T]o preserve these rights, governments are instituted...” If it is indeed our unalienable right (and duty!), as "the People," to alter or abolish a government “turned destructive of these ends” then it follows, by inevitable concatenation, that we must be armed in order to protect that right. The existence of a right to our own life demands and presupposes a right to defend that life from individuals or governments who endanger it.
I can do no better than to bring you words from those philosophical and analytical writings formed the understanding of the framers, and from those who wrote and advocated for the Constitution, propounded it to their contemporaries, worked hard for its adoption, and explained its meaning and its intent at the time of the passing of the Bill of Rights and in the first few decades thereafter. Who better to understand what was meant than those? And how can anyone today claim to know, better than they, what their clear, plain, words meant?
From Blackstone’s Commentaries, 1803, we read, “The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible.” [side note: remember “laws of nature and of nature’s God?] The Framers were well-versed in Blackstone and had seen first-hand the desire of “rulers to confine this right” – they owed their liberty to the success of their resistance to that desire. They were NOT about to allot a power to the new government that would have prevented that victory.
George Mason of Virginia wrote, "when the resolution of enslaving America was formed, the Parliament was advised to disarm the people; ...but that they should not do it openly, but let them sink gradually." This tactic of gradual encroachment is still in use today.
Richard Henry Lee of Virginia wrote, "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms."
The Pennsylvania Gazette published, on February 20, 1788, "The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
Thomas Paine wrote, "Arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world, as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
In Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution (1833, § 1890), he states, “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since if offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally , even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them” (emphasis mine; Joseph Story was appointed a US Supreme Court Justice in 1811 and is widely considered one of the most learned and brilliant men ever to sit on the Supreme Court). In a Discourse written in 1829, Justice Story also declares, "There can be no freedom where there is no safety to property or personal rights. Whenever legislation ...compels a surrender ...upon any pretext ...it is still in its essence tyranny."
William Rawle, in his book “A View of the Constitution of the United States” (1829) states, “In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. ...The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people.” (italics in original; boldface mine)
Additionally, case after case in the Supreme and other courts confirm the right to bear arms, that this right pertains to the individual and not to an organized militia, and that such right pre-dates our Constitution.
In 1876, a Supreme Court ruling states, "This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." Another SC decision furthers the extent by stating, "the States cannot ...prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms..." and later, that nearly all provisions of the Bill of Rights apply to the states through the 14th Amendment. I will add that those provisions clearly apply, in total, under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution itself.
There exists a specious argument that the 2nd Amendment pertains to the National Guard. Ridiculous. The National Guard was not formed until the early 1900’s. This “argument” implies that the 2nd Amendment had no meaning for over 100 years – and that the Framers were psychic, as well. No, the National Guard did not replace the citizen militias. They were originally considered an “organized militia” under the control of the states (they could not be state armies; those are prohibited by Article I, § 10). This distinction as an “organized militia” of a state has lapsed and they are now generally under federal rules (with some state control) as part of the armed services of the United States (part of the "standing army," of which concept the Founders were so justifiably suspicious), and are now sent to service outside their home states. The citizenry remains an “un-organized militia”, available to be called to the service and protection of their state.
The intent and the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to preserve inviolate the inherent right of the People to keep and bear arms for the protection of their own lives, their own families, their own property, the defense of their towns and states, the defense of the country as a whole, and of all the above from their very own government should that ever be required.
There is one additional note to make before ending this writing - we must address fears regarding the over-reach of the UN Small Arms Trade Treaty and how this underscores the importance of understanding the Constitution. Let us stipulate (in its meaning, "to accept for the sake or argument") that this is signed by a President and ratified a Senate, none of whom understand their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Would this treaty then be the "supreme law of the land" and supersede our Constitution? NO!! Not if we, the people, understand the Constitution.
The federal government is allowed to make treaties only in the areas where the Constitution authorizes them to act, as Jefferson points out in his writings. The Constitution says "...treaties made under the authority of the United States are the supreme law of the land." It does not say "treaties made by the United States." Nowhere does the Constitution grant powers to the federal government allowing them to sign away the rights of the people (or the states). Nor may the federal government give away sovereignty over this land; they have none to give! We, the People, retain sovereignty and grant the government privileges - enough power to carry out the duties with which we have charged it. They cannot sign away what they do not have - even as each of us has no power to sign up our neighbor to buy a new car. Madison clearly shows in Federalist #44 that a treaty that interferes with the Constitution has no effect, and the 10th Amendment clearly states that any power not delegated to the United States by the Constitution is reserved to the states or the people.
When we, the People, once again understand our Constitution and the limitations on the powers of the federal government, any such treaty, signed-and-ratified, would be utterly disregarded and without effect -- and the anti-American fools who signed and ratified it would be thrown out of office immediately.
.. © by the author, 2013
References:
1. U. S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence
2. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson 438, 440 (J. Boyd, ed., 1958)
3. Publius Huldah; publiushuldah.wordpress.com (see especially the essays on the First Amendment and the Treaty-Making Powers of the United States)
4. Michael Badnarik, “Good To Be King”, The Writers Collective, 2004 available only at www.constitutionpreservation.org
5. W. Cleon Skousen, “The 5,000 Year Leap”, National Center for Constitutional Studies, 1981
6. Online Library of Liberty
7. Blackstone's Commentaries, 1803 (Sir William Blackstone’s lectures on British common law of 1753; published in four volumes in subsequent years)
8. Rabbi Daniel Lapin, “The Ten Commandments” CD
9. Kurland & Lerner, “The Founder’s Constitution,” Vol. 5, Liberty Fund, Inc.
10. “Gun Control for Dummies,” YouTube http://youtu.be/F584p5kJL-U
11. “Innocents Betrayed – The True Story of Gun Control Worldwide” documentary by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, YouTube http://youtu.be/d7vNj2sb_00 hard going; worthwhile
12. Conservapedia
13. www.constitutiondecoded.com