beretta24 wrote: SpinnerMan wrote:
beretta24 wrote:I don't entirely disagree, but if those little details were spelled out in the constitution or an appendix of some sort it would cut off the ability of those with ulterior motives to make any sort of rationale argument. A lot of people like to point to the federalist papers; however, regardless of any sound guidance provided in those documents they are not a part of the constitution. Moreover, some of those essays are in contrast to the constitution as it is written.
The Federalist and anti-federalist papers are part of that "appendix."
FEDERALIST No. 29
Concerning the Militia
From the Daily Advertiser.
Thursday, January 10, 1788
THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.
Congress has this power given to it in the Constitution.
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.
The meaning of well-regulated militia is quite clear.
The 2nd amendment did not amend this Congressional power.
Hamilton also argued against a bill of rights. The problem with the "papers", in my opinion, is that you have to cherry pick info in order to avoid contradictions with the constitution. That won't stop me from referencing Madison sometimes, but Hamilton was a Federalist who was often at odds with Jefferson, Madison and the republicans at the time. You call it an appendix, and I see the rationale, but the essays and constitution don't always jive.
Well like every piece of legislation, there is not unanimous opinion. Clearly, there are differing opinions. However, we are looking at the definition of a specific phrase, in this case well-regulated militia and how it difference from the whole of the militia. I just don't see any ambiguity there. What else could it mean?
An untrained and unskilled militia, being necessary to the security of a free State - that makes no sense.
A well-trained and skilled militia, being necessary to the security of a free State - now that makes sense.
An adult male population, being necessary to the security of a free State - again that makes no sense at all.
Substitute your definition for a well-regulated militia in the second amendment. Does it make sense?
Then add the context that under Article 2, Section 8 Congress is given the authority to among other things:
"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;"
After the adoption of the second amendment, the authority of Congress to create that well-regulated militia that is necessary for the security of our nation is fully retained and your right to keep and bear arms does not conflict with the right of Congress to organize, arm, and discipline the militia employed in the service of the United States.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.