cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
johnaa
Advisor

About 'States', 2nd amendment and the meaning of words

As we have seen, several have confused themselves about the meaning of terms, thinking they can invent their own definition of words and phrases, such as States and Racism.  Here is a good discussion of the Constitution, the history of it's origins, development and intention.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Individual_rights

snips--

Federal relationships:

The States                                                                                                     Article Four outlines the relation between the states and the relation between the federal government. In addition, it provides for such matters as admitting new states as well as border changes between the states. For instance, it requires states to give "full faith and credit" to the public acts, records, and court proceedings of the other states. Congress is permitted to regulate the manner in which proof of such acts, records, or proceedings may be admitted. The "privileges and immunities" clause prohibits state governments from discriminating against citizens of other states in favor of resident citizens (e.g., having tougher penalties for residents of Ohio convicted of crimes within Michigan).

 

  It also establishes extradition between the states, as well as laying down a legal basis for freedom of movement and travel amongst the states. Today, this provision is sometimes taken for granted, especially by citizens who live near state borders; but in the days of the Articles of Confederation, crossing state lines was often a much more arduous and costly process. Article Four also provides for the creation and admission of new states. The Territorial Clause gives Congress the power to make rules for disposing of federal property and governing non-state territories of the United States. Finally, the fourth section of Article Four requires the United States to guarantee to each state a republican form of government, and to protect the states from invasion and violence.

 

  Congress nor States

In 1789, future federal-state relations were uncertain. To begin, the states in their militias were not about to be disarmed. And, if Congress wanted a standing army, Congress would have to pay for it, not "quarter" soldiers at state citizen expense. The people always have all their inalienable rights, even if they are not all listed in government documents. If Congress wanted more power, it would have to ask for it from the people in the states.[citation needed] And if the Constitution did not say something was for Congress to do, then the States have the power to do it without asking.[citation needed]

 

   In 1789, future federal-state relations were uncertain. To begin, the states in their militias were not about to be disarmed. And, if Congress wanted a standing army, Congress would have to pay for it, not "quarter" soldiers at state citizen expense. The people always have all their inalienable rights, even if they are not all listed in government documents. If Congress wanted more power, it would have to ask for it from the people in the states.[citation needed] And if the Constitution did not say something was for Congress to do, then the States have the power to do it without asking.[citation needed]

 

The Second Amendment guarantees the right of citizens to keep their own weapons apart from state-run arsenals.[l] Once the new Constitution began government, states petitioned Congress to propose amendments including militia protections. New Hampshire’s proposal for amendment was, "Congress shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion." New York proposed, "... a well regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free State."[m] Over time, this amendment has been confirmed by the courts to protect individual rights and used to overturn state legislation regulating hand guns.

snip-Once again viewing federal relationships, the Supreme Court in McDonald v. Chicago (2010) determined that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" is protected by the Second Amendment. It is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, so it applies to the states.

 

  Constitutional relationships

The Ninth Amendment declares that the listing of individual rights in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is not meant to be comprehensive; and that the other rights not specifically mentioned are retained by the people. The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states respectively, or to the people, any powers the Constitution did not delegate to the United States, nor prohibit the states from exercising.

9 Replies
Snooky1953
Senior Contributor

Re: About 'States', 2nd amendment and the meaning of words

Just for you.  Nothing is cut and dried.  Your opinion, my opinion are just that--OPINIONS!

 

This Article makes a simple claim: there’s no need to assume. There is ample evidence about the original meaning of the term “free state.” “Free state” was used often in Framing-era and pre-Framing writings, espe- cially those writings that are known to have influenced the Framers: Black- stone’s Commentaries,14 Montesquieu’s Spirit of Laws,15 Hume’s essays,16 Trenchard and Gordon’s Cato’s Letters,17 and works by over half the au- thors on Donald Lutz’s list of thirty-six authors most cited by American political writers from 1760 to 1805.18 It was also used by many leading American writers, including John Adams in 1787, James Madison in 1785, and the Continental Congress in 1774.

Those sources, which surprisingly have not been canvassed by the Second Amendment literature,20 give us a clear sense of what the phrase “free state” meant at the time. In eighteenth-century political discourse, “free state” was a commonly used political term of art, meaning “free coun- try,” which is to say the opposite of a despotism.

Political theory of the era often divided the world into despotisms and free states (either republics or constitutional monarchies). Free states had certain properties as a result of their being free, and were susceptible to certain threats of reverting to despotism. To remain a free state, the free state had to take these threats into account, and to structure its institutions in a particular way.

“State” simply meant country; and “free” almost always meant free from despotism, rather than from some other country, and never from some larger entity in a federal structure. That is how the phrase was used in the sources that the Framers read. And there is no reason to think that the Framers departed from this well-established meaning, and used the phrase to mean something different from what it meant to Blackstone, Montes- quieu, the Continental Congress, Madison, Adams, or others.

Even given this finding, of course, many important arguments about the Second Amendment remain. But when we consider those arguments, we should recognize that the phrase “a free State” was not understood as having to do with states’ rights as such. Rather, it referred to preserving the liberty of the new country that the Constitution was establishing. 

 

 

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/freestate.pdf

johnaa
Advisor

Put pressure of slime and it oozes around it

  You are making a childish attempt to squirm around to fool yourself, no one else is going to buy it, Snotty53.

 

 You replied to these related posts--

"Except for that pesky 10th amendment"  --Taylor

 

 "10th Amendment states;

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People."-- Democratforlife

 

  Your simi-coherent post--

"Ya know, STATE is often stated to mean the federal govt. as well as to a state of the union.  So, if you feel that the state is only referring to the individual states, then WELL REGULATED could also mean regulations concerning weapons.  Just a thought."

 

   Nothing about "free-state" until you started to ooze around it.

  

   State is State, the word used to differentiate between the Federal government and the individual States in the US Constitution. 

 

   I'm certain you can willfully confuse yourself and anyone else who wishes to join in your confusion.   I hope you work at understanding the Law of the Land, the Constitution of the USA, which this Nation would not exist without and in my opinion a citizen who doesn't understand it should not be voting.  

 

   Regardless of how you attempt to manipulate language to attempt to convince other ignorant fools it doesn't mean what is written and claim it means something else, you only show your dishonesty and ignorance.  There is too much of that sort of treason.   It is a fool's errand, keep it up if that's what you want to be.

 

"just a piece of paper"--Shrub   --you have a fellow traveler. 

 

  Did you attend school in the USA?  American Government is a requirement for a high school diploma in the USA, or at least it was when I was in school. 

 

Snooky1953
Senior Contributor

Re: Put pressure of slime and it oozes around it

Nice to see you think you are smarter than the folks at the UCLA school of law.

Samnospam
Advisor

Re: Put pressure of slime and it oozes around it

Your post is what is referred to as "an appeal to authority".
johnaa
Advisor

Re: Put pressure of slime and it oozes around it

  I'm smart enough to see you're attempting to change the subject, which any fool can understand is an attempt to squirm around after your argument failed.

   I demonstrated by copying the post the subject was about the use of the word States to differentiate between the Federal government and the individual states.  The article about "free states" does not back up your claim that in the US Constitution States can mean anything you wish to delude yourself with.  So far you have not come close to debating, just more hiding behind more BS.

  Poor attempt, you can only fool yourself.

 

 

Snooky1953
Senior Contributor

Re: Put pressure of slime and it oozes around it

Y'all can  call it anything you want but to avoid the argument that a "free STATE" can mean a "free COUNTRY" is only admitting that you feel anyone who disagrees with your opinion and that you are always right and anyone offering a different opinion is dumber than a box of rocks.  I really couldn't care less.  It is all open to interpretation as witnessed by so many disagreements through the ages on many parts of the Constitution.

johnaa
Advisor

Re: Put pressure of slime and it oozes around it

  Like I said, you're a waste of time, you haven't done anything but run away from a debate by attempting to changing the topic, like a little kid trying to make something out of bluff and bluster, You're just that kind.  

 

   The Constitution is an agreement between the States to form a Federal government.   GROW UP !  

    

Snooky1953
Senior Contributor

Re: Put pressure of slime and it oozes around it

Well, I guess you are wasting my time also because you have said from the start that I am just trying to change the subject but, dadburnit, I can't figure out how I am changing the subject because you started this by talking about the definition of the phrase "security of a free State" and THAT is what I have been trying to show you but you are obstinate and think that because I don't agree with you (and obviously the legal eagles at UCLA don't either) I am too dumb and are a waste of your time but you don't even show common courtesy to tell me how I am doing what you claim.  However, all I see is you cutting and running. I'll with saying that STATE=COUNTRY=NATION AND THAT WAS IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE 1770s

Taylor ECIL
Senior Contributor

Re: About 'States', 2nd amendment and the meaning of words

 

One of the contributors to the constitution: 

 

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

— Tench Coxe (1755–1824)

 

What it says is President or congress may turn to tyranny, and the military may turn on their citizens so the citizens should have the same weapons as the military to defend themselves. I would like to park my F15 near my house but my neighbor doesn't like the noise.