And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby beretta24 » Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:52 am

blackduckdog2 wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:I think that the filibuster DOES change the original intent. My reasoning is that since the constitution was written to require super-majorities for some changes and simple majorities for others, that this is what the framers intended. That's what they wrote and in a million other contexts, conservatives demand that their writing be strictly interpreted. They make no mention of filibustering to achieve the effect of a super-majority in cases where a simple majority should prevail. If you're truly going to call yourself a strict constitutionalist, you're not going to be cool with this

If the Senate were still appointments from State legislatures, I might would agree with you.

I don't see how that effects the equation, Inda. If the intention is clearly spelled out like it is: Super majority for this, simple majority for that, what difference does it make how the senators got their positions? Look, I fully understand why you guys are always gonna love you some filibustering, because you love virtually anything that slows government down. Fine…..but don't kid yourselves into thinking that this is what the framers intended, and furthermore stop calling yourselves strict constitutionalists. Opportunistic constitutionalists fits a lot better

Did I ever call myself a constitutionalist?

There are things in the constitution I don't like. My issue is usually how some choose to interpret the constitution in today's context as opposed to the historical context in which it was written.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 6460
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN


Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby blackduckdog2 » Sat Nov 23, 2013 11:27 am

beretta24 wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:I think that the filibuster DOES change the original intent. My reasoning is that since the constitution was written to require super-majorities for some changes and simple majorities for others, that this is what the framers intended. That's what they wrote and in a million other contexts, conservatives demand that their writing be strictly interpreted. They make no mention of filibustering to achieve the effect of a super-majority in cases where a simple majority should prevail. If you're truly going to call yourself a strict constitutionalist, you're not going to be cool with this

If the Senate were still appointments from State legislatures, I might would agree with you.

I don't see how that effects the equation, Inda. If the intention is clearly spelled out like it is: Super majority for this, simple majority for that, what difference does it make how the senators got their positions? Look, I fully understand why you guys are always gonna love you some filibustering, because you love virtually anything that slows government down. Fine…..but don't kid yourselves into thinking that this is what the framers intended, and furthermore stop calling yourselves strict constitutionalists. Opportunistic constitutionalists fits a lot better

Did I ever call myself a constitutionalist?

There are things in the constitution I don't like. My issue is usually how some choose to interpret the constitution in today's context as opposed to the historical context in which it was written.

My assumption……..sorry. It's a common enough position in here and sometimes I knee-jerk to the notion that all conservatives consider themselves strict constitutionalists. If you don't, then yeah…that gives your argument a little more validity. Even so, I think your position would be a lot more sound if you were to push for changes to the portions of the constitution that currently require a simple majority, instead of a jury-rigged end run to achieve the same ends, which is how I see the filibuster
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby beretta24 » Sat Nov 23, 2013 11:37 am

I thought the discussion was about the senate. Is there a particular item in the constitution you have in mind?
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 6460
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby Indaswamp » Sat Nov 23, 2013 1:42 pm

beretta24 wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:I think that the filibuster DOES change the original intent. My reasoning is that since the constitution was written to require super-majorities for some changes and simple majorities for others, that this is what the framers intended. That's what they wrote and in a million other contexts, conservatives demand that their writing be strictly interpreted. They make no mention of filibustering to achieve the effect of a super-majority in cases where a simple majority should prevail. If you're truly going to call yourself a strict constitutionalist, you're not going to be cool with this

If the Senate were still appointments from State legislatures, I might would agree with you.

I don't see how that effects the equation, Inda. If the intention is clearly spelled out like it is: Super majority for this, simple majority for that, what difference does it make how the senators got their positions? Look, I fully understand why you guys are always gonna love you some filibustering, because you love virtually anything that slows government down. Fine…..but don't kid yourselves into thinking that this is what the framers intended, and furthermore stop calling yourselves strict constitutionalists. Opportunistic constitutionalists fits a lot better

Did I ever call myself a constitutionalist?

There are things in the constitution I don't like. My issue is usually how some choose to interpret the constitution in today's context as opposed to the historical context in which it was written.

exactly...

but I must say I'm curious as to what in the constitution you don't like.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 58806
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby beretta24 » Mon Nov 25, 2013 6:08 pm

Indaswamp wrote:
beretta24 wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:I think that the filibuster DOES change the original intent. My reasoning is that since the constitution was written to require super-majorities for some changes and simple majorities for others, that this is what the framers intended. That's what they wrote and in a million other contexts, conservatives demand that their writing be strictly interpreted. They make no mention of filibustering to achieve the effect of a super-majority in cases where a simple majority should prevail. If you're truly going to call yourself a strict constitutionalist, you're not going to be cool with this

If the Senate were still appointments from State legislatures, I might would agree with you.

I don't see how that effects the equation, Inda. If the intention is clearly spelled out like it is: Super majority for this, simple majority for that, what difference does it make how the senators got their positions? Look, I fully understand why you guys are always gonna love you some filibustering, because you love virtually anything that slows government down. Fine…..but don't kid yourselves into thinking that this is what the framers intended, and furthermore stop calling yourselves strict constitutionalists. Opportunistic constitutionalists fits a lot better

Did I ever call myself a constitutionalist?

There are things in the constitution I don't like. My issue is usually how some choose to interpret the constitution in today's context as opposed to the historical context in which it was written.

exactly...

but I must say I'm curious as to what in the constitution you don't like.


Sorry Swamp, just saw this. I'm not a huge fan of the 17th ammendment, and the way it changed the representation of a state. this kind of relates to this discussion. The 18th was even worse. :)

I also don't like that many of the terms used are not clearly defined, whihc has lead to a lot of arguments over interpretation. See "militia"...

There are likely a few more, but that's what I have off the top of my head.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 6460
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Nov 26, 2013 7:23 am

beretta24 wrote: See "militia"...
This actually seems very well explained. What is the difference between a well-regulated militia and a militia? You can't drop the modifier :fingerpt: If you look in the federalist papers, this is essentially the professional military. Congress has the authority to regulate the militia in order to make it well-regulated so it has the skills necessary to defend the nation. When the 2nd Amendment was past, it supercedes what came before as all amendments do. It was not limiting the power of Congress in regards to the military, but like the other amendments, spelling out the rights that Congress cannot infringe, and this included our right to not just keep arms, but also to bear those arms.

Of course, the government because of basic human nature has the desire to maximize it's power and minimize the restrictions upon it. So that is why there has been a debate at all. If you look back it seems crystal clear what was meant by a well-regulated militia as opposed to the entirity of the militia that includes those that are well-regulated and those that are unregulated. Regulated, is also clear, it means trained, and not bureaucratic restrictions.

It was necessary for Congress to be able to raise armies and ensure they were trained and prepared to fight and they have that power. This power was not limited by the second amendment and Congress' power to do this does not limit your right to keep and also bear arms.

It is only for those that have ulterior motives are most of these difficult to understand. Also, if there is doubt, the benefit of such must go to the individual. That is clear, but do we do that across the board :no:
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.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby vincentpa » Tue Nov 26, 2013 7:35 am

SpinnerMan wrote:
beretta24 wrote: See "militia"...
This actually seems very well explained. What is the difference between a well-regulated militia and a militia? You can't drop the modifier :fingerpt: If you look in the federalist papers, this is essentially the professional military. Congress has the authority to regulate the militia in order to make it well-regulated so it has the skills necessary to defend the nation. When the 2nd Amendment was past, it supercedes what came before as all amendments do. It was not limiting the power of Congress in regards to the military, but like the other amendments, spelling out the rights that Congress cannot infringe, and this included our right to not just keep arms, but also to bear those arms.

Of course, the government because of basic human nature has the desire to maximize it's power and minimize the restrictions upon it. So that is why there has been a debate at all. If you look back it seems crystal clear what was meant by a well-regulated militia as opposed to the entirity of the militia that includes those that are well-regulated and those that are unregulated. Regulated, is also clear, it means trained, and not bureaucratic restrictions.

It was necessary for Congress to be able to raise armies and ensure they were trained and prepared to fight and they have that power. This power was not limited by the second amendment and Congress' power to do this does not limit your right to keep and also bear arms.

It is only for those that have ulterior motives are most of these difficult to understand. Also, if there is doubt, the benefit of such must go to the individual. That is clear, but do we do that across the board :no:


That is a very poor explanation.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7770
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby beretta24 » Tue Nov 26, 2013 7:38 am

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.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 6460
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:08 am

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
Alexander Hamilton
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm
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.
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.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby beretta24 » Tue Nov 26, 2013 10:44 am

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
Alexander Hamilton
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm
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.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 6460
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Nov 26, 2013 1:02 pm

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
Alexander Hamilton
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm
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.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby beretta24 » Tue Nov 26, 2013 1:16 pm

My militia comment was in reference to one of the previous 2nd ammemdment threads. Who makes up the militia? Does the second ammemdment apply to woman and children?

I'll admit its nitpicking, but if I were to change it, I would define terms as part of the document in an attempt to reduce the room for interpretation.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 6460
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Nov 26, 2013 2:11 pm

beretta24 wrote:My militia comment was in reference to one of the previous 2nd ammemdment threads. Who makes up the militia? Does the second ammemdment apply to woman and children?

I'll admit its nitpicking, but if I were to change it, I would define terms as part of the document in an attempt to reduce the room for interpretation.

It is irrelevant as to who makes up the militia. It takes a lot of training to be part of the well-regulated militia :thumbsup:

The right of the people, and that means all adults able bodied of any age (albeit held in trust by their guardians for minors), have a right just like they do in the 1st, 2nd, and so forth.

The militia can be defined by law, so it can change. There is no constitutional right to be part of the militia and no loss of constitutional rights if you are not part of the militia. Originally, I believe in most states the militia was able bodied white males (maybe free males) between certain ages, but today it would be unconstitutional to exclude people based on race and probably political incorrect to exclude women, but the age range would still apply.
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.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby ScaupHunter » Tue Nov 26, 2013 2:37 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
beretta24 wrote:My militia comment was in reference to one of the previous 2nd ammemdment threads. Who makes up the militia? Does the second ammemdment apply to woman and children?

I'll admit its nitpicking, but if I were to change it, I would define terms as part of the document in an attempt to reduce the room for interpretation.


It takes a lot of training to be part of the well-regulated militia :thumbsup:


I will second that motion! There was and is nothing easy about it. I spent 14 weeks in Basic and AIT just like a regular soldier in my MOS would. I attended many advanced military schools, and spent a significant amount of time and effort to be part of Washington States "well regulated militia".
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6766
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Nov 26, 2013 2:59 pm

ScaupHunter wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
beretta24 wrote:My militia comment was in reference to one of the previous 2nd ammemdment threads. Who makes up the militia? Does the second ammemdment apply to woman and children?

I'll admit its nitpicking, but if I were to change it, I would define terms as part of the document in an attempt to reduce the room for interpretation.


It takes a lot of training to be part of the well-regulated militia :thumbsup:


I will second that motion! There was and is nothing easy about it. I spent 14 weeks in Basic and AIT just like a regular soldier in my MOS would. I attended many advanced military schools, and spent a significant amount of time and effort to be part of Washington States "well regulated militia".

While we are both part of the militia, only one of us is part of the well-regulated militia. And it is the well-regulated militia that is necessary for a free state. While it's great that I have a bunch of guns and ammunition, it would be of little use if not for trained people such as yourself to help me use it effectively if it were to come to that. I can protect myself and my wife from common criminals with my arms if it come to that. I cannot protect the nation against a trained enemy, but I can assist by following directions.
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.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby assateague » Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:38 pm

There are several different, clearly defined categories, all of which fall under "militia". I've posted them before, but I'm on the phone now. And one of them is "all adult males", or something along those lines.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby beretta24 » Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:15 pm

It was a rhetorical question from my perspective, and the fundamental issue I have is the constitution can effectively be altered by changing the definition of those terms.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 6460
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby clampdaddy » Tue Nov 26, 2013 7:58 pm

I always took the second to mean that BECAUSE a standing army was now a necessity to preserve this free country, the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. Remember that they just got done fighting against the standing army that previously protected them. Sometimes things change and regular people have to shoot it out with soldiers. Fact of life.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3688
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:33 am

assateague wrote:There are several different, clearly defined categories, all of which fall under "militia". I've posted them before, but I'm on the phone now. And one of them is "all adult males", or something along those lines.

Does that definition make any sense if you put it in the second amendment?

All adult males, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. :huh: :no:

clampdaddy wrote:I always took the second to mean that BECAUSE a standing army was now a necessity to preserve this free country, the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. Remember that they just got done fighting against the standing army that previously protected them. Sometimes things change and regular people have to shoot it out with soldiers. Fact of life.

Read federalist 29 and the related anti-federalist. They are talking about the powers of Congress under Article 2 Section 8. The militia is the state force. Congress can create an army, which is different. Which is something the worried about. It was something that the militia under state control was protection against, which is why the states could appoint officers loyal to them and not the federal government.
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.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby vincentpa » Wed Nov 27, 2013 2:32 pm

I think if BDD2 writes about the Founders and the filibuster, he should at least understand when the Senate rules were written and by whom. The Senate rule of the filisbuster was written in 1789 by as the date suggests, the Founders themselves. Apparently, they did intend the filibuster to be a tool or they never would've made the rule. As for the Constitutionality of the filibuster and why it is not in the Constitution, the Senate makes its own rules for debate and proceedings. The Constitution doesn't delve into the minutia of the operations of the Branches. The Constitution left that up to each Branch to decide how to conduct itself as long as it didn't violate the powers of the other two Branches. The Executive Cabinet structure wasn't in the Constitution. It was created by George Washington and is still for the most part the structure used today. Each president followed George Washington's precedent and served only two terms as tradition until FDR thought himself king. Then an ammendment to the Constitution was passed to ensure tradition. Likewise, the Supreme Court writes its own rules of conduct and procedure.

BTW, the term is Constructionist not Constitutionalist.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7770
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby assateague » Thu Nov 28, 2013 2:51 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
assateague wrote:There are several different, clearly defined categories, all of which fall under "militia". I've posted them before, but I'm on the phone now. And one of them is "all adult males", or something along those lines.

Does that definition make any sense if you put it in the second amendment?

All adult males, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. :huh: :no:

.


Actually, yes it does, if you plug it in where it SHOULD go, rather than where you want it to go.

"A well-regulated militia, (comprised of all able-bodied men called to duty to serve in time of need), being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms (which will make the militia worth a damn when they have to use them in time of need) shall not be infringed.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu Nov 28, 2013 5:13 pm

assateague wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
assateague wrote:There are several different, clearly defined categories, all of which fall under "militia". I've posted them before, but I'm on the phone now. And one of them is "all adult males", or something along those lines.

Does that definition make any sense if you put it in the second amendment?

All adult males, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. :huh: :no:

.


Actually, yes it does, if you plug it in where it SHOULD go, rather than where you want it to go.

"A well-regulated militia, (comprised of all able-bodied men called to duty to serve in time of need), being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms (which will make the militia worth a damn when they have to use them in time of need) shall not be infringed.

So what does well-regulated mean? It means skilled and trained and not subject to a bureaucracy. Lot's of regulation doesn't help defend the nation.
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.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby assateague » Fri Nov 29, 2013 12:12 pm

No, it means that when they are called up for duty in defense of the nation, they can function as an effective fighting force. And that they have a weapon to bring for said service.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: And the senate shoots a hole through the Republic

Postby SpinnerMan » Sat Nov 30, 2013 8:28 am

assateague wrote:No, it means that when they are called up for duty in defense of the nation, they can function as an effective fighting force. And that they have a weapon to bring for said service.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm
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.


Nope you are talking aobut the yeomanry and other classes of the citizens. You are not talking about the people that have acquired the degree of perfection which would give them the character of a well-regulated militia :thumbsup:

Now if that is what you are saying, how do the get to be that effective fighting force? That would be the authority given to Congress in Article 2 Section 8 to set the standards for training to ensure that when not the yeomanry, but the trained militia are called into service that they are in fact a well-regulated militia that is capable of functioning as an effective fighting force and not fat, out of shape, and untrained men.
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.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Previous

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests