Bill of Rights Questions

[Scarface26]

Gents,

Help me out and please set me straight where I’m making a mistake. Not trying to stir the pot, just trying to be a good American.

Background: I believe that outside of the Bible, the chain of command, so to speak, goes from Declaration of Independence to U.S. Constitution to State Constitution. In other words, if a law violates the COTUS, it’s obviously not valid. But I believe, and I might be wrong, that if a law violates the Declaration of Independence, then it negates the purpose behind our revolution and is therefore also not valid.

Here’s my first question: In our Declaration, the founders said that rights come from our Creator. The implication is that what God (Creator) gives (rights), government has no authority to take away. I think JFK also said that. Did the founders intend to communicate that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are unalienable? I believe the answer is “yes,” since the Declaration says so about other rights.

Second question: How did the title “Bill of Rights” come to be? I could google these questions but I’d prefer to learn from people who love America, not those who want to “fundamentally change” her, or believe that the COTUS is a “living document.” I don’t care to hear what Bill Ayers thinks. Don't think he's a member here.

If these questions have already been answered by our founders, please point me to the appropriate references.

Thanks in advance for your replies.

God bless America

 

[ArmyJerry]

The Bill of Right came to be to get the Constitution agreed to in order to create the union of states that forms the United States of America.

Start your self education here, read, read and ask questions, read books by Mark Levin.

404 Not Found

Unfortunately, the page you requested was not found. Please make sure the URL was typed in correctly. It is also possible that the page you are

www.hillsdale.edu

I applaud your curiosity, its more than 99% of our fellow fuckers have.

Just beware, most anything you were taught in public or private school was a outright lie, you should confront your teachers with their lies if yo run to them.. If you have kids teach them yourself once you get learned up

 

[308pirate]

If you want to understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, a complete study of the Federalist Papers is required.

 

[ArmyJerry]

yes, read the papers themselves, not the interpretations of them.

 

[ArmyJerry]

everyone should have a set of the founding documents and the federalist papers, give each kid a coy and teach them.

 

[Scarface26]

If you want to understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, a complete study of the Federalist Papers is required.

Thanks, Gents. @308pirate, what class are you?

I'm '93 from the school that is the better of your alma mater in every way!! That's a joke, by the way.

Although, I didn't get the Federalist papers there. Heck of a shame, would have been infinitely more useful than the front page of the NYT every day.

God bless America

 

[Crang]

James Madison did not originally want the Bill of Rights as did some others. They (correctly) feared it would change our interpretation of the founding documents and eventually we would come to believe our rights were limited to those enumerated in it. The original intent was our rights were near infinite and the governments finite and only deviations from that needed to be named i.e. the Constitution grants the government specific powers, but thats all they get whereas the only limits to our rights are ones written into law.

Sadly our rights seem to be limited to whats in the BOR as this notion was eventually lost. The flip side of that is we also lost control of the government and they have usurped our near infinite power in a variety of ways- abuse of the Commerce Clause, executive orders, legislating from the bench, creating regulatory agencies that create enforceable regulations in lieu of laws our elected representatives in Congress voted on and the President signed, a Federal Reserve which creates currency ex nihlio- not the hard currency backed by silver and gold in fixed proportions through the Treasury, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. etc.

Our powers were supposed to be near limitless and the governments finite and unfortunately it now seems to be the nearing the opposite.

 

[ArmyJerry]

How do you make it through a Fucking academy and not know the Constitution,,,,,, Rhetorical question, no answer needed.

Glad you are finally getting the education you should have got in 93 and before.

Assuming you are either assforce or army

Thanks, Gents. @308pirate, what class are you?

I'm '93 from the school that is the better of your alma mater in every way!! That's a joke, by the way.

Although, I didn't get the Federalist papers there. Heck of a shame, would have been infinitely more useful than the front page of the NYT every day.

God bless America

 

[Centuriator]

The Declaration of Independence is not one of our governing documents, though clearly is remains a decisive statement in our history, setting forth the reasons why we declared our independence from Great Britain.

 

[ArmyJerry]

its the Founding document. The first one really.


If you substitute the Crown with Fed Gov you will see how bad our government is vs King George.

 

[308pirate]

James Madison did not originally want the Bill of Rights as did some others. They (correctly) feared it would change our interpretation of the founding documents and eventually we would come to believe our rights were limited to those enumerated in it. The original intent was our rights were near infinite and the governments finite and only deviations from that needed to be named i.e. the Constitution grants the government specific powers, but thats all they get whereas the only limits to our rights are ones written into law.

Sadly our rights seem to be limited to whats in the BOR as this notion was eventually lost. The flip side of that is we also lost control of the government and they have usurped our near infinite power in a variety of ways- abuse of the Commerce Clause, executive orders, legislating from the bench, creating regulatory agencies that create enforceable regulations in lieu of laws our elected representatives in Congress voted on and the President signed, a Federal Reserve which creates currency ex nihlio- not the hard currency backed by silver and gold in fixed proportions through the Treasury, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. etc.

Our powers were supposed to be near limitless and the governments finite and unfortunately it now seems to be the nearing the opposite.

See the 10th Amendment

 

[Scarface26]

James Madison did not originally want the Bill of Rights as did some others. They (correctly) feared it would change our interpretation of the founding documents and eventually we would come to believe our rights were limited to those enumerated in it. The original intent was our rights were near infinite and the governments finite and only deviations from that needed to be named i.e. the Constitution grants the government specific powers, but thats all they get whereas the only limits to our rights are ones written into law.

Sadly our rights seem to be limited to whats in the BOR as this notion was eventually lost. The flip side of that is we also lost control of the government and they have usurped our near infinite power in a variety of ways- abuse of the Commerce Clause, executive orders, legislating from the bench, creating regulatory agencies that create enforceable regulations in lieu of laws our elected representatives in Congress voted on and the President signed, a Federal Reserve which creates currency ex nihlio- not the hard currency backed by silver and gold in fixed proportions through the Treasury, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. etc.

Our powers were supposed to be near limitless and the governments finite and unfortunately it now seems to be the nearing the opposite.

Thank you for this very articulate response. I couldn't agree with you more.

God bless America

 

[308pirate]

@308pirate, what class are you?

1988

I'm '93 from the school that is the better of your alma mater in every way!!

Highly questionable

God bless America

On that we agree

 

[FS1]

I thought the BOR became the first ten amendments?

 

[Scarface26]

The Declaration of Independence is not one of our governing documents, though clearly is remains a decisive statement in our history, setting forth the reasons why we declared our independence from Great Britain.

While i agree with what you're saying to a point, I believe the Declaration MUST be one of, if not THE governing document, the final arbiter. If it's not, then WE could do all the things that King George did to us - - Hey, it's OK if I screw you over, but it's a travesty of justice if King George does. If government doesn't filter "great ideas" through the question "didn't we fight a revolution because someone did that to us?" then we're no better than Robert Mugabe. Oh, wait.

God bless America

 

[Centuriator]

I believe the Declaration MUST be one of, if not THE governing document, the final arbiter.

Sir, respectfully, I agree with your sentiment and love your thinking here, but ... alas .. you are wrong. DOI is not, and never has been, the "final arbiter." That would be the Constitution of the United States of America in which "we the people in order to form a more perfect union...do ordain and establish."

The Declaration is a magnificent monument to the struggle for freedom, a true Holy Icon of the United States, but it is NOT one of our governing documents. It has no status or standing in our courts or in our legislature nor in our Executive Branch.

I consider the Declaration to be, short of the Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions contained in the Book of Concord, to be the greatest thing ever put to paper by human beings.

 

[Scarface26]

I thought the BOR became the first ten amendments?

It is, and part of the question that I didn't ask regards what I believe is the erroneous idea that the 2A can be repealed. Not if it's a RIGHT. More to follow later, but the first ten (BOR) in my mind are not subject to repeal for the reasons @Crang outlined in his response. Most of the early amendments, IMO, only codify an existing right, in effect attempting to put a bigger fence around government. Sad that our ancestors saw a need to do that.

God bless America

 

[Scarface26]

You are welcome to your opinion, but you are absolutely wrong. It is not, and never has been, the "final arbiter." That would be the Constitution of the United States of America in which "we the people in order to form a more perfect union...do ordain and establish."

The Declaration is a magnificent monument to the struggle for freedom, a true Holy Icon of the United States, but it is NOT one of our governing documents. It has no status or standing in our courts or in our legislature nor in our Executive Branch.

Please get this straight in your thinking.

Thanks for your reply. I'll read the homework before saying anything else.

God bless America

 

[Centuriator]

Thanks for your reply. I'll read the homework before saying anything else.

God bless America

I revised my response sir, I was too harsh and disrectful to you, clearly, a fellow Patriot and True-Blue American. God bless America.

 

[Maggot]

As far as Im concerned all you need is the following:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "

I you balance that with an even simpler and more powerful statement made long before, you've got all you really need for a good life.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

 

[Scarface26]

I revised my response sir, I was too harsh and disrectful to you, clearly, a fellow Patriot and True-Blue American. God bless America.

No sweat. I was already in my safe space! I wasn't kidding about I need to read the homework. Sorry if I came off Smarty, not my intent at all.

I DID ask you all to set me straight.

Off the net for a while

God bless America

 

[sea2summit]

If you want to understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, a complete study of the Federalist Papers is required.

This^

Federalists papers is a hard read but worth it!

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Does the Declaration carry the weight of law?

Does the Constitution carry the weight of law?

Does the Bill of Rights carry the weight of law?

No, to all three questions.

The BOR governs the legality of laws, by preempting certain areas from legislative alteration. But it is not a set of laws in and of itself.

For law, you need actual laws.

For laws to be valid, they must be Constitutional.

The Declaration was given before we were even a Nation to have laws.

Great sentiment, but NO legal weight.

I had expected a better understanding of those documents from an Academy graduate.

FWIW, I was offered a Commission, and also offered an opportunity to attend the Naval Academy. At that point in my military experience, I could have probably done acceptably.

I declined both; I was buried neck deep in a pretty vicious war, and was not inclined to voluntarily add more time to a military obligation I was compelled to accept involuntarily.

Further, leaving that war early to attend an Academy would have been a betrayal to the comrades I'd have been leaving behind to carry on in my place. Marines don't quit on their comrades.

Completion of the Academy course of instruction would have likely put me in the Class of '71 or '72, quite possibly missing the remainder of that war. We didn't now when the war would end, but the support from home was weakening, and we concluded (accurately) that the end was coming quicker and quicker as we fought on.

As a draftee, I felt that accepting would have just been another way of dodging the draft. My own sense of personal honor would not allow that. I was in the war, I was finishing my war; and nothing less would have been honorable.

I completed my 24 months of active duty with 13 months in grade as an NCO, and with 13 months of combat experience.

I figured that was sufficient; my two Brothers and I had each served our two under the Draft, and my job with IBM was waiting.

Greg

 

[clcustom1911]

yes, read the papers themselves, not the interpretations of them.

And have a damn dictionary at your side so you can expand your vocabulary and understand the full context, and purpose of everything you're reading.

 

[ArmyJerry]

see below

Does the Declaration carry the weight of law?

Yes if the population says it does. As they did, they legally killed red coats.

Does the Constitution carry the weight of law?

Yup, it is the supreme law, all other laws are based on it or under it and bound by it, if they are not, they are not laws at all.

Does the Bill of Rights carry the weight of law?

Does a law pass muster under the Constitution? Rights are superior to any law.

No, to all three questions.

The BOR governs the legality of laws, but is not a set of laws itself.

Se aebove

For law, you need actual laws. For laws to be valid, they must be Constitutional.

Yup

The Declaration was given before we were even a Nation to have laws. Great sentiment, but NO legal weight.

The declaration declare us a country, making it totally legal for our citizens to wage a legal war against England.

Greg

 

[Howland]

If you want to understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, a complete study of the Federalist Papers is required.

And a study of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers is required to understand what they wanted to establish, but this is incomplete without including a study of the Antifederalist Papers, which explains why the only reason the Constitution was ratified was because the proponents (Federalists) agreed to an immediate Convention to consider amendments that would set out rights of the people and constraints on government to alleviate the concerns of those initially opposed to ratification (Antifederalists) of the Constitution without spelling out those rights and constraints.

The Federalists did not think these things needed to be spelled out and that the Antifederalists concerns were without merit, but they agreed to the Convention only to get initial ratification.

 

[Howland]

Does the Declaration carry the weight of law?

Does the Constitution carry the weight of law?

Does the Bill of Rights carry the weight of law?

No, to all three questions.

Greg

I respectfully submit that the correct answers are no, yes and yes.

The Constitution was ratified and declares itself along with any amendments to be the highest law of the land. That is supposed to be the final word. Reality has proven quite different, not due to any deficiency of the Constitution, rather due to the depravity of men.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

I respectfully differ.

The Constitution and BOR enable valid laws and disable invalid laws; but they are not statutes.

One may not be summoned before a Court of law under either; there must be an actual statute cited, and they are not statutes.

Jerry, respectfully; just 'cause you think so and want it to be so does not make your comments accurate.

The only LAWS the colonists were acting under in shooting redcoats was British Colonial law, and they were breaking them.

When they were hanged, they were in insurrection, and they were hanged legally under the only laws that existed at the time.

The Constitution was not enacted until 1780, and therefore COULD NOT have been active during the Revolution. The Bill of rights came after. In the interim, the Articles of Confederation applied.

Jerry, respectfully; you need to read more history.

Howland, respectfully: the answers remain no, no, and no; and will remain so until you can actually provide historical legal citations supporting your views.

Greg

 

[W54/XM-388]

Something to remember is that the first government that came after the revolutionary war wound up being worse than life under the British as the rich and elite political class openly ravaged the countryside for gain and attempted to quelch all dissent harshly.

It took another mini rebellion & the blood of more patriots before we actually got the whole constitution and bill of rights that we have now.

 

[ArmyJerry]

the biggest thing to remember was the debt load the states were carrying, it was an unequal burden fro the Revolution, n lives and in gold. the formation allowed the government to centralize the debt to e paid off by the central government by levying taxes... it was a mess but they managed to stay together and once formed they needed rules, money w a big driver

 

[Greg Langelius *]

And if you'll please excuse me now, I'm home alone, the family is up in Phoenix enjoying the Gaming Convention there, and I need to shower and get ready to go over to the VFW and help celebrate the 50th wedding anniversaty of our Post's Chaplain.

Greg

 

[ArmyJerry]

Have fun Greg

 

[Crang]

See the 10th Amendment

...and then Texas vs White.

 

[wilson1911]

I do not know how someone can say the constitution is not law, even politicians agree that it is. The supreme court says its the highest law of the land ???????

The BOR is what the founders believed were from GOD given natural law, which came before the constitution. Not to be trampled by the govt. Without a christian perspective this is lost. Govt was supposed to protect our rights. If you do not read the supporting letters, books etc, you will never know any of this. Ever wonder why lawyers fight over why they put an "a" in front of a word ???

This is how we have a govt that thinks it can do whatever it pleases....even going around laws and/or half obeying laws. Instead of the "protectorate govt" we created, we have the Imperial usa. This is why they listed a finite number of areas to create laws...and the most forgotten part is "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people "

When the federal govt grants itself more power than what is granted by law...well that's tyranny. We as citizens have authority to remove people from the fed govt, but not overthrow them along with the law.

WE are all traitors to the founders and the constitution. Whether your a civi or mil guy who swore an oath. You might ask why, but listen. No matter what law govt's pass, we obey....we do stand against them. While we complain on forums, they continue to pass laws, continue to remain in power, continue to stray farther from what was intended.

 

[ArmyJerry]

the 10th is the key, unconstitutional; law is not law at all, protect your rights with whatever is required from whoever tries o take or infringe on them.

The constitution is supreme above all including the SCOTUS, POTUS< COTUS. Its written in plain language, no interpretation needed by anyone.

 

[wilson1911]

Then explain how come we obey all the illegal laws on the books ? There must be like 100k of them.....Patrick Henry would not only spit on all of us, but tar and feather as well.

 

[ArmyJerry]

Because since about 1910 Communism disguised as progressiveness as been a cancer undermining every aspect of our constitution, and not enough America men are willing to get violent to protect the Constitution from its domestic enemies... that may be changing soon though.

 

[gunsnjeeps]

I have recently seen the Declaration of Independence defined as the ultimate break up note.

While the Constitution and Bill of Rights are not laws they define the limits of the laws passed by the government.

What citizens have forgotten is that the Bill of Rights limits the power of government. It does not limit the rights of the citizens.

 

[308pirate]

...and then Texas vs White.

Judicial precedent is a big reason why we are in the shit we are in today

 

[ArmyJerry]

gotta keep the lie going

 

[Centuriator]

This thread is evidence of the failure of the American educational system. Good God.

 

[shootist2004]

The Declaration of Independence was simply a letter to the King saying "we are tired of your shit...we formed our own country...
leave us alone." The only part I don't like is when they called Indians "savages". I wonder how hard YOU would fight if some one was invading your country?

 

[Edgecrusher]

" The only part I don't like is when they called Indians "savages". I wonder how hard YOU would fight if some one was invading your country?

Stick around for a minute and you'll find out for yourself.

 

[ArmyJerry]

yup but its also evidence of an awakening and thirst for knowledge that will undermine the house built on sand that is our public indoctrination system you call aneducation system .

This thread is evidence of the failure of the American educational system. Good God.

 

[tomcatmv]

Totally agree with Army Jerry on the Hillsdale college course and Mark Levin. Both are great sources of the real intent of the founders.

 

[Sm0ke]

Hey Scarface,

There are few threads on the internet which I find worth the time responding to, but since no one has actually answered your question I'll give it a go. You've already answered your first question, with respect to the fact of the rights spelled out in both the Declaration and the BOR being handed down not from a government or man, but from the Creator.

With respect to your second question, the very idea of rights was clearly needed after the revolution because if the law of the land didn't explicitly limit the government in what it could NOT tresspass against, then the new government's reach would grow until the head of the government was equivalent to the King of England, and the U.S. would need another revolution very shortly.

Now, I don't think you're asking about the Bill of Rights specifically. I think you're asking about the ideas that lie within them, as well as the Constitution, being that we are the only country that has these rights specifically laid out and lying at the foundation of our government.

When Thomas Jefferson penned the words, "...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," he was actually just making sure he wasn't going to get caught plagiarizing his homework from another source. That source being John Locke, who wrote in his 1689 essay "Second Treatise of Government" about how he viewed what he called the "state of nature." To first understand Locke and his view on the state of nature, however, you must know what this essay was in response to. Locke wrote this essay as a direct response to the 1651 essay by Thomas Hobbes called "Leviathan."

According to Hobbes, which he penned most famously, without government, life (the state of nature, as he would call it) would be, “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.” Hobbes states that all men that have no hierarchy ( no absolute ruling government) with which to bring order to their lives live in a state of war. He goes on to explain that he doesn’t literally mean that men who have no government constantly fight amongst each other, but that since there is no unifying force guiding men to assure them that there is no war, then they are unable to be at peace with their position in the world. He goes on to explain that any time that there is a government present and they are able to make it known that there is a common goal among the people and that there is one transcendent ruler over those people, that is called peace. Due to Hobbes' pessimistic view on life and its "state of nature," he believed that the government should be like a Leviathan: unquestionable, all-powerful, and absolute in its rule over the people it ruled over. His thoughts were not without merit, being that he had seen multiple revolutions during his life in Europe and the destruction that life without an absolute sovereign state would bring. So, according to Hobbes, the state of nature is man constantly at war with each other, until a sovereign government comes in and brings order to the chaos.

Locke, however, has a different, more optimistic view on the state of nature. Locke believes that state of nature is that of peace, and that the only reason that man would ever decide to submit voluntarily certain freedoms, is that it better protected their inalienable rights. These rights were articulated as a right to life, liberty, and property. (Locke also makes a distinction here, that although the state of nature includes LIBERTY, it does not include LICENSE to infringe on the rights of those people around you.) The linchpin of Locke's argument against an absolute authority, was his idea of property. Locke believed in the peaceful state of nature that exists without government, all things found in nature belong to any passerby. BUT, it is only when someone comes and mixes their labor with nature, that very thing becomes his property, and only the one who has put labor into it has a right to it. For example, if there is an empty field, and I plow, irrigate it, and farm it for corn, then no one else has a right to that field and its harvest except for me and people that I am willing to share it with. So with this argument about how property is created, Locke argues that the only reason I would CONSENT to having a government over me, is that it would help to keep those in line who would try to transgress against my rights to my property, as well as my life and liberty.

This is where the idea of the Social Contract comes into play. Locke argues that the People have consented to having a government entity overlooking them, but Locke believed that it was the responsibility of those people who find themselves under a tyrannical ruler to throw off the government that transgresses against the Social Contract that the People and the Government have entered into and establish a new government of their choosing. (This is starting to sound familiar, isn't it?) Locke was a firm believer in the idea of the separation of church and state, and the right to bear arms, so that the People ALWAYS reserve the right and have the means to overthrow the government.

As you can see, this is the foundation of the Bill of Rights and (I hope) it's now clear where these ideas come from. The Bill of Rights is an elaboration and clearer articulation of the idea of the Social Contract: that free men have entered into an agreement with their government that they will help to protect their rights to life, liberty, and property; and that when the governing body transgresses against the Social Contract we have all entered into, then the Contract has been broken, and it is our responsibility to establish a new government which will hopefully better serve us in the future.

 

[gunsnjeeps]

This thread is evidence of the failure of the American educational system. Good God.

That is an arguable statement. The incestuous relationship between Unions and Democrats controls the educational system. They have been doing their best to produce low education, dependent voters. In some circles we are considered their failures, not the thousands who rely on our tax dollars and vote for politicians who give them enough to get by but convince them that they will keep giving them more.

 

[wilson1911]

Hey Scarface,

There are few threads on the internet which I find worth the time responding to, but since no one has actually answered your question I'll give it a go. You've already answered your first question, with respect to the fact of the rights spelled out in both the Declaration and the BOR being handed down not from a government or man, but from the Creator.

With respect to your second question, the very idea of rights was clearly needed after the revolution because if the law of the land didn't explicitly limit the government in what it could NOT tresspass against, then the new government's reach would grow until the head of the government was equivalent to the King of England, and the U.S. would need another revolution very shortly.

Now, I don't think you're asking about the Bill of Rights specifically. I think you're asking about the ideas that lie within them, as well as the Constitution, being that we are the only country that has these rights specifically laid out and lying at the foundation of our government.

When Thomas Jefferson penned the words, "...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," he was actually just making sure he wasn't going to get caught plagiarizing his homework from another source. That source being John Locke, who wrote in his 1689 essay "Second Treatise of Government" about how he viewed what he called the "state of nature." To first understand Locke and his view on the state of nature, however, you must know what this essay was in response to. Locke wrote this essay as a direct response to the 1651 essay by Thomas Hobbes called "Leviathan."

According to Hobbes, which he penned most famously, without government, life (the state of nature, as he would call it) would be, “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.” Hobbes states that all men that have no hierarchy ( no absolute ruling government) with which to bring order to their lives live in a state of war. He goes on to explain that he doesn’t literally mean that men who have no government constantly fight amongst each other, but that since there is no unifying force guiding men to assure them that there is no war, then they are unable to be at peace with their position in the world. He goes on to explain that any time that there is a government present and they are able to make it known that there is a common goal among the people and that there is one transcendent ruler over those people, that is called peace. Due to Hobbes' pessimistic view on life and its "state of nature," he believed that the government should be like a Leviathan: unquestionable, all-powerful, and absolute in its rule over the people it ruled over. His thoughts were not without merit, being that he had seen multiple revolutions during his life in Europe and the destruction that life without an absolute sovereign state would bring. So, according to Hobbes, the state of nature is man constantly at war with each other, until a sovereign government comes in and brings order to the chaos.

Locke, however, has a different, more optimistic view on the state of nature. Locke believes that state of nature is that of peace, and that the only reason that man would ever decide to submit voluntarily certain freedoms, is that it better protected their inalienable rights. These rights were articulated as a right to life, liberty, and property. (Locke also makes a distinction here, that although the state of nature includes LIBERTY, it does not include LICENSE to infringe on the rights of those people around you.) The linchpin of Locke's argument against an absolute authority, was his idea of property. Locke believed in the peaceful state of nature that exists without government, all things found in nature belong to any passerby. BUT, it is only when someone comes and mixes their labor with nature, that very thing becomes his property, and only the one who has put labor into it has a right to it. For example, if there is an empty field, and I plow, irrigate it, and farm it for corn, then no one else has a right to that field and its harvest except for me and people that I am willing to share it with. So with this argument about how property is created, Locke argues that the only reason I would CONSENT to having a government over me, is that it would help to keep those in line who would try to transgress against my rights to my property, as well as my life and liberty.

This is where the idea of the Social Contract comes into play. Locke argues that the People have consented to having a government entity overlooking them, but Locke believed that it was the responsibility of those people who find themselves under a tyrannical ruler to throw off the government that transgresses against the Social Contract that the People and the Government have entered into and establish a new government of their choosing. (This is starting to sound familiar, isn't it?) Locke was a firm believer in the idea of the separation of church and state, and the right to bear arms, so that the People ALWAYS reserve the right and have the means to overthrow the government.

As you can see, this is the foundation of the Bill of Rights and (I hope) it's now clear where these ideas come from. The Bill of Rights is an elaboration and clearer articulation of the idea of the Social Contract: that free men have entered into an agreement with their government that they will help to protect their rights to life, liberty, and property; and that when the governing body transgresses against the Social Contract we have all entered into, then the Contract has been broken, and it is our responsibility to establish a new government which will hopefully better serve us in the future.

Thanks for the post, I will add this to my reading list.

 

[ArmyJerry]

Not just the intent but the absolute restrictions on government powers. read the 10th, then read the rest. Everything else is made up shit by people that will do evil if we let them.

Totally agree with Army Jerry on the Hillsdale college course and Mark Levin. Both are great sources of the real intent of the founders.

 

[sirhrmechanic]

yes, read the papers themselves, not the interpretations of them.

I would respectfully disagree only to say that the papers themselves are valuable historical documents, but some of the analysis and interpretations that try and define what the Founders had in mind when they wrote them. So you don't just get the words, you get the cultural, social and political background on what led to those thoughts and decisions.

In addition, there are two schools of 'thought' (naturally) on interpretations. Several more than that, really. Because there is a 'fundamentalist' kind of approach that is looking to exactly define what was in the brains of the crafters. This is historically wrought with peril, however, because it's very hard to get into their minds. You get to examine their documents and the language they used, as recorded by others. You can't get into the mind of a dead person... any more than you can get fully into the mind of a live one.

On the other extreme are the folks who are going to interpret it through a Marxist or Revolutionary or evolutionary lens and say that everything they wrote was designed to evolve... that they were a bunch of radical socialists and that the Constitution is a living document. This, too is bad history and interpretation as it is simply putting 20th Century Academic Communist/Marxist/Leninist/Socialist theory and trying to use it as an excuse to rapidly evolve the foundational documents and precepts.

So understanding both the words... AND the interpretations is valuable. But the interpretations have to be taken as just that... interpretations. Subject to the lenses and prejudices and personal views and agendas of the interpreters. Know your friends, know your enemies... the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Because taking scripture literally is just as bat*hit crazy as being a Democratic Socialist and riding the Bernie Bus down the Shining Path.

As for the Constititution being a living document... in fact, it is. But to evolve it has a high, high, high bar, called an Amendment process! Huge number of votes and ratification by states, etc. So the Founders did create a way to let it evolve with a changing society. But it can and has been Amended to the massive detriment of the U.S. Watch the first (of three parts) of Ken Burns Prohibition on Youtube. And you will see how a noisy progressive minority in the 1890's through about 1920 utterly screwed America by putting in a Constitutional Amendment and the Volstead Act which eliminated alcohol. We are still feeling the political effects of that mess of an Amendment.

What should NOT be amending the Constitution is re-interpretation of the Constitution by an active Supreme Court. They are not here to legislate from the bench. They hare here to see if laws apply to the Constitution as-written (and the good ones are scholars of the Federalist papers and history.) The ones who are activists are there SPECIFICALLY to circumvent the high bar of the Amendment process. Whatever political bent they have. The SCOTUS is supposed to look at laws or regulations or events and say "This is Constitutional. Or it is not. If not, the law needs to be re-written and re-passed in the legislative process to make it conform to the Constitution. Saying that "The Constitution must Bend to our modern views" simply through a simple court decision is NOT how it's supposed to work. And honestly is not Constitutional.... but tell me that any SCOTUS judge will say they don't have the power that they... get for life.

As for the core question here... The progressive/left/Democratics attacks on the 2A are already targeting the Second Amendment. They are working, long term, to repeal it and eliminate an armed populace. And the process started decades ago with the brainwashing of kids in schools against the 2A and guns and hunting. With everything from teaching packages to 'zero tolerance' laws that get you suspended for making a pop tart look like a pistol when you eat it (it happened.) And in a few generations, there will be enough trained and educated Americans who want the 2A gone and the Fundamental Right will be eliminated by passing another Amendment. And it will pass. In the interim... death by 1000 cuts to make firearms ownership and an appreciation of the shooting sports harder and harder to enjoy... so fewer people will enjoy it. Again, this is EXACTLY how the Volstead Act and the 18th Amendment (I think) came into being.

And understanding how the process works, how it should work and how it is being abused by the current elites and 'ruling class' gives one an appreciation of how brilliant the framers were.

So read, ask questions, listen and learn. But don't take our word for it... because we have one interpretation. Learn and develop your own!

Cheers,

Sirhr