Publishing Company Puts Warning Label on Constitution

Wilder Publication is under fire for putting warning labels on copies of historical US documents, including the Constitution. The label warns "This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today." From the article: "The disclaimer goes on to tell parents that they 'might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.'"

Comments

Copyright

[TheKidWho]

Damned right, if it was written today no one would be able to read it without paying some exorbitant price, and you better not expect to share the document with anyone else!

Re:Copyright

[jmorris42]

> if it was written today no one would be able to read it without paying some exorbitant price

Of course it would be expensive! After all. go look at the EU Constitutionfor an example of what modern Progressive politicians would write. They gotta kill a lot of trees to print a copy of that f**ker. Of course that is the beauty of ours, it is short enough EVERY person should be expected to demonstrate not just a basic knowledge of it, they should demonstrate mastery of it before being given a ballot. No Progressive would ever be elected again, which is of course why they spent the last century on a project to push it down the memory hole. First they pushed for government schools and then undermined the curriculum to remove all study of the Constitution beyond the Preamble. Beyond that the texts tell the kids what it 'says' without studying the actual text.

Re:Copyright

[Hatta]

If it was written today, it would be a lot shorter.

Re:Copyright

[TheCarp]

No way. It would be about 20 times longer. See today, they hand it off to interns to write. The goal is to write everything so thick and deep, that NOBODY could credibly claim to have read it.

Now, maybe you mean "it would mean less and contain less protections". Thats absolutely true. As far as I can tell, the people in charge today would junk the entire bill of rights, from freedom of the press and right to bear arms, all the way down through.

I would be absolutely shocked if you retained any rights other than to vote in the already rigged voting system, and would probably gain a few pointless ones like an inalienable right to pay taxes.

-Steve

Re:Copyright

[IndustrialComplex]

If it was written today, it would be a lot shorter.

Not true, if I were to go by what people seem to think the role of government should be, it would be a HUGE document detailing every single thing that you are allowed to do, and there would be a LOT that you are allowed to do. Every freedom that you now enjoy would likely be included in the document.

And hopefully you understand why that would be a terrifying prospect.

Re:Copyright

[CharlyFoxtrot]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, but Corporations are more equal than others. That products are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Patentability, Copyright and the pursuit of Profit. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their powers from the payment of the governing. That whenever any Form of Behavior becomes destructive to the maximization of profits, it is the Right of the Corporate to alter or to abolish it.

Re:Copyright

[oldspewey]

plus there would be a couple thousand riders paperclipped to it

Re:Copyright

[heruvian]

Thats the declaration of independence.

Re:Copyright

[UncleBex]

Is the Memory Hole anything like the Money Hole that I saw featured on The Onion News Network ( http://www.theonion.com/video/in-the-know-should-the-government-stop-dumping-mon,14289/ )? Because I am personally in favor of personal money holes. People should be able to dump their money in a hole of their own choosing.

Re:Copyright

[vtcodger]

***Now, maybe you mean "it would mean less and contain less protections".***

Ahem ... if you recall, the original version did not in fact include what we now regard as basic protections (unless of course if you are carted off to the US's appalling overseas prisons). The first 10 ammendments -- the Bill of Rights -- was in draft before the constitution was approved, and it probably couldn't have been approved without a tacit agreement that the ammendments would be presented as soon as the details of wording and content could be worked out. Actually the states mostly had and have rights enumerated in their constitutions. No one really anticipated that federal power would supercede those rights in many cases.

====

Other than that, you're right, a modern version of the Constitution would probably run to 3000 pages and include large chunks of material proposed by lobbiests that no one actually read prior to approval.

Re:Copyright

[lupis42]

Well, I doubt that. There are a great many freedoms that I now enjoy but politicians are always trying to do away with.

Re:Copyright

[lupis42]

And hopefully you understand why that would be a terrifying prospect.

Forgot to respond to this part: Yes, that would be horrifying.

Re:Copyright

[CharlyFoxtrot]

TFA said it was one of the documents a warning label was put on. Also not being american I'm more familiar with the declaration of independence than the constitution, which is quite boring (except for the part about people with bear arms, awesome.)

Re:Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

That brought a tear to my eye. Thank you.

Re:Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Like the health care bill? More likely, if the Constitution were rewritten today it would be 20k pages long and would require an army of lawyers to interpret. And it would be full of all kinds of loopholes and kick-backs for special interest groups. Just like our tax code and the new health care law, and everything else our government touches.

Re:Copyright

[BlackSnake112]

Well, one definition of a boat is a hole in the water that you throw your money into.

Re:Copyright

[Bureaucromancer]

RTFA Seriously, the label has a second part, claiming all rights reserved, etc etc, no part of this work may be reproduced in any manner, etc etc.

Re:Copyright

[dwiget001]

And ear marks to pay for adding turtle crossings to roads in Badlands, South Dakota.

Re:Copyright

[Pyrroc]

(except for the part about people with bear arms, awesome.)

No, no, no... it has nothing to do with people having the forelimbs of an ursoid... It's the right of the people to -bare- arms... you know, wear a wife-beater and show off those gnarly tats...

Re:Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the beauties of the constitution is how concise it truly is for what it does. By contrast some more recent state constitutions are ridiculously long and detailed - I know the most recent North Carolina constitution shows that it was written by lawyers wanting to cover lots of details it weighs in at a "mere" 32 pages. I shudder to think what a federal constitution written recently would look like (how many pages was the health care bill?)

Re:Copyright

[JesseMcDonald]

To the best of my understanding, many whose signature was solicited for the Bill of Rights considered it superfluous and perhaps even harmful, specifically because it did not prohibit anything which would have otherwise been permitted under the original Constitution. Some wanted it as an additional guarantee against later reinterpretation or undiscovered loopholes, but—as others feared—it has more often been taken as a license to do anything not explicitly prohibited, contrary to their design.

So the original version did include those protections; it just didn't state them explicitly, because it didn't need to. Even before the amendments were passed, the Constitution did not grant the federal government the power to violate anything in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was more a statement of intent than an actual change in the nature of the Constitution.

Re:Copyright

[westlake]

Damned right, if it was written today no one would be able to read it without paying some exorbitant price

What makes you think a printed copy of the Constitution was cheap in 1787?

Rag paper. Hand-set type.

Re:Copyright

[Kythe]

The Founders were pretty darned progressive in their day :) Folks like you, by contrast, were generally siding with His Majesty.

I'm glad you appreciate the simplicity, by the way. Conservatives have been trying to stuff the Constitution with a bunch of trivial laws (e.g. an amendment against flag-burning) for a while. Maybe your comment indicates they've finally seen the folly of this, and they'll join with progressives in recognizing the purpose of the Constitution for what it is: the basic, highest-level framework for the U.S.' system.

However, since you're such a defender of the Big C, I'm a bit puzzled as to why you'd be against government schools (clearly, something nearly demanded by the grant of authority to Congress for "promoting the general welfare").

Re:Copyright

[betterunixthanunix]

Which any citizen could create a copy of, if he wanted to, without fearing legal attacks. Thankfully, in the USA, government documents are (at least in theory) automatically in the public domain, so we still have that right, although apparently the same company from TFA did put a copyright notice on the constitution...

Re:Copyright

[osu-neko]

Indeed, the point of the 9th Amendment is to address the fears that by enumerating certain rights, it would be construed as excluding any rights not specifically mentioned. It's due to the 9th Amendment that a "strict interpretation" of the Constitution is unconstitutional. The Constitution itself specifically says just because something it not explicitly stated does not mean it is not protected.

Re:Copyright

[maxwell demon]

Like this:

Article I - The Legislative Branch

Section 1 - The Legislature

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Those legislative powers shall only be wielded to the advantage of the country. The most relevant factor oft the country's well-being is identified as the economy. The advantage of the economy is equivalent to the well-being of the relevant companies, where relevance is measured by market share. Members of the Congress, of the Senate and of the House of representatives shall give due consideration to the advice given by the experts working for the corporations.

I guess a real lawyer could make this two pages long, and an order of magnitude less obvious ...

Re:Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

If it was written today, it would be a lot shorter.

Only 140 characters.

Re:Copyright

[AtomicOrange]

You wouldn't be saying that if you mother were a turtle. You insensitive clod!

Re:Copyright

[Thunderstruck]

And ear marks to pay for adding turtle crossings to roads in Badlands, South Dakota.

My sister nearly hit a turtle in SD the other day, while driving on a highway near our home. It was the size of a car tire. We put up those turtle crossing signs to warn motorists of the danger, not to protect the turtles!

Re:Copyright

[Myopic]

Indeed. If there is one policy that has made the United States a worse place to live, it's public education. /rolls eyes

Re:Copyright

[AtomicOrange]

But they may require a FOIA request, and can still be hidden from the public for defense of assets and interests.

Re:Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

A "strict interpretation" of the Constitution is anything but unconstitutional.

You have it backwards. Any power not explicitly granted to the Federal Government is a power that they do not have. This is explicitly stated by the 9th and 10th amendments.

This is the Opt-in equivalent to Federal power, as was originally intended.. as opposed to the Opt-out version that is currently the practice in Washington.

Re:Copyright

[Myopic]

No one really anticipated that federal power would supercede those rights in many cases.

Hmmm. I don't know about that. The supremacy clause is pretty clear, and was equally clear when adopted.

Re:Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

More like the Declaration of Dependence [on Corporations]. And if I had mod points I'd have modded it +5 Too True Today.

Re:Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

The Founders were pretty darned progressive in their day :) Folks like you, by contrast, were generally siding with His Majesty.

In this context, "progressive" does not mean "seeking alternative to the status quo". It means change via increased government authority. Perhaps you can explain how the foundation the Founder's laid out was an increase in government authority over the monarchy?

Republicans have been trying to stuff the Constitution with a bunch of trivial laws (e.g. an amendment against flag-burning) for a while.

FTFY.

(clearly, something nearly demanded by the grant of authority to Congress for "promoting the general welfare").

Why let facts get in the way of a good rant, eh?

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
- James Madison in a letter to James Robertson

It seems that the same people that have no problems with using Founder's personal correspondence as a basis for "separation of church and state" suddenly develop a case of amnesia when it comes to Madison's writings.

Re:Copyright

[AK Marc]

No Progressive would ever be elected again, which is of course why they spent the last century on a project to push it down the memory hole.

The progressives wrote it, why would they not like it?

First they pushed for government schools and then undermined the curriculum to remove all study of the Constitution beyond the Preamble.

You are right that when I was in school, we only had to memorize the Preamble and the first 10 Amendments. But we were tested over every single line in it, and it was read in parts the equivalent of no less than 10 times in class, and we were expected to read it as many times at home as necessary to understand every clause (well, it was a redacted one, so we didn't need to learn the redacted parts as closely, but still were tested on those as part of the Amendment that affected it).

Beyond that the texts tell the kids what it 'says' without studying the actual text.

We had a booklet that contained the Constitution and nothing else. Unlike regular text books, that pamphlet was ours to keep forever. It's the only "textbook" I recall being given away in school that didn't need to be returned.

So, everything you say is exactly the opposite of my experience in public school. Perhaps the problem is that you went to shit schools. That could also explain some other parts of your argument...

Re:Copyright

[sconeu]

Yep.

The 9th:

"Even if we didn't say it, you still retain the right"

The 10th:

"If we didn't talk about it, the Feds can't do it"

Re:Copyright

[Miseph]

Yes, this would be a much better place to live if education were available only to those children whose parents can afford to pay for it. Either that, or they can enroll in a school operated by religious extremists who may or may not brainwash children into bizarre, cultish practices and beliefs.

Then we'd have less poor people clogging our schools AND more devoutly/disturbingly fringe religious whackjobs running around. That's 2 birds with 1 stone.

Re:Copyright

[mweather]

Look at your state's Constitution before criticising the EU's.

Re:Copyright

[CAIMLAS]

Folks like you, by contrast, were generally siding with His Majesty.

That's a little under-handed, don't you think? I see what you're doing here: trying to equate "Constitutionist" with "backwards/antiquated" in the same way the Tories were.

However, the comparison falls on its face when you consider that the GP and the founding fathers are ideological brothers, whereas King George and his attitude is much more akin to modern Progressives and the approach taken with the EU constitution.

Also, I resemble your comment: "folks like me" - my ancestors who lived in New York and Connecticut at the time of the Revolution and had tradecraft professions such as myself - were very much involved in the Revolution for the side of the Republic. They may not have been great orators or political theorists, but they had a lick of sense between their ears.

Please, kindly take your "general welfare" and shove it up your ass. Your invocation of that clause is illustrative of an inability to read: it's in the preamble, not the body, of the Constitution. This is typically called a "high level summary" of a document, demonstrating the intent of what follows. High school freshmen should typically understand this concept. (There's a general mention to the blessings of liberty - referring to God - in the preamble as well; does that not establish God as a fundamental component of our Government?)

The US Constitution covers the restrictions to government moreso than what the government can do.

Re:Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

The Founders were pretty darned progressive in their day :) Folks like you, by contrast, were generally siding with His Majesty.

Its a shame that today the self-named Progressives are leading the charge back to overarching central controls, burdensome taxes, loss of personal, local, and regional autonomy, and heavy obligations to the 'state'... shades of old King George. Serfdom with a happy face.

Conservatives have been trying to stuff the Constitution with a bunch of trivial laws (e.g. an amendment against flag-burning) for a while. Maybe your comment indicates they've finally seen the folly of this, and they'll join with progressives in recognizing the purpose of the Constitution for what it is: the basic, highest-level framework for the U.S.' system.

At least the effort to make those changes is being done using the Constitution's own framework and instructions; the amendment process. Not judicial fiat, a method considerably more used to further 'progressive' goals than 'conservative'. Why try to convince people and get their votes when all you need to do is make sure the 'proper-thinking' folks are seated, in sufficient quantity, in a few courtrooms? Much much easier.

However, since you're such a defender of the Big C, I'm a bit puzzled as to why you'd be against government schools (clearly, something nearly demanded by the grant of authority to Congress for "promoting the general welfare").

This is an example of one of the most abused excuses in Constitutional history. The Preamble is NOT a grant of powers; it is an explanation of some of the base reasons for creating the Constitution. Powers granted to the Congress and other branches are spelled out in the body of the Constitution. The use of the 'general welfare' phrase to mean whatever any legislator wants it to mean to further their own agenda is even worse than the abuse of the commerce clause in order to try to control anything and everything that might conceivably cross a state boundary (and a lot that doesn't and can't).

Re:Copyright

[CAIMLAS]

Other than that, you're right, a modern version of the Constitution would probably run to 3000 pages and include large chunks of material proposed by lobbiests that no one actually read prior to approval.

Most of which would also likely be open-ended in the opposite spirit of the current Constitution: instead of being very open-ended in terms of individual liberty and the restrictions placed on government (ie, plain-faced) it'd allow pretty much anything under each and every clause for "additional clarification" at the bureaucratic level later.

Re:Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums works really well.

FTFY

Re:Copyright

[JesseMcDonald]

I agree with what you said, but please note that your use of "a 'strict interpretation' of the Constitution" to refer to the concept of enumerated rights is unconventional and confusing. I think you would agree that the interpretation should be strict with respect to the powers of the federal government (the usual sense), and permissive regarding state and (especially) individual rights.

Re:Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

So, everything you say is exactly the opposite of my experience in public school. Perhaps the problem is that you went to shit schools. That could also explain some other parts of your argument...

Your experience is similar to mine. However, I'd hesitate to call the other poster's experience being due to "shit" schools. Over the years, the quality of the education we've been getting out of the school system has been declining, with them trying all kinds of goofy ideas to "improve" the quality. Never mind that many have taken to using the education system to indoctrinate our children rather than to teach them to think for themselves.

Re:Copyright

[Arthur Grumbine]

I'm a bit puzzled as to why you'd be against government schools (clearly, something nearly demanded by the grant of authority to Congress for "promoting the general welfare").

I love how "promote the general welfare" is interpreted as a free pass for the federal government to expand its powers for anything that provides any benefit to a significant number of people. It strikes me that, at a minimum, an analysis should be done as to whether the federal government's providing of a non-essential given service/product (be it interstate roads, education, healthcare, internet access, or a free pony) contributes more to the general welfare than if it just let its citizens keep their money and choose the product/service for themselves. It seems that Aldous Huxley's world (or John Galt's) can be achieved through a continuous series of efforts to "promote the general welfare".

Re:Copyright

[sauge]

Maybe they should write every bill out by hand these days. Might help control the bloat.

Re:Copyright

[dangitman]

... and include large chunks of material proposed by lobbiests...

So, how does this work grammatically? Lobby, lobbier, lobbiest?

Re:Copyright

[pugugly]

I'm always amazed by the 'Originalists' that ignore the 9th amendment and claim there's no right to privacy.

In 200 years, the Supreme Court recognized *one* constitutionally right not explicitly mentioned, arguing that several other rights show this right exists. And to this day people scream that one right in two hundred years recognized under SCOTUS is 'Judicial Activism'.

Pug

Re:Copyright

[fyngyrz]

If there is one policy that has made the United States a worse place to live, it's public education.

I smell sarcasm. If I got it right, then to you, sir:

THIS is what the current k-12 public educational system is creating. A pestilent, persistent, broad-spectrum ignorance that the victims think is 100% ok.

Either our k-12 system needs a complete rework (that's my feeling) or it needs to be outright replaced with something that works better.

Remember, slashdot is for the most part a self-selected community of the intelligent. The people on the street — you know, the ones that have made Fox News the most popular news outlet — they are the typical product of the current k-12 educational system, and my friend, they are nothing to brag about.

Pertinent to the topic at hand, they wouldn't be able to tell you much, if anything, about the constitution, never mind make a cogent argument for or against anything in it or based upon it.

Re:Copyright

[fyngyrz]

There's a general mention to the blessings of liberty - referring to God - in the preamble as well; does that not establish God as a fundamental component of our Government

No. These "blessings" are something we must secure for ourselves, just as it says. They are not a gift from anyone, real or imaginary. Notably, there is not even one mention of "God" in the constitution. They got it right. They left it up to the legislature to misinterpret and get it wrong, and oh, brother, have they ever.

Re:Copyright

[Kitkoan]

Every freedom that you now enjoy would likely be included in the document.

And that would be over shadowed by every abusive DMCA-style privilege that every corporate sponsor of the document would hold over you and property.

Re:Copyright

[Altrag]

I'm pretty sure letting the citizens keep their money is somewhere around the opposite of promoting the general welfare -- its promoting the welfare only of those who have money to keep. Now in a society where everyone has relatively equal amounts of money, this could be construed as the "general welfare", but I've yet to see any indication that such a society is even possible, never mind existing.

I'm also a little hazy on what you'd consider an "essential service" if health care is among the explicit list of what you consider non-essential. I can't think of anything less beneficial to the general welfare than letting people suffer or die when they could be saved because they don't happen to fall into the upper percentage of folk who can afford a hospital bed.

Things like roads, power and telephone lines, etc.. there's been a huge push over the past two decades to "privatize" these things for the "good" of the people. Basically what this amounts to is trading off government oversight (generally considered bad but necessary) with a monopoly power and _NO_ oversight (ALWAYS considered bad). Its one thing to spout rhetoric about the potential for competition, its quite another for any competitor to come up with several billion dollars to string their own lines (never mind the legal battles over right-of-ways and whatever else that will take time and money.. which the incumbent company will fight tooth and nail to stop on top of all the other hurdles).

Any utility or service that is effectively impossible to duplicate (economically or politically) should always remain in the hands of the government -- at least the people will have theoretical oversight. Of course, the /maintenance/ of such utilities can be contracted out, but the utilities themselves should remain public (and for things like telephone lines, the service itself can even be privatized providing the lines -- the part that can't be practically duplicated in any practical sense -- are maintained publicly.)

It is of course definitely worth arguing which level of government should maintain these things (in the sense of intrastate versus interstate splits.. but it could be broken down further to intra-city vs inter-city, intra-community vs inter-community.. and so on down until you end up with the home owner being responsible for the final leg between his house and the edge of his property if you really want to go that far.. think of a driveway that connects to the street). But its ridiculous to argue that an uncontrolled monopoly power over a shared utility is ever better than government oversight -- its only better for the CEOs and shareholders of the monopolistic company. Maintaining balance over shared resources is the reason governments exist!

Re:Copyright

[Jane Q. Public]

I do not know why that other person's reply was modded down, because he/she was absolutely correct. Apparently the "supremacy clause" is not be as clear as you say, because it doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.

The supremacy clause refers to the fact that Federal law will supersede conflicting state laws, when that Federal law is pursuant to exercising the specific powers that are delegated to the Federal government in Article 1, Section 8. There the Constitution gives the Federal government 17 or 18 enumerated powers, and no more. Anything Congress does outside the enumerated powers is not law.
--

"...the government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general." -- James Madison

For those who think the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutionality: "The government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself." -- Thomas Jefferson, about the U.S. Constitution (that power belongs to the states)

"... whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force" -- Thomas Jefferson

Re:Copyright

[Jane Q. Public]

"However, since you're such a defender of the Big C, I'm a bit puzzled as to why you'd be against government schools (clearly, something nearly demanded by the grant of authority to Congress for 'promoting the general welfare')"

Actually, that statement is 100% wrong, as is clearly shown by this piece of sarcastic commentary from James Madison. (I have also included a couple of other quotes from the founders regarding "general welfare". It doesn't mean what you think it does.)

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress. ... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America." -- James Madison

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." -- James Madison

"...the government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." -- James Madison

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." -- Thomas Jefferson

"The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it." -- James Wilson (This one is only peripherally relevant, but it illustrates that the Constitution was meant to be viewed through its original meanings, and not made-up "interpretations" by some future theoreticist.)

Re:Copyright

[Jane Q. Public]

Here is the one I was most looking for:

"To take them [the words "general welfare" in the Constitution] in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." -- James Madison

In other words, just as many Constitutional scholars have been telling us all along, there is a "host of proofs" that the words "general welfare" do not mean what many people today think they do.

Re:Copyright

[Zixaphir]

I am twenty two. They summed up the Ninth Amendment in a grand summary quite akin to, "states you have rights the constitution doesn't say you have, like privacy."

I mean, I know the actual text is kinda vague, but you know, what kinda rights? Unenumerated rights is a bit more specific.

Re:Copyright

[Mr. Slippery]

I love how "promote the general welfare" is interpreted as a free pass for the federal government to expand its powers for anything that provides any benefit to a significant number of people.

Not to "expand its powers", no, but to spend its money. If Congress decides it is in the general welfare to buy us all ponies, it is within it Constitutional authority "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" to do so. But if Congress decides it is in the general welfare to make us all take riding lessons upon pain of imprisonment, it does not have that power.

It could, however, probably figure out a way to use its power of taxation or interstate commerce regulation to encourage people to take riding lessons, by offering tax breaks to riding teachers, say, or by requiring cargo to be taken across state lines only on pony-back.

an analysis should be done as to whether the federal government's providing of a non-essential given service/product...contributes more to the general welfare than if it just let its citizens keep their money and choose the product/service for themselves.

That's why we pick our Congress democratically (at least, in theory, corruption and the two-party stranglehold not withstanding); if you think Congress buying us ponies is a waste of money, or if you think it's ridiculous that interstate commerce must go by pony, you get to try to vote them out.

It seems that Aldous Huxley's world (or John Galt's) can be achieved through a continuous series of efforts to "promote the general welfare".

Hey, I wish our system of government could get us to something like Huxley's Island , but I don't think so. (Huxley did write more than one book, you know.)

Re:Copyright

[Mr. Slippery]

The Founders were pretty darned progressive in their day

No, they weren't. They created a document that explicitly supported slavery, for crying out loud. And it's not like the idea had not yet occurred to anyone that this was a bad thing -- read Tom Paine's essay "African Slavery In America". Now. Tom was a progressive. But he was an essayist, not a Founder.

The Founders got one big thing right: the notion of checks and balances. Beyond that, it's time to stop the mythology. The Constitution was an effort to increase federal power, after the failure of the Articles of Confederation. The Framers were scared that people were starting to take the rhetoric about democracy and freedom seriously; they needed to clamp down the possibility of an uprising against the mercantile classes. It was one thing to get rid of the king, leaving American bankers and landlords on top of the heap; it was a whole 'nother to rebel against those American bankers and landlords.

Anyway, as the issue of warning labels: it might make some sense to put a parental advisory on a copy of Tom Sawyer so that parents are prepared when little Johnny asks, "what's a 'nigger'?" (And if that word, unredacted, makes you uncomfortable, consider that evidence toward my point.) And similarly, it might make some sense to put a parental advisory on a copy of the Constitution, so that parents are prepared when little Johnny asks, "why are some people counted as three-fifths"?

History -- U.S. history not excluded -- is a mess of blood, bigotry, and banditry. You can either give kids the Disney version (which is pretty much how we teach things now), or you can teach them truth and be prepared for tough questions, and maybe a few nightmares.

Re:Copyright

[jmorris42]

> We put up those turtle crossing signs to warn motorists of the danger, not to protect the turtles!

While you may be right about the signs serving a real (non stupid/green) purpose what makes paying for them a Federal responsibility. More importantly what lawful authority does Congress use to order them erected?

Re:Copyright

[JesseMcDonald]

The right to privacy obviously exists. Aside for a few narrow powers granted to the federal government in connection with a warrant, no one can compel you to share private information with anyone. To exercise your right to privacy, just keep the information private.

What the Supreme Court created wasn't a right to privacy at all, but rather a "right" to veto others' actions when they concern certain information you wish you had kept private but didn't. This "right" infringes on the previously recognized right to liberty—to act as one chooses with oneself and one's property, subject to the same rights of others. You cannot have both. If "privacy" prevails then liberty is limited; if liberty reigns then "privacy" (in the twisted sense used by the Court) cannot be enforced. The 9th amendment is not a license to nullify or limit explicit, foundational rights in favor of others to be invented or inferred at a later time. The fact that the Court ruled contrary to existing legal tradition is what makes the ruling "judicial activism".

The Court's intentions in Roe vs. Wade, where the "right to privacy" argument was first advanced, were good on the whole—but their legal justification was lousy. The case really had little to do with privacy in either sense, but instead of simply ruling the abortion to be legal (or illegal, depending on the law rather than their personal preferences) they jumped through hoops find some basis to throw out the anti-abortion side of the case, and the "right to privacy" was the result.

Re:Copyright

[Mr. Slippery]

Actually, that statement is 100% wrong, as is clearly shown by this piece of sarcastic commentary from James Madison.

Actually, Madison's opinion, and those of the other Founders, are irrelevant, according to Madison himself :

As a guide in expounding and applying the provisions of the Constitution, the debates and incidental decisions of the Convention can have no authoritative character. However desirable it be that they should be preserved as a gratification to the laudable curiosity felt by every people to trace the origin and progress of their political Insitutions, & as a source parhaps of some lights on the Science of Govt. the legitimate meaning of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned & proposed the Constitution, but in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions where it recd. all the authority which it possesses.

"Original intent" is an intellectual dead end; the intent of the Founders was that their intent not be used to interpret the document.

The text says that Congress can tax and spend to support the general welfare. If Madison didn't like that fact, he can -- by his own lights -- suck it.

Re:Copyright

[Jane Q. Public]

Madison said a lot of stupid things in his old age. Some evidence suggests that he was going senile. He contradicted his own earlier statements frequently, and was caught lying about his own words in regard to state interposition.

(And by the way: if someone says "please ignore me, what I say doesn't matter", does it matter? Should you ignore what they said earlier, or what they said just now? A statement of that kind simply cannot be taken seriously.)

And even if he said that in his younger years, it still contradicts what he stated at many other places and times. Further, even if that was Madison's true opinion, he was alone in that opinion. Jefferson and Wilson disagreed with you (as can clearly be seen in Wilson's quote above) and others also clearly expressed the necessity of reading the Constitution as it was originally intended, and not as "interpreted" later by armchair philosophers indulging in guesswork out of context.

There have been many writings about general welfare. The clear intent was that it be a restrictive clause; the Federal government was to use its powers -- its enumerated powers, just as Jefferson says above -- only for the "general welfare", that is to say the welfare of everybody, as opposed to the welfare or benefit of particular states or groups. Those very quotes I posted above clearly and specifically disagree with you. Do you think I should go find more and post those, too? How would that strengthen my argument?

The Federal government was given only a limited set of powers. Those powers -- and only those powers -- were to be used for the general welfare. As Madison himself clearly stated, there are a "host of proofs" that the words "general welfare" were not meant in the way you say they are. Even if you honestly believe that Madison's opinion at the time doesn't matter (which is about the silliest thing I can imagine; he helped design the damned thing! That's why he's sometimes called "the Father of the Constitution"), certainly something of the original intent matters, because if you distort the meaning behind those particular words, you distort the whole scope of government (again as Madison himself is quoted as saying)!

If you truly believe what you claim, I ask you to find where someone with authority at around that time wrote that it was intended in the way you claim. I will wait. But without clear evidence of what you say I must dismiss your theories as mere hand-waving. I have too much clear and robust evidence that contradicts you to just take your word for it.

Re:Copyright

[Myopic]

I'm not exactly clear.

Are you just saying that you think certain things are 'unconstitutional' and thus 'not law' in a valid sense, even though we all live by it anyway? Things like Welfare which aren't enumerated and thus 'not law'?

Or are you saying that those things are fine, but rather when one of those laws IS passed, that the supremacy clause just doesn't apply to THAT law, but would apply to laws which directly address enumerated powers?

The way I understand it is that all of Congress' powers derive from the constitution, which specifies for instance how laws are passed, and that is what 'pursuant' means. Like, they vote on it and it passes, and that makes it law according to the constitution, and thus is 'pursuant'.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof

Re:Copyright

[Jane Q. Public]

This somehow did not make it into my reply above:

Further yet, any argument that "original intent" is not important is bankrupt on its face, because that is not the way language works. Even as a logical proposition it won't hold water. Language in general is made up of symbols (in this case written words) arranged in a way that conveys information. If the receiver of the communication does not know the intended meaning of the symbols it contains, then communication has failed. The receiver cannot honestly claim to have understood it. The information is not transferred, or at the very least has become distorted.

The receiver can't just arbitrarily assign their own meanings to the symbols (words) then truthfully say "this is what that means". To do so is to end up with nonsense at best, a fabrication at worst, and a lie either way. You might as well say that this part of the Constitution means "free gumballs for everybody" which (to those of us who do know and care about the meaning of the symbols) is clearly nonsense.

The result is that logically, this is one of those cases where there is little if any middle ground. If original intent is unimportant, then the Constitution conveys no true meaning at all. You can interpret it any way you want. You can decide that Article 1, Section 7 actually means "on Saturday I get laid".

So sorry, dude, but you can't have it both ways. Either it means something or it doesn't. If it does mean something, reason dictates that you do not have the power to interpret that meaning on your own terms and make it stick; only the original writers had that power. The only way you can interpret it the way you want is if it doesn't actually convey any inherent meaning at all, in which case we might as well burn it for the value of the hemp smoke it will give off.

Re:Copyright

[vuffi_raa]

No way. It would be about 20 times longer.

actually it would be but not for the reason that you are saying, because it would have concessions for everyone writing it. Take a look at any bill that goes through congress and there are a million concessions given to the simplest of concepts.

Re:Copyright

[Jane Q. Public]

This is a cop-out, Mr. Slippery. Once again, you fail to put circumstances in their proper historical context.

There is no way in hell, at the time the Constitution was written, that the Founders would have been able to abolish slavery through that or any other document. The society of the day would never have allowed it, and the Constitution would never have been ratified! Even if they really did intend that all men are created equal.

I mean really. Dude. You are berating people for being born in the time they were born. Get a clue.

Re:Copyright

[Jane Q. Public]

Are you just saying that you think certain things are 'unconstitutional' and thus 'not law' in a valid sense, even though we all live by it anyway? Things like Welfare which aren't enumerated and thus 'not law'?

Yes, I am saying that, but not "just" that. "Welfare programs", per se, are administered by the States and thus it is not really part of the discussion, although the Federal mandates that established it probably aren't worth the paper they are printed on. More to the point are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. These are clearly not part of the powers that were delegated the Federal government. And the same applies to the recent "Health Care Reform" disaster. (I put that in quotes because even if it were constitutional, it really did little to actually "reform" what needed reforming.)

But yes, you have that basically right: although the Federal government overstepped its bounds in creating those institutions, they were accepted by the states at the time, even though (many people argue today) they never should have been. Because even if they are not legal or constitutional, by now they are pretty hard to get rid of. So they are "illegal" in the sense that Congress had no legal power to give birth to them, yet they are established parts of our society. What a mess. And THAT is what you get when you ignore Constitutional bounds. And by the way: even the best estimates say that all of those institutions are soon going to be bankrupt.

Here is the biggest issue: The Constitution created a Federal government, as a compact between the 13 states. "Federal" is a word that refers to a "federation", which is a group of equals. This is in stark contrast to a "National" government, which would have been a supreme government ruling over the states. This is an important distinction. The United States is not a "nation" in the strict sense of the word. The United States is a "federation" of states (it's even in the NAME!). This is stated by the founding fathers in so many words, many times in historical documents.

The states formed the Federal government to do things that it made sense for a federation of states to do: manage a common system of currency, resolve trade disputes between the states, provide for a common defense, and so on. In all, there were 17 (some say 18) specific powers given to the Federal government, which are listed ("enumerated") in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

This brings us to a quote by Madison I posted elsewhere in this thread: "...the government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." -- James Madison "

By "confined to specified objects", he is referring to the powers delegated to the Federal government by Article 1, Section 8. All other powers (as clarified in the 10th Amendment) are reserved to the states, or to the people. Note that Madison specifically says here that the states have more power than the Federal government. This is also inherent in the word "delegated" which so often appears: a higher authority "delegates" responsibility to a subordinate. In this case, the states "delegated" 17 (or 18) powers to the Federal government. ALL other power belongs to the states, or the people. So when Jefferson wrote:

"... whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force"

The "general government" is the Federal government... the one that is common between the states. Assuming "undelegated powers", then, means doing anything outside the 17 (18) powers that were delegated to the Federal government by Article 1, Section 8. And what he states there is that if they DO try to assume powers that were not given to them, then any resulting law is "unauthoritative, void, and of no force". It has no lawful authority behind it. I

Re:Copyright

[Jane Q. Public]

I neglected to answer this: "in pursuance thereof" or "pursuant to" means basically the same as "in pursuit of". So Congress only has authority when its actions are "in pursuance of" (i.e., following or in pursuit of) its lawful Constitutional powers, which in turn means the specific things listed in Article 1, Section 8.

If Congress tried to pass something like, say just hypothetically, some kind of "Health Care Reform" law, that is clearly outside the enumerated powers that were given to it by the Constitution, so that law would not be "in pursuance of" its Constitutional authority, and it would be "unauthoritative, void, and of no force".

(I am not going to get into another debate about "general welfare" here, people, so if anybody wants to argue that, go somewhere else and do it. You are wrong.)

Re:Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

If Congress decides it is in the general welfare to buy us all ponies, it is within it Constitutional authority "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" to do so.

James Madison would tend to disagree with that statement.

The Constitution is very specific about the powers granted to the Federal Government. It doesn't make any sense to interpret a phrase with a meaning that allows the Government to pretty much give themselves any power.

Re:Copyright

[P0ltergeist333]

Please, kindly take your "general welfare" and shove it up your ass. Your invocation of that clause is illustrative of an inability to read: it's in the preamble, not the body, of the Constitution.

Fail. It's in two places, so I would curb that haughty tone if I were you. Yes it is in the preamble... however it's also in the body:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; "

And yes, Madison certainly stated that the clause was not intended to give Congress unlimited power. That is why the Constitution also includes checks and balances. He certainly did NOT say that the clause should be disregarded completely, as you and the radical right might have us believe.

No matter what, I cannot envision ANY founding father being against ending starvation and poverty for our society if it was within our grasp. The way I see it, we can all pull together and succeed like we did during and after WW2, or the greedy assholes can tear us apart and our great country can fall and fail until we are just another third world country.

Re:Copyright

[P0ltergeist333]

So you are arguing that we would be better off without interstate roads, public education, and the internet? So far as I can see, there is a vast difference between those things and a free pony. Quite the leap you took there. I think that's the exact point, interstate roads, public education, and yes, even the internet (under the auspice of information infrastructure) are all things that the private sector could not or would not provide, and so the government stepped in, and our society is better off because of it. Should we give government unlimited power over our lives such as in Huxley's Brave New World? No. But no one has suggested we do so. Slippery slope is a fallacious argument to begin with, but if you expect to be taken seriously when you use such a dubious tactic, you need to bridge the gap between general welfare infrastructure and a pony.

Re:Copyright

[Myopic]

Okay. So your argument against supremacy is premised on those things being unconstitutional, but you also recognize that a large majority of people don't agree with that position, so you recognize that a large majority of people don't see the same beef with supremacy that you see.

I think your argument is fine and internally consistent, even if I don't agree with it. I'm comfortable (in fact rather pleased) with the constitutional understanding that developed during the 20th century. But, again, it would also be okay with me if we went through the arduous process to explicitly pass a bunch of overly specific cluttery amendments to authorize these policies, even if I prefer to simply hang those programs on the welfare clause. To be honest, if I were to design an amendment which would authorize those things, it would sounds a lot like "Congress shall have to power to promote the general welfare of the people."

Re:Copyright

[Jane Q. Public]

Well, I am happy to see that you understand "my argument". The reason it is internally consistent is because it is historically accurate.

While I understand that you are happy with the "understanding that has developed during the 20th century" (which is a good way to put it), I hope you also realize that it is this "understanding" that has caused the dollar to inflate until it is only 2%-3% of the value it was 100 years ago, when prices has been almost flat for the 100 years prior to that. It is this "understanding" of the supremacy of the Federal government that has allowed the establishment of entitlement programs that are broke and are making us broke. This "understanding" is behind our current deficit, a tax code straight out of Hell, and the killing of hundreds of thousands of people. I could go on but it is too depressing.

Re:Copyright

[Alan R Light]

"As far as I can tell, the people in charge today would junk the entire bill of rights" What do you mean, "would"? They already have, excepting the 3rd.

Re:Copyright

[kitgerrits]

What makes you think everyone was able to read in those days?

Re:Copyright

[gringofrijolero]

Maintaining balance over shared resources is the reason governments exist!

There are those who are trying to use the constitution to put into place extreme property rights. To them there are no shared or common resources, much less rights of access..

Re:Copyright

[Myopic]

Indeed. It has bad points along with the good points.

Re:Copyright

[TheCarp]

The Court's intentions in Roe vs. Wade, where the "right to privacy" argument was first advanced, were good on the whole--but their legal justification was lousy. The case really had little to do with privacy in either sense, but instead of simply ruling the abortion to be legal (or illegal, depending on the law rather than their personal preferences) they jumped through hoops find some basis to throw out the anti-abortion side of the case, and the "right to privacy" was the result.

See this is where I don't get it. After hearing so much about it for years, I decided to go read the Roe decision. I like it a lot, however, the parts that I found most compelling had very little to do with privacy.

Quite simply, what I took from it was, that since any situation where the mother's life was in danger due to the pregnancy, she would have a valid cause to have grievance with the law and bring a suit to the court. Since such a situation would put her life in danger, and no court could guarantee her a resolution to the situation before it killed her, any law that did not at LEAST allow for the life of the mother would effectively deny her right to have her case heard and decided upon.

Its been a while since I read it but, thats how I understood it and I didn't really take a right to privacy from it.

What am I missing?

-Steve

Re:Copyright

[gringofrijolero]

Yeah, it would be written by the IRS. One sentence:

"This is a stickup!"

Re:Copyright

[Alsee]

There's a general mention to the blessings of liberty - referring to God - in the preamble as well; does that not establish God as a fundamental component of our Government?

The Constitution is not some cheezy novel with secret codes.

There were plenty of proposals to put God or Christianity into the Constitution. The fact is that God and Christianity are conspicuously absent from the Constitution. The Framers of the Constitution made a very conscious and conspicuous choice to completely exclude any appeal to religion from the Constitution.

The Founders were dedicated to the idea of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The ideology that The People have the inherent authority to overturn a government. Government was created by men and run by men. Any appeal to the authority of God or authority of religion completely contradicts the idea that the people have the inherent authority to overthrow that government.

"The blessings of liberty" simply means "the good things that liberty provides".

James Madison, Father of the Constitution, primary author of the Bill of Rights, acknowledged leader among the Founders in formulating the ideology of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had much to say on the subject:

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects. -- James Madison 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance

It is impossible to have any sort of "Christian government" or "Christian nation" without the government in some sense defining what "Christian" means. The government then inherently gets dragged into conflicts between different denominations. Most of the state governments had established themselves as "Christian", and the people of the day were quite aware of the problems that arose. They did not want the Federal Government getting involved in religious matters.

I find it particular strange the way Separation of Church and State denialists completely write James Madison out of their account of history, trying to cast Separation as some figment of just Jefferson's imagination:

total separation of the church from the state -- James Madison 1819 letter to Robert Walsh

perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters -- James Madison 1822 letter to Edward Livingston

line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority... entire abstinence of the government -- James Madison 1832 letter Rev. Jasper Adams Spring

practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States -- James Madison 1811 letter to Baptist Churches

And in particular, nailing the coffin on false claims of some "One Way Wall":

Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. -- James Madison Detached Memoranda circa 1817

And it wasn't just Jefferson and Madison who saw the Constitution and the government being completely secular. Just five years into the new nation the Senate ratified the statement "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion".

It was passed UNANIMOUSLY, it was published in major newspapers of the day, and there is no mention of anyone complaining or objecting. Not a single objection from the Senate, not a single whisper of public objection in the papers. The general public understood that the federal government was deliberately divorced from the issue of religion, and the general public accepted that a protection on their own religious liberty. The general public did NOT want to see the Federal government getting anywhere

Re:Copyright

[Mr. Slippery]

Madison said a lot of stupid things in his old age. Some evidence suggests that he was going senile.

So senile that Monroe sought his advice, he helped revise the Virginia state constitution, and took up a position as Rector at UVA. Sorry, the senility argument doesn't even pass the sniff test.

Furthermore, he was arguing against the authority of the "general welfare" clause a decade after the letter I cited. So if he was going senile, that's an argument against your point.

He contradicted his own earlier statements frequently, and was caught lying about his own words in regard to state interposition.

It's called being a politician, and has nothing to do with senility.

So if he's a standard issue flip-flopping lying politician, why would you want to place exceptional weight on his opinion as to how the Constitution should be interpreted?

Jefferson and Wilson disagreed with you

Jefferson was not involved in framing the Constitution, he was in France at the time. (And why we should respect the opinion of a slave rapist is beyond me.) James Wilson was the author of the obscene "three fifths" compromise, so, fuck him.

The Federal government was given only a limited set of powers.

Correct. One of those powers is to tax and spend for the general welfare. It's in the text of the document. "We didn't mean it to be there!" doesn't change that fact.

Even if you honestly believe that Madison's opinion at the time doesn't matter (which is about the silliest thing I can imagine...

If you believe that its silly that the text of the Constitution is primary, and that in case of ambiguity the understanding of the people who signed it is far more important that the intent of the authors, then take it up with Madison.

Re:Copyright

[Mr. Slippery]

Further yet, any argument that "original intent" is not important is bankrupt on its face, because that is not the way language works.

Yes, it is in fact how language works. Words have meanings that are independent of what the speaker wants them to mean or may think that they mean. If my intent is to convey to my girlfriend that she looks absolutely ravishing, and I say, "that dress does a good job of hiding the pudginess of your butt", I am not going to be able to get out of trouble by claiming that my "original intent" should trump what I actually said.

The receiver can't just arbitrarily assign their own meanings to the symbols (words) then truthfully say "this is what that means".

Nor can the sender, especially after the fact ("baby, I didn't mean it that way!"); nor can those who claim to know (through their psychic powers or whatever) what the sender meant.

Re:Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not sure where you live but of the three things you mention (roads, power lines and telephone lines) as being owned by the government only roads are generally owned by the government and in that case there are a few private toll roads in the US.

And who says that these things have to be a monopoly if not in the hands of the government? After all I can get phone service as well as internet and television service from a number of different vendors and each of them has their own physical lines. The only thing that is public is that each of these vendors pay local governments a fee to string their lines over the public right of way. In other words it would only be a monopoly if customers could not select another vendor to supply the same service. And at least where I live it is clearly not a monopoly for electricity, Phone service, internet (data) service and television (cable, satellite ...) service.

Re:Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

This is all so wrong I hardly know where to begin. The purpose of government is to provide for the common defense. It has no place in resource allocation.
Your statement on roads, power and communication systems shows a general lack of historical knowledge. In this country (USA) roads were often toll roads set up by private interests, things like bridges and ferries were almost always private. All power companies and communication companies were and still are private. For most of the early to latter 19th century and much of the early 20th century the major intercity and interstate transportation system consisted of the railroads, all of which were private. Nationalization of utilities is not an American norm, nor the norm anywhere outside of socialistic government theory and socialistic (and Communistic governments.)
The Interstate system was a boondoggle set up by Eisenhower under a ploy that it was for "national defense" after he saw the system created by Germany's Nazi party. You want to defend an act which pretty much destroyed the passenger railroad system, set us up for our eventual reliance on foreign oil, not to mention increased pollution. (Throw in increased carbon footprint if you want. I don't believe in global warming, but I bet you do.)
The myth of people dying because the government doesn't control everyone's health care is getting a little thin. By law no hospital can turn away a patient from their emergency room, regardless of their ability to pay. Pharma gives away medicine to people who can't afford them. Charitable institutions, the Catholic Church, the Salvation Army, heck St Jude's Childrens Hospital, McDonald corporation, gives free health care to people who can't afford it. They do a damn sight more efficient job than the government will ever do.
As for letting citizens keeping their money being against the general welfare, that's especially idiotic. We all know how well countries work where the motto is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Their success is well documented in the poverty of their citizens as well as the massive grave sites of the bodies on which they were built, before they collapsed of their own weight or transformed into modern capitalist oligarchies.

Re:Copyright

[Ltap]

Letting them keep their money contributes more to general welfare ... for those with money.

Warning

[Darkness404]

Warning, this constitution is of its time, its views might not reflect the actions of those sworn to protect it and uphold it or the courts sworn to interpret it correctly.

Re:WARNING

[$RANDOMLUSER]

WARNING: This book is allegory, any relationship to beings or places, real or imaginary is purely co-incidental.

Re:Warning

[commodore64_love]

Well said.

Also what's the deal with calling the Constitution "classic"? It is a PRESENT document that still have the full force of law.

Re:Warning

[Darinbob]

I don't think they put this notice on merely the constitution as a stand alone document, but on a collection of historical documents as well including Federalist papers.

Also I think one thing to point out is the that if you read the constitution out of context, it says some very weird things. Ie, slavery is allowed, not everyone has an equal vote, etc. A flat out racist document. But in context you can see that these sections were amended much later. If people can outright ban Huckleberry Finn it because it's "racist" and people can't manage to read its entirety and put it in context, then a tiny warning on a collection of old documents that are the product of their times seems reasonable.

Inb4...

[Taevin]

In before the trolls!

*reads article*

Oh...

A Better Target

[MightyMartian]

I think the Bible would be a better book to slap that kind of a warning on.

Re:A Better Target

[tao]

You mean like http://www.emailvirals.com/data/media/1/bible-warning-label.jpg ?

Re:A Better Target

[Hognoxious]

But there are constitutional fundamentalists just like there are biblical ones. The only difference is how out of date their holy scriptures are.

Re:A Better Target

[lgw]

No, the difference is: there's a process to change the Constitution if you think it's outdated. The process is not "just ignore what you have sworn to uphold and defend". It requires a supermajority for a reason.

Without constitutional fundamentalism we have raw democracy: the tyranny of the majority writ large. It's not a good thing.

Re:A Better Target

[Darkness404]

So which parts of the constitution do you find is "out of date"? Is it that it protects the rights of citizens and requires a warrant for you to be searched according to it? Or is it that you don't like freedom of speech? Or is it that you don't believe we should have the right to legally bear arms to defend ourselves against criminals or, should it become a form of tyranny, the government? Or is it that you don't believe in the right to a trial by jury?

All of the things in the constitution are great guiding points, with the exception of the amendment allowing the income tax, and the (thankfully repealed) amendment allowing the prohibition of alcohol.

Re:A Better Target

[paulsnx2]

There is no doubt that the Bible relates a number of very scary concepts (The story of Lot, restricting warfare to damages no greater than inflicted upon your tribe (that eye for an eye thing), or even its revision by Jesus, i.e. Love for one's enemies and do good to those that hate you).

But the real question is why many people equate the Constitution to a Holy book. The Constitution does discuss slavery as if it were a reasonable institution, and that can be hard for children to deal with.

Does this require a warning label? I don't think so, but giving it one doesn't bother me given some of its historical contents.

Re:A Better Target

[thewiz]

How about slapping the same warning on all political commentary, books, papers, laws, bills, etc? At the beginning of political "news" shows?
Just because a document is hundreds of years old does NOT mean the truths and wisdom contained within are irrelevant due to the current point-of-view.

Re:A Better Target

[Taevin]

See, you prove Hognoxious' point: The only difference is how out of date the holy scriptures are.

All of the things in the constitution are great guiding points, with the exception

Just like the bible thumpers. It's all Good! Except for those parts we don't like.

Re:A Better Target

[toastar]

So which parts of the constitution do you find is "out of date"? Is it that it protects the rights of citizens and requires a warrant for you to be searched according to it? Or is it that you don't like freedom of speech? Or is it that you don't believe we should have the right to legally bear arms to defend ourselves against criminals or, should it become a form of tyranny, the government? Or is it that you don't believe in the right to a trial by jury?

All of the things in the constitution are great guiding points, with the exception of the amendment allowing the income tax, and the (thankfully repealed) amendment allowing the prohibition of alcohol.

I like to take this time to point out the hypocrisy of the supreme courts rulings on the constitutionality of drug prohibition.

Re:A Better Target

[Hatta]

So which parts of the constitution do you find is "out of date"? Is it that it protects the rights of citizens and requires a warrant for you to be searched according to it? Or is it that you don't like freedom of speech? Or is it that you don't believe we should have the right to legally bear arms to defend ourselves against criminals or, should it become a form of tyranny, the government? Or is it that you don't believe in the right to a trial by jury?

Most of those things are in fact out of date. That is, they don't describe our current government in the slightest.

Re:A Better Target

[Darkness404]

No, the difference is we can amend the constitution to repeal it. The problem is, such a thing wouldn't be ratified by the states because the states enjoy levying a blatantly constitutional tax.

To put it in a biblical context it would be a bit like the pope contradicting scripture and reverting back to the scripture.

Re:A Better Target

[Hognoxious]

The bit about a "Well regulated militia", for one. Do you really think them thar injuns are going to attack?

The real point is that there are those who think if it isn't mentioned in the constitution it isn't allowed (usually comes up with regard to drunk driving not being illegal, for some reason). Odd thing is the constitution doesn't say anything about cars at all - or airports, or television, or intarwebs...

Also remember where it says "all men" it meant not women and not blacks.

Re:A Better Target

[hoggoth]

Oh no, not those. None of those things are true anymore.

Re:A Better Target

[conspirator57]

Pol pot, Mao, and Stalin certainly didn't need any stinkin' bible to commit genocide. Plain human greed and sociopathy work just fine on their own. One might even reasonably think that hatred of religion qua religion is a red herring.

Re:A Better Target

[conspirator57]

/agree. totally. just like the declaration of war on terrorism. an amendment i'd like to see would prohibit declaring war on nouns.

Re:A Better Target

[Pharmboy]

Ramen. I think you must take the Constitution quite literally, as the primary purpose of the document is to LIMIT GOVERNMENTAL POWERS. That is the point most people miss. The whole idea of the Amendments was to insure that the minority wasn't oppressed by the majority.

Re:A Better Target

[commodore64_love]

>>>The Constitution does discuss slavery as if it were a reasonable institution

Woah, hold on there. The Southern delegates wanted the slaves counted as full persons, even though they were not treated as persons. The Northern delegates said the southern delegates were being hypocritical, treating their slaves as both property and persons at the same. The Abolitionists and the Plantationists were butting heads and threatening to tear apart this just-born country.

The Constitution does Not treat slavery as reasonable. It treats it as Unreasonable which is why there's the illogic of counting slaves as 3/5 people. Rather than create a civil war in 1786, a compromise was reached. Else there'd be no United States today.

I think the Founders made the wise decision of letting the U.S. exist, and fix the imperfections later. Which is what we eventually did

Re:A Better Target

[Ichijo]

So which parts of the constitution do you find is "out of date"?

Some say that the electoral college should be abolished.

Others think the right to bear arms should not include fully automatic firearms, while others think that right should be protected by the Constitution.

I'd like to see an amendment abolishing regressive taxes.

Re:A Better Target

[Ichijo]

[The process to change the Constitution] requires a supermajority for a reason.

It's ironic that the same document that guarantees democracy also makes itself resistant to change through the democratic process.

Re:A Better Target

[icebraining]

And nowhere in that warning does it say that the truths and wisdom of the Constitution are irrelevant. It says that the whole set of values hold by society in the time it was written is not the same hold by today's society. Some values have changed with time and one most account for that (and in fact, amendments are a reflect of those changes).

I don't see the problem with the warning. It would be a very bad sign if society's values hadn't changed in more than 200 years.

Re:A Better Target

[HeronBlademaster]

To put it in a biblical context it would be a bit like the pope contradicting scripture and reverting back to the scripture.

You know, some Christians believe commandments can be specific to a time period or group of people, and that those commandments may not be applicable outside that time or group, regardless of the size of the group or the duration of the time period.

(Actually, all Christians believe that, even if they don't realize it; one example would be Christ's teachings superceding the laws of Moses.)

Re:A Better Target

[Jhon]

The real point is that there are those who think if it isn't mentioned in the constitution it isn't allowed (usually comes up with regard to drunk driving not being illegal, for some reason). Odd thing is the constitution doesn't say anything about cars at all - or airports, or television, or intarwebs...

Because it's not mentioned in the Constitution, it's usually left up to the States (at least that's the way it's supposed to work) -- which is why, using your example. driving is usually considered a privilege which can be revoked. I find it "odd" that someone would use the Constitution in an argument to prove driving drunk *IS* legal. You *MIGHT* make the argument that it's *Constitutional* in that it isn't violating the Constitution.

The bit about a "Well regulated militia", for one. Do you really think them thar injuns are going to attack?

On that, I would suggest reading up on what our Founder's meant. My favorite is Richard Henry Lee (Virginia): "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

I'd suggest also reading Federalist 184-188.

Or Patrick Henry (another Virginian): "Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

Note: I do not own a gun. I do not WANT to own a gun. I do not like guns *OR* their intended purpose. I, however, cannot argue against a reasonable argument (especially on Constitutional grounds) that personal possession of a gun is a *RIGHT*. It is a right I chose not to exercise.

Re:A Better Target

[HeronBlademaster]

Do you really think them thar injuns are going to attack?

That was never the point of the second amendment. Did your US History classes really fail you so badly?

Also remember where it says "all men" it meant not women and not blacks.

It no longer means that, by virtue of the amendments that changed its meaning.

That's how amendments work, you see. They modify the meaning of the original text, such that the original text should now be taken in the context of the amendments which apply to it.

Re:A Better Target

[Anonymous Coward]

So which parts of the constitution do you find is "out of date"?

Sure, sure, assume the guy is a Democrat.

Maybe he's a Libertarian and thinks that the post roads should be run by private companies?

Maybe he's a Republican and thinks that getting a retroactive warrant to wiretap citizens is just too onerous.

Re:A Better Target

[History's Coming To]

Or even Principia... "This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today. You might wish to discuss with your children how views on space, time, the precession of orbits, the speed of light, and inertial reference frames have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work."

Re:A Better Target

[Godai]

That's kind of an ironic statement frankly. Often I've noticed that mere suggestion that the Constitution has any kind of flaw or that the founders were not somehow perfect to cause an incredible number of people to take umbrage. Which very close to the effect you get when you suggest the Bible isn't literal or might need some historical context.

None of that is to say the Constitution isn't a powerful document or that its framers weren't some smart guys, but good lord, no one and nothing is perfect. As others have pointed out, Amendments are proof of that. They should even be proof that Amendments themselves aren't necessarily above reproach ;)

Re:A Better Target

[MirthScout]

Not really. It recognizes that while democracy is often a good idea it can also be a pretty bad one if the minority isn't protected.

One example of democracy: 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner.

Re:A Better Target

[nomadic]

So which parts of the constitution do you find is "out of date"?

The implicit approval of slavery?

Re:A Better Target

[Hatta]

The real point is that there are those who think if it isn't mentioned in the constitution it isn't allowed

If it's not in the constitution it *isn't* allowed. That is, if a power is not specifically granted to the federal government by the constitution, it does not (legitimately) have that power.

Odd thing is the constitution doesn't say anything about cars at all - or airports, or television, or intarwebs...

Also remember where it says "all men" it meant not women and not blacks.

That's what the amendment process is for.

Re:A Better Target

[king neckbeard]

The constitution explicitly forbids slavery.

Re:A Better Target

[thue]

In a readable version: http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20050511132059/uncyclopedia/images/8/8e/BibleWarningLabel.jpg

Re:A Better Target

[vxice]

No that is not true. As a story about the son of god and his little stories about morality these things may have been written differently but can not be interpreted differently simply because we hung new calenders a few times. As moral doctrine given by a superior and perfect being it simply can not be incorrect or else this 'supreme being' was wrong. Now the stories can be misinterpreted and misused but if they say something clearly they can't be contradicted. This is how the church ends up covering up for rapists and contradicting science. As the moral guides with a special channel to god they simply can't be found to be wrong as a failure anywhere brings the whole system in doubt and previous established 'facts' have to be looked at differently with the potential of taking the religion the same way as Grecian-Roman paganism a few simple stories that failed to explain complexities in reality that were not understood and humans desperately wanted to control.

Re:A Better Target

[LaminatorX]

I'm thinking the bit about only white male landowners voting is a bit behind the times. Hooray for amendments.

Re:A Better Target

[lupis42]

There is another difference: our government claims one as the source of it's authority. Which one depends on who's in office, but it doesn't matter much, because nobody in office ever pays either more than lip service.

Re:A Better Target

[lgw]

Resistant is good: if prevents radical changes as a result of whims and fads. Study Athenian democracy some time - you'd be amazed what raw democracy can get up to.

Re:A Better Target

[lupis42]

I keep expecting us to declare War on war sooner or later. After all, we've already decided to be at war with terror, drugs, poverty, and hunger.

Re:A Better Target

[Dragonslicer]

Actually, a bunch of rabbis decided almost 2000 years ago that they had the authority to reinterpret the scripture and change the laws. Amusingly enough, they used a couple verses of scripture to justify their authority.

Re:A Better Target

[lupis42]

To be fair, what most of those people say is: "If it isn't part of the governments constitutionally enumerated powers, the government has no power to regulate it." What that actually means is that the government does not have the power to regulate cars (you can own whatever you want) but has the power to regulate roads (you can't drive it on the roads unless).

Of course, since the government manage to arrange it so that it has most of the guns (and all of the big ones), it has started to regulate things based on the ancient tradition of "just try and stop us".

Re:A Better Target

[king neckbeard]

Not really, since the US is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy.

Re:A Better Target

[Pharmboy]

If the US was a pure democracy, the Civil Rights movement would have been stopped in its tracks, just as an example. Pure democracy leads to Populism, which leads to Fascism. This is the whole reason why the US was never setup as a Democracy, and instead as a Democratic Republic.

IMO, they shouldn't have changed the way US Senators were elected, which is now less of a republican style system and more of a democracy. Then again, I'm pretty big on the individual States having most of the power and the Federal government ONLY doing the things that the States can't do, like defense, treaties, regulate interstate commerce, you know, the stuff in the actual Constitution that it is only supposed to be doing.

Re:A Better Target

[snowgirl]

All of the things in the constitution are great guiding points, with the exception of the amendment allowing the income tax, and the (thankfully repealed) amendment allowing the prohibition of alcohol.

What about the slavery stuff? That slaves were worth only 3/5ths of a person? That's apparently according to you a "great guiding point"?

And the 16th Amendment did not "allow the income tax", it just authorized Congress to collect "direct taxes" without it being apportioned among the several states. So, to clear it up: before the 16th amendment, there were income taxes. Before the 16th amendment, there could be property taxes, but those taxes would have had to have been collected apportioned among the states based on population. (So, people in California would have to pay a larger hypothetical Federal Property Tax than those in Wyoming... regardless of a Californian owning only a quarter acre, but a Wyoming resident owning 100 acres. The Californian would still pay more tax in this case.)

Re:A Better Target

[Ichijo]

Upmod parent!

Re:A Better Target

[eparker05]

I do believe that more so than any other section of the constitution we are ignoring article 1, section 8; the enumeration of the powers of congress.

Many people would like to forget that the centralized government of our nation was meant to be weak and primarily used for defense and diplomacy. You see, prior to the foundation of the US, the word 'State' referred to an independently governed nation. Hence the name, United States. Maybe we should change the name of our country to "The united group of quasi-distinct geographic areas of america".

Re:A Better Target

[paulsnx2]

The *constitution* does not discuss all the points you are making, but simply lays out the plan *for that time*. The warning label suggests you should consider the historical perspective into account when reading the constitution.

Nothing in the constitution goes any further than to count a slave as 3/5's a person without giving them rights. Not until the 13th amendment is slavery abolished, and not until the 15th amendment is citizenship and the vote guaranteed without regard to race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

No commentary is provided in the constitution on these matters. Nothing to say the previous rules were morally suspect. It just says what they were.

Which underlines the need to understand the constitution in a historical context. We SHOULD understand the constitution within the context you yourself described. It isn't too unreasonable to suggest the reader understand the historical context. But as I said, I don't think it is necessary; the reader ought to be able to understand the need to know the historical context of the constitution via common sense.

Re:A Better Target

[natehoy]

The document guarantees rights to the citizens and lays out the functions and limitations of government.

The resistance to change is intentional, and utterly vital, because otherwise a simple majority could stomp all over the rights of the minority, and the document would be shredded and rewritten every time we have an election.

The Constitution "guarantees democracy" by limiting the control of the government over the rights of its citizens. One of those limitations is the speed at which the Constitution itself can be changed.

We elect our government, and it takes a lot of our elected leaders following a deliberate process to change the underlying rules which restrain our government's actions.

The fact that it is hard to change is vital to the survival of the democracy itself.

Having said that, the original Constitution as written was written during a very different time. Technology has changed, society has changed, the very definition of a "citizen" has changed (women, people who don't own land, and black people can be full citizens now. Try to imagine that concept coming up during the Constitutional Congress - you'd have been laughed out of the room and probably spend some time in the stocks having rotten vegetables lobbed at you for such nonsense). We've updated the Constitution to fit the new ideals we want to uphold as a nation. And that's exactly as it should be.

So I think reading the Constitution is an exercise in understanding the times during which it was written to understand what the words on paper mean.

And, sometimes, updating the verbiage to reflect and even sometimes modernize the ideals behind it is more important than worship of the actual words as written. But that's why it's hard to change - updates require a deliberate and hopefully thoughtful process. It needs to change, but it needs a certain level of stability and continuity as well.

The people who made up the system were really pretty smart. They had their faults and weaknesses, but the Constitution was a good job.

Re:A Better Target

[sycodon]

I'm sure many here will consider you a racists for harboring these views.

Re:A Better Target

[nomadic]

As amended. The original Constitution as drafted implicitly approved it.

Re:A Better Target

[dougmc]

The constitution explicitly forbids slavery.

The original version did no such thing. (That came later.) At the very least it acknowledged that slavery existed, which is somewhat like approving of it, though I wouldn't use language that's quite that strong.

Acknowledgment of slavery wasn't the only thing to offend us today. For example, it also only permitted men to vote.

Re:A Better Target

[russotto]

But the real question is why many people equate the Constitution to a Holy book. The Constitution does discuss slavery as if it were a reasonable institution, and that can be hard for children to deal with.

The Constitution does NOT discuss slavery as if it were a reasonable institution. It tiptoes around the subject, using euphemism and circumlocution. The two clauses about slavery prior to the 13th Amendment (abolishing it) are the three-fifths compromise, which refers to "all other persons" as opposed to free persons, and a clause which looks like an immigration clause to anyone who doesn't know the history:

Article I Section 9
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Re:A Better Target

[russotto]

What about the slavery stuff? That slaves were worth only 3/5ths of a person? That's apparently according to you a "great guiding point"?

*sigh*. The pro-slavery South wanted slaves to be counted in full. The anti-slavery North wanted slaves not to be counted at all. The three-fifths compromise says nothing about the worth of the slaves as people; if it did, it would have been the South which wanted the lower number, not the higher.

Re:A Better Target

[king neckbeard]

This is not the original version. If anybody is shipping the original version, they should be quickly notified that they are centuries out of date. Also, I'm pretty sure that the constitution hasn't ever said only men can vote. It just didn't guarantee the rights of women, 18-year olds, non-whites, etc. until there were amendments doing so.

Re:A Better Target

[mc6809e]

Also remember where it says "all men" it meant not women and not blacks.

It did mean blacks -- free blacks.

And some of them, like William Ellison, were even free enough to own other blacks and fight for the confederacy during the civil war.

Re:A Better Target

[tthomas48]

"So which parts of the constitution do you find is "out of date"?" The second amendment is pretty glaringly dated.

I like the one allowing the income tax. I think interstate travel and communication have revolutionized the world. Granted it funds the military, but we also get good things like Social Security. So I'd say on a day-to-day basis the 16th amendment has a whole lot more value than that archaic second one. The world's changed. As much as the idea of being able to overthrow the government sounds good in theory, the last decent attempt (Civil War) was a resounding failure and that was before the US military become the most powerful in the world. The second amendment is a joke that should be repealed. You're not overthrowing the government with your guns.

The world's changed. We should either repeal the second amendment in an effort to reduce gun violence in the US, or we should weaken the US military to achieve balance with the aims of the second amendment. As it stands now it's really just an affront to common sense.

Re:A Better Target

[snowgirl]

I'm aware of the reasons for why slaves were counted as less than a full "other person".

However, my point is: SLAVERY?! VALID?!

That's why you need historical context on historical documents.

Key Point: If the Constitution were written anew today, it would contain no such wording that would allow for slavery at all.

Re:A Better Target

[phantomfive]

Still, the interpretation you give (which I feel is correct), doesn't seem to allow for the limiting of any weapons. In other words, it seems like it would allow average people to own nuclear weapons. This is clearly not a good idea.

We've let the supreme court judges decide what is the dividing line between arms covered by the constitution and those that aren't. I am not sure this is a good idea: it seems it should have been addressed by a constitutional amendment.

Re:A Better Target

[geekoid]

All of them had blind faith in something.
The bible teaches people to accept authority on blind faith.

Just to clue you in: You must have blind faith to be a religion.

The bible teaches ignorance and hate.

Re:A Better Target

[geekoid]

If only it was still that clear.
We live in a world where almost everything crosses state lines .

Re:A Better Target

[Myopic]

It would be reasonable for a Christian to say that Jesus, the one and true living embodiment of the everlasting father, has a prerogative to change rules that mere humans do not have. That is, The Son delivering believers from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant is fundamentally different than some schmoe deciding to put an asterisk in the Holy Bible.

Of course, as a non-Christian, to me that sounds like a bunch of poppycock.

Re:A Better Target

[Myopic]

Your post makes me realize how happy I am that your unworkable ideology is not more pervasive. Luckily, it can't become very common, because as soon as it does things fall apart, and the pendulum swings the other way again. Protecting ourselves against your belief system is exhausting, but well worth the effort.

Re:A Better Target

[HeronBlademaster]

What's poppycock? That the guy who made the rules has more right to change them than someone else?

I'm pretty sure that's how society works - in families, the parents have much more right to change their own rules than their kids, for example.

The fact that the described situation is "Jesus + Bible" is more or less irrelevant to the concept.

Re:A Better Target

[Myopic]

Seriously. When people make that argument I want to scream.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude ... shall exist within the United States

Ever so rarely, Americans learn their lesson and write it down somewhere important so they don't forget.

Re:A Better Target

[Myopic]

Indeed, that's how pragmatic governments move forward. Cross reference to the recent health care legislation. It doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to be better than the previous policy, and we can keep fixing it (or scrap it altogether) later if we want to. Also cross reference to welfare, significantly modified in the 1990s. Also cross reference to... well, any policy pretty much.

Re:A Better Target

[dougmc]

I don't know what version it is -- I haven't bought the book. And even with the current version, with all the amendments, it's clear that the writers of Constitution supported (or at least didn't condemn) slavery, at least for a while. (And yes, I do understand the reasons why. Had they condemned slavery in the Constitution, the US might have never existed.)

You do appear to be right about it not restricting voting to men (that would seem to have been done by the states themselves, my bad.)

And it seems that they use the same disclaimer for all their historical documents from the era, so it may make more sense with some of the other ones.

Ultimately, while I think the disclaimer is silly, I think all the hub-bub over it is just as silly.

Re:A Better Target

[king neckbeard]

I can see no reason why it wouldn't be the most up to date version. The criticism seems to be that it has a clause regarding slavery (not really endorsing it) that has been nullified by a later amendment that explicitly forbids it. To me, that covers the issue better than disclaimer.

Re:A Better Target

[Jhon]

Still, the interpretation you give (which I feel is correct), doesn't seem to allow for the limiting of any weapons. In other words, it seems like it would allow average people to own nuclear weapons. This is clearly not a good idea.

I disagree. The right to arms is not absolute in a similar way as the right to free speach isn't absolute.

Re:A Better Target

[Anonymous Coward]

So which parts of the constitution do you find is "out of date"?

"three fifths of all other Persons".

For example.

Re:A Better Target

[frank_adrian314159]

there's a process to change the Constitution if you think it's outdated.

There's also a process for the Supreme Court to decide what is constitutional and what isn't. It's odd how the supposed "strict constructionists" seem to ignore that part. Of course, you're always welcome to impeach or replace upon death, if you disagree.

Re:A Better Target

[Hatta]

If you haven't noticed, things are falling apart. If obeying the Constitution is so unworkable, why bother having one?

Re:A Better Target

[Wovel]

And you just placed the context the warning suggested. Perhaps they were right, it is apparent a lot of people misunderstand.

Re:A Better Target

[Kirijini]

...the primary purpose of the document is to LIMIT GOVERNMENTAL POWERS.

The Constitution was drafted to fix the Articles of Confederation, which gave the national government too little power. So actually I think the primary purpose of the Constitution was to provide strong governmental powers to the national government - but, in a way that was stable and prevented tyranny.

Re:A Better Target

[klui]

I agree that minorities' rights should be protected. But would an amendment even pass if the majority does not consider minorities' rights as valid in the first place? Wouldn't senators and representatives listen to the majority of their constituents? Look at California's law that banned gay marriage. The argument for the law was: the majority has spoken. An interesting dilemma.

Re:A Better Target

[Pharmboy]

I'm sure many here will consider you a racists for harboring these views.

Then those people either don't know me, or are idiots. And one of those possibilities is absolutely true. I will leave it to you to figure out which.

Re:A Better Target

[Pharmboy]

We live in a world where almost everything crosses state lines .

It depends on how you look at it. Most mortgages are 20% to 30% of a persons income, and are either locally paid or rightfully paid under interstate regulations (ie: can't charge 88% interest). You buy food locally, after it is brought in from other states, where the feds have food safety regulations that apply to all states, rightfully. Most of your expenses are local, although the items fall under interstate trade to get to the store. The feds coming in and regulating interstate trade *is* a good thing, so that if you buy a pair of Levis (or an apple, or a car) in Georgia or in North Dakota, they are pretty much to the same safety standards and the primary difference in price is the cost of transportation to you. In short, while stuff comes from everywhere, the actual money changing hands is still primarily done locally.

What makes it LOCAL is the local store has a state issued business license, pays state sales tax, property tax, etc. The largest portion of profit is the last step, at the local store (ie: widget costs $1 to make, sold to distributor for $2, who sells it to the individual store for $3, who sells it to you for $5 or more). When you eat in a cafe, the beef is USDA inspected, but the cafe itself is subject to state heath regulations, to insure your prepared meal is fit for consumption. This is the most vulnerable stage in the food prep. Even bacteria laden food can be safe to eat if handled and cooked properly and completely, as an example.

The system, as designed, works perfectly. The system, as practiced, needs less federal interjection and more local oversight.

Re:A Better Target

[Pharmboy]

The Constitution was drafted to fix the Articles of Confederation,

Well, yes and no. The Articles of Confederation was too weak, but the idea behind the Constitution was to allow the federal government to act on behalf of all states where it was impractical for the states to do so (war, treaties), and without having to take a vote for every decision. The founders were *afraid* of granting too much power, rightfully so, so made it clear that all powers not granted in the constitution would be automatically the individual state's responsibility. They wanted the fed to do those things the states can't do, and nothing more, else too much power would be in one place. We don't run the country that way now, but reading the Federalist Papers and the Constitution seem to make it pretty clear that they wanted the Fed to be strong in international affairs, but weaker than the individual states internally.

The Articles of Confederation were in effect for less than a decade and it seems that it was designed to be a stepping stone or a temporary state from the start. I'm no expert, but that is how I understand it.

Re:A Better Target

[Abcd1234]

I disagree. The right to arms is not absolute in a similar way as the right to free speach isn't absolute.

Sorry, no, that's a false analogy.

The right to free speech is limited *only* in the case where your exercising your right to free speech infringes on one of my rights. Which is, of course, why shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is illegal: by exercising that right, you infringe on the rights of others to be safe and secure (thanks to the stampede that would ensue).

But in no way does my owning a nuclear weapon infringe on any of your rights (unless, of course, that weapon is stored unsafely, but that applies to regular ol' ammunition, too... after all, if you keep your bullets near your furnace and they go off, burning your house down, you very well may take mine with it). As such, there is absolutely no grounds to limit the right to own *any* weapon, as per the second amendment, unless the simple ownership of that weapon infringes upon the rights of others (eg, leaking canisters of sarin, etc).

Re:A Better Target

[Bigjeff5]

Exactly, the most that should be permitted is regulation of how dangerous chemicals/compounds/devices can be stored when not in use, and where they can be used recreationally (in some cases, like Nukes, the answer would be "nowhere").

That's it.

If my use of my property infringes your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then my right to use my property in that way ends. I.E. if I shoot you, and you die, I lose the right to use my gun(s). If I did it on purpose, I lose all of my rights, up to and including my right to life.

We already have a framework to deal with it, and if something in the Constitution truly is out of date, then get the frickin super-majority and 38-state ratification to change it.

Saying "Oh that doesn't apply any more" is utter bullshit.

Re:A Better Target

[Bigjeff5]

What about the slavery stuff? That slaves were worth only 3/5ths of a person? That's apparently according to you a "great guiding point"?

First off, slavery was never endorsed by the Constitution. It was simply not prohibited. As slaves were never considered citizens, the constitution and its protections did not apply to them.

Second, are all your copies of the Constitution over 150+ years old? Or did you miss the part where that got changed? Where the Republican party was formed which had as a primary tenant that no man should be enslaved by another. Lincoln won, you know, and fought a war directly related to slavery (it was not, however, fought specifically to free the slaves, though that was an ultimate goal). Slaves were never counted at all, the Southern states wanted slaves to count for 3/5 for the purposes of representation - the fact that they did not get it ultimately led them to attempt to seceed from the Union, and the Civil War began.

Not long after the Civil War, we got the 13th amendment, which - oh my god - changed the Constitution! That's right! If it's truly out of date, we can change it! It has happened almost 30 times before, I'm sure we could manage again when an issue is truly important enough.

Seriously, where the fuck did you learn history, a public school?

Re:A Better Target

[Myopic]

Absolutely true. To be a little more specific, the poppycock is the mythology itself, not so much the internal rule.

Re:A Better Target

[mrmeval]

Slavery was not abolished. You can still be enslaved if convicted of a crime.

Re:A Better Target

[snowgirl]

First off, slavery was never endorsed by the Constitution. It was simply not prohibited. As slaves were never considered citizens, the constitution and its protections did not apply to them.

Correct, however, modern society would still find it objectionable to not prohibit slavery.

This is a historical record, and should be viewed with an eye to history.

Second, are all your copies of the Constitution over 150+ years old? Or did you miss the part where that got changed?

A) I imagine the historical text presented in the summary, is based on the exact wording of the original document.

B) The Constitution even when changed and altered due to amendments does not have text deleted from it. The Constitution still says all this stuff. When the Constitution has been noted as altered or changed, then the regular legal amendment formatting is used; with strike-through used for text that is no longer in effect, and underlines for text that has been added.

Not long after the Civil War, we got the 13th amendment, which - oh my god - changed the Constitution! That's right! If it's truly out of date, we can change it! It has happened almost 30 times before, I'm sure we could manage again when an issue is truly important enough.

Again, quite true, and accurate. However, the original document still states a neutral tolerant attitude towards slavery.

Teaching that the US Constitution never had such an apathetic tone towards slavery is kind of disingenuous towards the representation of history.

Seriously, where the fuck did you learn history, a public school?

Yes, I did learn it from a public school, and from a state land-grant college. And the copy of the constitution that I always learned from at most had strikeouts on the text that was no longer in force, but yet still remained, because it would be disingenuous to represent the Constitution otherwise.

Re:A Better Target

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, because if you don't follow and the words they decree as law. You'll be sent to where is enacted on you until or

You could apply this phase my madlibing in Pol pot, Mao, Stalin, or even. Jesus meek and mild, or for the Muslims their Prophet.

Re:A Better Target

[Hognoxious]

Thanks for all the downmods. Freedom of speech - as long as you say stuff the hivemind agrees with.

Re:A Better Target

[Anonymous Coward]

Then again, I'm pretty big on the individual States having most of the power and the Federal government ONLY doing the things that the States can't do,

Why? Beyond the obvious answer of "because that's what the constitution says", I mean. Why is it a good thing that the constitution says this?

If the federal government is in charge of things, then that means that my life is being regulated by a bunch of guys far away who don't know me, have never met me (and never will), and don't care about me in the slightest. If the state government is in charge of things, then, well, my life is being regulated by a bunch of guys far away who don't know me, have never met me (and never will), and don't care about me in the slightest.

There is something to be said in favor of subsidiarity: making decisions at the lowest possible level. At the same time, I never understood the simplistic "feds = bad, states = good" approach that many people on Slashdot seem to have.

But maybe it really is just me - maybe I really am missing the obvious. So please educate me.

Re:A Better Target

[merockstar]

He's right... it is out of date.

Is it that it protects the rights of citizens and requires a warrant for you to be searched according to it?

Yes because any jerk-off cop can search me on the spot if he thinks he smells pot.

Or is it that you don't like freedom of speech?

Except for there are loitering laws, laws aimed at preventing gangs, and just about half a dozen other ways to bypass our right to peaceful assemblage... Not to mention that...

Or is it that you don't believe we should have the right to legally bear arms to defend ourselves against criminals or, should it become a form of tyranny, the government?

That the last part of that statement is practically treason, and the first part doesn't include felons (some of which can be non-violent in nature), and that now sectors both public and private institute policies that prevent carrying weapons onto their property, effectively meaning that in most places of importance only the criminally minded would have a gun.

Or is it that you don't believe in the right to a trial by jury?

I can't argue with this one... it's actually a pretty good system if you can afford a lawyer. How does the constitution not need modernized, badly?

Re:A Better Target

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, a bunch of politicians decided that they had the authority to change the constitution. Amusingly enough, they used a couple articles of the constitution to justify their authority.

Re:A Better Target

[Chakra5]

The argument that many transgressions have been perpetrated without the bible, seems a fallacious response to the parent. These apples are all red, therefore no apples are green. Perhaps "Proof by example"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example additionally there was no hatred for the bible stated. Without clarification, we do not know if the parent was making a point against to book itself or the people who interpret it.

Re:A Better Target

[sjames]

A pure simple democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. They knew that and so made it hard to just vote away the recognition of fundamental rights.

Re:A Better Target

[Eli Gottlieb]

The problem is that it requires a supermajority of Congress and the States, so it actually goes through multiple levels of indirection, politicking and general corruption before the necessary votes can be mustered to amend the damn thing.

Re:A Better Target

[Eli Gottlieb]

The part I find out-of-date is the bit where the Senate still exists and such important institutions as judicial review and the right to privacy aren't even in the bloody text.

Re:A Better Target

[tomhudson]

We live in a world where almost everything crosses state lines .

[_] I don't care how many "V14GR4" spams you answered - it ain't that big!
[_] You must be from Arizona. Mexicans are people, not things, you insensitive clod!
[_] In Soviet Russia, State crosses YOU!
[_] "Where's the state line for Texas?" "I think it's somewhere in Houston".
[_] I'm a Libertarian - I color outside the lines!
[_] I'm a Republican - boundaries are for other people
[_] I'm a Democrat - erase those lines!
[_] I'm Sarah Palin - I've crossed the state lines of all 43 states! You betcha!
[_] I'm Joe Lieberman - state lines aren't the only things I cross.
[_] I'm Steve Jobs - I draw the line - and I'll move it whenever I damn well please.
[_] I'm a birther - Hawaii's state line doesn't count!
[_] I'm Google - your data crosses state lines whether you want it to or not.
[_] I'm Microsoft - as part of our new cloud-any-time initiative your computer is p0wned across state lines.
[_] I'm linux - there are no proprietary lines in our code.

It's morons like this..

[vinn]

It's morons like this that give the morons I hate on the right ammunition.

Re:It's morons like this..

[tverbeek]

“insulting,” “sickening” and “frankly, horrifying.”

Yep the fake outrage from the right-wingers is happening just as you'd expect.

Re:It's morons like this..

[Daimaou]

Personally, I think it is moronic to hate the right or the left, unless you are going to hate them both. In all relevant ways, they are essentially the same thing, and not understanding that just shows one isn't paying attention.

Teabaggers

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, the constitution is valid for all time. Bring back slavery! No votes for bitches!

Re:Teabaggers

[dreamchaser]

What a failed troll...since both of those were fixed with Amendments. That's how it's done, you know...

Re:Teabaggers

[Low Ranked Craig]

I would direct you to the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments which are part of the constitution and kindly ask that you STFU.

Re:Teabaggers

[CheshireCatCO]

So was income tax, but I've heard quite a few Tea Party folks claiming it's unconstitutional.

Re:Teabaggers

[geekoid]

Exactly his point. The teabaggers think the constitution is not a living document. Even though anyone actually reading it's history and the federalist papers knows for a fact is WAS designed as a living document.

Most of these idiots also think the new testament was written by people who knew Jesus. Idiots and morons.

Re:Teabaggers

[Compholio]

I would direct you to the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments which are part of the constitution and kindly ask that you STFU.

I would direct you to the 1st Amendment and kindly request that you not ask others to STFU ;)

Re:Teabaggers

[n2art2]

Oh, come on mods. . . that was funny.

Re:Teabaggers

[AhabTheArab]

Exactly his point. The teabaggers

OK, stop there. You know damn well they're not called the "teabaggers". What is up with people calling them that? Are they trying to be funny? trying to sound smart? Grow the fuck up.

Re:Teabaggers

[psmears]

I would direct you to the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments which are part of the constitution and kindly ask that you STFU.

Women's votes not important to you then? They had to wait for the 19th to guarantee that!

Re:Teabaggers

[ajlitt]

I would direct you to the 1st Amendment which grants the GP the right to kindly ask others to STFU and gives you the right to kindly request that the GP not ask others to STFU ;)

Re:Teabaggers

[Talderas]

Yes, and anyone who read the Federalist Papers would also understand that the general welfare clause was not in itself a grant of power to the federal government, but rather discussing why the federal government was granted the powers it was given.

Likewise, many writings by the Founders, as well as definitions of the time, suggest that the commerce clause would not apply the manufacture of goods, but rather the exchange or transport of goods.

Re:Teabaggers

[$RANDOMLUSER]

I would direct you to the second amendment, which says if you all don't STFU, something bad is gonna happen.

Re:Teabaggers

[conspirator57]

meaning they would prefer to repeal the amendment that enabled it. given the big brother thing you might want to start considering that reducing federal cognizance of individuals might be for the best.

or put another way, i don't hold the idiotic statements of some members of the left against the left's valid arguments. e.g. those claiming that the healthcare bill wasn't a giant gift to the very corporations that the left blame (and to a large extent justifiably) for the problems in our system. the honest people on the left acknowledge that the Democrat party got subverted by the very special interests Obama claimed he would not allow to dictate policy when he was campaigning.

Re:Teabaggers

[Anonymous Coward]

To oversimplify, there are two senses of so-called "Living Document."

The conservative view: it is a living document in the sense that as times change, it can be changed by amendment. The rules aren't set in stone; we just have to sit down and carefully think out what we want, make sure it is what we want, vote on it, and make the necessary changes.

The liberal view: it is a living document in that it says whatever we want it to say, whenever we want it to say it. If it doesn't say what we want it to say, well, then that part is 'old and outdated' or 'doesn't reflect the times' and we can ignore it.

The first view makes change slowly; there is no instant gratification. We have a damn hard constitution to change compared to other nations -- Ireland, for example, requires only a simple majority vote, 50.1% -- but it serves to protect somewhat against passing fads and the very real tyranny of the majority. (It doesn't always work, e.g., prohibition, but it works most of the time.) It also means that injustice can take time to be eliminated. Finally, there are definitely gaps in the Constitution; ours is one of the briefest written. It's a version 1.1 Constitution (1.0 being the Magna Carta in Western society), where other nations have had 200 years to see what works and what doesn't. The 9th & 10th amendment reserve those 'gaps' to the states & people. If there's been no legislation there, it should be legal conduct. Conversely, one does well to remember that the ambit of 'health, welfare, and police power' is quite a area in which the states can act.

The second view though is just downright dangerous. It basically throws the rule of law right out the window. It isn't about saying "Man means man, woman, and child" in the Constitution, it's about saying entire sections are contrary to their plain language. Jurisprudence took a major nosedive in The New Deal and hasn't recovered since. For an example of a Living Constitution, read George Orwell's Animal Farm

Ultimately, for me, I trust a Justice like Hugo Black to do his job -- even if he is more extreme than my views -- more than I do someone like Justice John Paul Stevens, who plays fast and loose with the Constitution at times.

Final thoughts... We are not a homogeneous people by any means. We're probably the most diverse populace on earth in terms of ethnicity, culture, values, etc. Does it make any sense at all that the exact same principles should apply to everyone? Only in the most basic sense, to guarantee our rights to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Californians are not Texans are not Alaskans are not New Yorkers. Each state has laws to fit its populace and the Constitution should not be bent willy-nilly to try to make them the same. If we wanted the exact same, we'd change the laws ourselves.

(Also, please don't get into the trap of arguing, "Oh woe is me, politicians are corrupt, the government is corrupt, I shall never get my way!" That's just plain horse shit. That's the same people who either vote and bitch that the system is broken because they lose, or worse, don't vote "because my vote doesn't matter" and then continue to bitch anyway. If you've got a better system, let's hear it -- it still beats everything else out there.)

Re:Teabaggers

[heruvian]

Actually, they were the ones that said they were going to teabag this and teabag that.
I program computers, I am a programmer. They teabag the white house (their words), they are teabaggers.

Re:Teabaggers

[Maltheus]

More precisely, the claim is that it was never fulled ratified and therefore not an amendment. And that even if it was, income was defined as having to do with financial investments and therefore the law can make no claim against wages (i.e. the money exchanged for your labor). It's become inverted over time with wages now being taxed at a higher percentage than the gambling income on Wall Street.

Re:Teabaggers

[CheshireCatCO]

That's a claim, not the claim. You can easily find people who will assert that it's flat-out unconstitutional to have an income tax and completely ignore the amendment.

Re:Teabaggers

[HeronBlademaster]

Most of these idiots also think the new testament was written by people who knew Jesus. Idiots and morons.

I'm curious to see what evidence you have that it wasn't written by people who knew Jesus. If you'd prefer to avoid a religion-fueled flamewar, feel free to send an e-mail. I won't even reply to it (unless you want me to), I'm just interested in your evidence ;)

Re:Teabaggers

[NNKK]

They called themselves teabaggers. It was months later that they tried to rewrite history because it inconveniently exposed them for the morons they are.

Re:Teabaggers

[Low Ranked Craig]

The constitution is absolutely a living document. and the way to make edits is: Before an amendment can take effect, it must be proposed to the states by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or by a convention called by two-thirds of the states, and ratified by three-fourths of the states or by three-fourths of conventions thereof, the method of ratification being determined by Congress at the time of proposal.

Before calling people idiots and morons perhaps you should take a basic civics class to learn a little bit about what the fuck you're talking about. You're the one that sounds like an ignorant moron at this point.

Re:Teabaggers

[Low Ranked Craig]

Touche. However, I am not the government so I can ask you to STFU without infringing on your rights.

Re:Teabaggers

[Imagix]

Wait, doesn't the 2nd amendment let you guys carry arms... but it doesn't say that you can discharge them....

Re:Teabaggers

[conspirator57]

umm... the "conservatives" played plenty fast and loose with the constitution over the past decade. See for reference the Bush administration, specifically John Yoo's memos "justifying" torture, denial of Habeas, warantless domestic wiretapping, etc.

Oh, you meant the paleo-conservatives. my bad. but no one listens to them anymore.

so to recap:

the left thinks the constitution says whatever they want it to.

the right thinks the constitution says whatever they want it to.

Re:Teabaggers

[snowgirl]

meaning they would prefer to repeal the amendment that enabled it. given the big brother thing you might want to start considering that reducing federal cognizance of individuals might be for the best.

Repealing that amendment would only make income due to property (rent, etc) necessary to be apportioned among the states based on population.

Income Tax from employment is based on an event... a transfer of property/cash from an employer to an employee.

Re:Teabaggers

[Red Flayer]

I think you might want to do some quick googling for your information. There is plenty of evidence that this is the case.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a biblical scholar who would say that the books of the bible were written by contemporaries of Jesus, let alone friends of his.

There are literally hundreds of theses written by DD candidates on this subject.

Re:Teabaggers

[Ambiguous Puzuma]

I believe the origin was a Tea Party follower with a sign reading "TEA BAG the LIBERAL DEMS BEFORE THEY TEA BAG YOU !!" At least that's the first instance I encountered associating "tea bag" (as a verb) with the movement. In other words, they brought it on themselves, to some extent.
http://washingtonindependent.com/31868/scenes-from-the-new-american-tea-party (2009-02-27)

That said, the joke should have died right there, after one good laugh at their expense. I do cringe when the term "teabagger" is used now, over a year later.

Re:Teabaggers

[Real1tyCzech]

That was stupid from the get-go.

There was no limitation set forth in either of the founding documents regarding which sexes could and could not vote. As such, the feds had no right to restrict it...ever. It shouldn't have been an amendment. It should have an a SCotUS ruling that such restrictions were unconstitutional.

Re:Teabaggers

[conspirator57]

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxvi

Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Article 9 ...
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

care to poison the well some more?

you're half right. but without the 16th amendment the progressive income tax would be impossible. which is the only reason the left likes it in the first place. how about trying a progressive sales tax?

Re:Teabaggers

[snowgirl]

Article 9 ...
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

This does not apply to income tax (beyond income from property).

The 16th amendment is not necessary for a progressive income tax.

Congress already had limitless ability to lay and collect taxes that were not direct, and only three taxes are known to be direct (in so far as the US constitutional law definition is concerned): Capitation, Property Tax, and Income Tax from Property.

Re:Teabaggers

[HeronBlademaster]

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a biblical scholar who would say that the books of the bible were written by contemporaries of Jesus, let alone friends of his.

Hard pressed? I can think of half a dozen biblical scholars off the top of my head that I have met personally who are quite certain the Bible was written by people who were friends of Jesus.

At any rate, do you have any suggested search terms? The ones I've tried so far lead to articles questioning the existence of Jesus himself; while that would indirectly prove that the Bible authors could not have known Jesus, there is plenty of secular evidence that Jesus did exist, so I'd prefer to see this supposed evidence that the Bible authors themselves could not have known Jesus.

Re:Teabaggers

[HeronBlademaster]

Perhaps I should clarify: I know some of the books of the Bible specifically were not written by men who knew Jesus before his death and resurrection, but the Bible itself is clear about that.

I'm interested, specifically, in evidence that Matthew and Mark, who were (according to the Bible) two of the twelve disciples that followed Jesus around during his life, were not actually personally acquainted Jesus.

Re:Teabaggers

[dougmc]

The 1st amendment says that the GOVERNMENT will not censor people. It says nothing about other citizens telling you to STFU.

(Yes, it was funny.)

Re:Teabaggers

[Anonymous Coward]

There are many ways in which tax resisters claim this, one of which was that the amendment was improperly ratified, another that it may have legalized the income tax but didn't legalize any plausible method of enforcement. They aren't ignorant of the fact that there's an amendment establishing it.

Re:Teabaggers

[MindlessAutomata]

No, the problem is that "living document" means something -other- than that. It refers not to altering the constitution but reinterpreting the constitution for current times.

Re:Teabaggers

[geekoid]

Which is fine until different pieces of a "good" started being manufactured in different states.

Re:Teabaggers

[geekoid]

That's exactly what I said. Why are you calling me ignorant and a moron?

Re:Teabaggers

[geekoid]

That's what they call themselves. I'm not making that up. I watched them use that term to discribe themselve abd 4 times in on conversation.

I tried to explain why it was a bad name and they went off on there right to speech and called me a "Hollywood liberal" who wants to 'removed everyones right to free speech"
Yeah, you can't make the shit up.

Take it up with them.

Re:Teabaggers

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Most people from the Tea Party camp I've talked to just say that the income tax is a great example of how the government refuses to give back powers it has been granted, regardless of how temporary they were supposed to be. Like the Patriot Act, for example.

Re:Teabaggers

[Myopic]

Hah! Wait until 2050, when we are still using that word to deride idiot ideologue conservatives. (Not all conservatives mind you, only the idiot ideologues.)

Re:Teabaggers

[Red Flayer]

I mistook when I said you'd be hard-pressed... but most critical scholars would agree.

For the Gospel of Matthew, it's generally accepted (though still debated) that Matthew didn't even write the Gospel.

For the Gospel of Mark, it's generally accepted that Mark actually wrote it. But what we know as the Gospel of Mark is likely more than what he originally wrote, especially considering that there are at least four extant versions of the end of the Gospel.

I'm no biblical expert... I took an 'adult enrichment' class in the history of the bible about ten years ago, and have read some about it. I recall less than what is in Wikipedia, which is where I confirmed the above. Hope you can find the kind of sources you're looking for.

Re:Teabaggers

[HeronBlademaster]

but most critical scholars would agree.

So if a scholar does not agree, he isn't critical enough? ;)

For the Gospel of Mark, it's generally accepted that Mark actually wrote it. But what we know as the Gospel of Mark is likely more than what he originally wrote, especially considering that there are at least four extant versions of the end of the Gospel.

So your argument is that because Mark wrote more than what we have in our current New Testament, then... what? This has no bearing on whether or not Mark knew Jesus.

Besides which, I would agree that the Bible as we have it is incomplete and contains many translation errors; this doesn't affect whether or not the original authors knew Jesus.

If you're going to argue that the authors could not have known Jesus, you're going to have to give evidence of that claim.

Wikipedia has some good information on the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, but the Wikipedia entries don't appear to give any historical evidence either way regarding the existence of the apostles.

The Wikipedia entry on the Gospel of Matthew only states the following:

Many scholars today believe that "canonical Matt was originally written in Greek by a non-eyewitness whose name is unknown to us and who depended on sources like Mark and Q". However, other scholars disagree variously on these points.

That doesn't read like it's "generally accepted"; quite the contrary, it seems to indicate that it's a subject of much discussion.

I'm not sure where you're getting your assertions of general acceptance, but it's not from Wikipedia.

Re:Teabaggers

[toddestan]

Maybe he's going to maul you with his bear arms?

Re:Teabaggers

[Bigjeff5]

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid

How is an income tax indirect? Because if it isn't, before the 16th amendment it was illegal unless in proportion to the census or as enumerated in the constitution.

It would be nice if lawyers could read once in a while.

...and only three taxes are known to be direct (in so far as the US constitutional law definition is concerned): Capitation, Property Tax, and Income Tax.

There, fixed that for you. Income tax is direct no matter where it comes from, why the fuck do you think a constitutional amendment was necessary to apply a non-proportionate income tax?

Re:Teabaggers

[Bigjeff5]

See for reference the Bush administration

I just want to point out that Bush was a republican, but he was by no means a conservative. The two are not the same.

A constitutional conservative by definition does not play fast and loose with the constitution. If he does, he's a liberal. Period. Party affiliation has nothing at all to do with it.

liberals on the left think the constitution says whatever they want it to.

liberals on the right think the constitution says whatever they want it to.

There, fixed that for you. Conservatives think the constitution means exactly what is written, and will go to great lengths to ensure they are applying it as the founders intended, not as they would prefer it. Anyone who says otherwise is not a conservative, by definition.

Re:Teabaggers

[snowgirl]

How is an income tax indirect? Because if it isn't, before the 16th amendment it was illegal unless in proportion to the census or as enumerated in the constitution.

Please read Constitutional Law. You are equivocating "direct tax".

In Constitutional Law a direct tax is on a thing, and an indirect tax is on an event. Income tax is a payment, and thus an event, and thus an indirect tax according to US constitutional law.

There, fixed that for you. Income tax is direct no matter where it comes from, why the fuck do you think a constitutional amendment was necessary to apply a non-proportionate income tax?

No! Income Tax is emphatically not a "direct tax" in US Constitutional Law.

Read the actual history behind the 16th amendment. The constitutional amendment was necessary because the Supreme Court ruled that taxing income from property is indistinguishable from taxing property, and thus was a "direct tax" as used in US Constitutional law.

In US Constitutional Law there are only three known direct taxes: a capitation (tax per person), a property tax, and a tax on income from property.

The Supreme Court has never held or even considered that tax on wages and salary might be, according to US Constitutional Law terms, a "direct tax".

In US Constitutional Law income tax is definitively not a "direct tax". Yes, it is a "direct tax" in the usage that everyone else uses, but when talking about the constitutionality of a law, you have to consider the actual language, meaning, and intent of words as they were written. You cannot re-read a newer definition onto a term.

Why I would need to explain this to someone advancing the Tea Party agenda is beyond me.

I do understand that this is confusing, frustrating, and painful terminology. And every person who properly understands the tax law, including every Judge on Earth in the USA, will tell you that it is annoying. However, this is the truth of law in the United States.

No less than this being a truth of law in the US, this is such a patent truth, that to claim so in court threatens dismissal and sanctions for bringing a frivolous case before the court.

Re:Teabaggers

[conspirator57]

the vast majority of the "conservatives" voted for Bush twice and were eerily silent while Bush was expanding federal and executive power in the name of war. they have zero credibility to argue the position you take up. moreover, electing a Republican, which would be the outcome of "conservative" pragmatism assures that your stated goals are unreachable. and those who did fit in the category "paleo-conservative" that i used in my post you replied to in order to so differentiate them from the neocons. Name me one "conservative" aside from Ron Paul in elected federal office whose behavior comports with your stated beliefs.

"Political" correctness much?

[Shadmere]

That's probably the most blatant example of overzealous PC CYA I've ever seen. Maybe it's a mistake? That's just bizarre.

Re:"Political" correctness much?

[Cornwallis]

Nothing new. The same types of warnings are also being applied to the early episodes of Sesame Street.

Re:"Political" correctness much?

[Urza9814]

Oh I'm sure it's a mistake. Somebody probably said 'We should put these warnings on anything in our Historical section since they may use racist terms and such'. I'm sure they never even realized that it would include the constitution and such.

So.... what's the outrage again?

[jdgeorge]

I'm mystified. Why is somebody unhappy about having advice to take historical context in mind when reading the constitution, which in its original doesn't reflect (for example) voting rights for women and former slaves?

Re:So.... what's the outrage again?

[bangin]

And look at where those concepts have gotten us. Just joking.

Re:So.... what's the outrage again?

[XPeter]

Rights for slaves were outlined in documents after the civil war, and rights for women were outlined at the Seneca Falls convention. Wilder is trying to put a "warning" on all of those documents, the documents that still hold true and found our country (I'll be it, corruptly) to this very day.

Re:So.... what's the outrage again?

[the linux geek]

Probably the fact that it was and is the supreme law of the United States.

Re:So.... what's the outrage again?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Well, for one thing, it has been properly amended to cover those situations. Unlike much stuff from FDR onward, which was just magically assumed to fall under the propriety of the government's reach without amendment. If society changes, you change the Constitution, which has a built-in, slow, deliberative, supermajority process. If it's that good an idea, most should want it, and still want it 5 or 10 years down the road. If that is not the case, you have no business passing such laws in the first place.

If anything, there should be a warning on that warning. "The above warning is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as if it were written back then. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how memes espoused by the power hungry have bypassed the amendment process by declarative fiat."

Re:So.... what's the outrage again?

[Darkness404]

Because when you take something in "historical context" you can easily reason away all of the rights it gave us. For example:

In the 1700s, there were no terrorists flying planes into buildings. Therefore, your right to not be searched unreasonably needs to be removed because if the founding fathers had this "threat" they would have taken it into consideration.

In the 1700s, there were no computers, so this means that your rights don't extend to your own computer when it comes to being searched.

In the 1700s, there was no internet, so this means that internet is not covered under free speech, petition or assembly.

Putting something into "historical context" usually almost always gives someone less rights than guaranteed by law.

Re:So.... what's the outrage again?

[jdgeorge]

The overt argument that you should NOT consider historical context when reading the constitution (which appears to be what you're saying) doesn't follow.

It is true that people can draw ridiculous conclusions of relevance or irrelevance based on historical context, but they can draw equally ridiculous conclusions without any historical context.

Re:So.... what's the outrage again?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll be it

I think the word you were looking for was "albeit"

Re:So.... what's the outrage again?

[jdgeorge]

I don't totally agree with you, but I like your response (especially the meta-warning bit.) Thanks for the thoughts.

However, I think you're conflating the context of passing legislation with amendment of the Constitution. Federal legislation which may effect enforcement or regulation of concepts in the Constitution is not meant to be a slow, supermajority process.

As I think you suggest, it's the society (through votes and elected representatives) that defines the Constitution. It's not the Constitution that defines society.

Re:So.... what's the outrage again?

[tverbeek]

Because it's good for rousing the idiot reactionaries. Why does Fox News publish any story (not counting the celebrity gossip pieces)?

Re:So.... what's the outrage again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think that changing the Constitution of the US will help eradicate terrorism?

Terrorism exists because of freedom and in order to eliminate terrorism you need to eliminate freedom. If you eliminate freedom, you'll also need to change the National Anthem and delete the "Land of the Free" part, unless you view it without historical context and take it to mean that all material goods are free but that would kill capitalism.

Man, you Yanks are in a catch-22!

Re:So.... what's the outrage again?

[Chowderbags]

In the 1700s, there were no terrorists flying planes into buildings. Therefore, your right to not be searched unreasonably needs to be removed because if the founding fathers had this "threat" they would have taken it into consideration.

In the 1700s, the Founding Fathers were the terrorists.

Re:So.... what's the outrage again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that you have it completely backwards. Most Constitutionalist would tell you that the Constitution limits the government and enumerates -- not creates -- rights. (As can be understood from the historical contexts of Federalist Papers, Madison's notes from the Constitutional Convention, etc.) Therefore, by the magic of the 9th & 10th amendments, anything that isn't stated is already and naturally legal for a citizen to do and illegal for the government to prevent or punish. In fact, that's the next step up from Natural Law: Positive Law. You can't break a law that isn't written down.

Re:So.... what's the outrage again?

[clydemaxwell]

1) There is a strong implication that the Constitution as it stands today is wrong, and the connotation of the warning label is of an attempt to prevent people from placing faith in it as the guiding document of our society.
2) We have a good reason to feel strongly about any attempt to downplay the importance or viability of our constitution, especially given the numerous contemporary attacks on the rights and processes it outlines.
3) I personally see it as an attempt at brainwashing or propaganda, as in "dont let your kids grow up to believe in the constitution", with the flimsy argument that the passage of time alone has somehow marred it's efficacy or rationale.

Of course we want people to consider the historical context and think for themselves whether the constitution is a good document for America to continue to follow, as that's a question we must continually ask. But as there is no context for this, it is akin to someone saying "I believe in the constitution" being reminded that the constitution belongs in it's historical place. It raises the question: "what part are you saying you don't agree with?"

Re:So.... what's the outrage again?

[cparker15]

(I'll be it, corruptly)

You'll be what?

Re:So.... what's the outrage again?

[cparker15]

Don't you mean... it takes away less?

Re:So.... what's the outrage again?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

I think you have it exactly backwards. A literal, context-free reading of the First Amendment says that since there's no printing press and involved in making an online post, Congress can make all the laws it wants barring the expression of opinions on the internet. Taking historical context into account, we recognize that websites are in fact "the press" just as much as newspapers are.

Re:So.... what's the outrage again?

[eparker05]

Read article 1, section 8 and come back here. Without a complacent (corrupt?) supreme court, most of the legislation passed in congress these days clearly does not fall under the scope of the federal government outlined in our constitution. It is only by the circular logic of jurisprudence that many of our most egregious constitutional infringements are taking place.

Re:So.... what's the outrage again?

[Samalie]

OK, I've come close to posting about 15 times while reading this, but this one finally got me...

"Of course we want people to consider the historical context and think for themselves whether the constitution is a good document for America to continue to follow, as that's a question we must continually ask."

I would argue that without the Constitution to follow, there is NO America.

We can argue till we're all blue in the face over what this word or that word or even what "is" means, but the bottom line is the Constitution & its amendments ARE America. If something is wrong, it needs to be changed, through the process granted under the constitution or, if the government truly has become corrupt, by armed revolt if necessary.

We have the right to question the founders, we have the right to question the law, the government, and yes, even the constitution itself, but we do NOT have the right to ignore it without overthrowing it & replacing it with something new, through process or force.

Re:So.... what's the outrage again?

[dward90]

If society changes, you change the Constitution, which has a built-in, slow, deliberative, supermajority process. If it's that good an idea, most should want it, and still want it 5 or 10 years down the road. If that is not the case, you have no business passing such laws in the first place.

That's simply not practical. Our political system evolved to have 2 parties, with very close to equal representation, which disagree on every issue by default. Democrats don't disagree with Republican ideas because they think the ideas are bad. They disagree because the ideas are Republican. The opposite is equally true, or more so. The Constitution did not anticipate this. Washington and others knew that strong political parties would devalue the usefulness of the constitution.

Re:So.... what's the outrage again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that the constitution was thought of as a document of enumerated powers, and not the opposite you imply (that the government can do whatever unless told not to) makes your assertion starkly wrong.

Re:So.... what's the outrage again?

[Luke has no name]

That's why we have amendment 9! Which, while good in principle, is tough to get the government to respect sometimes.

Re:So.... what's the outrage again?

[argStyopa]

"It is true that people can draw ridiculous conclusions of relevance or irrelevance based on historical context, but they can draw equally ridiculous conclusions without any historical context."

However, the Constitution is not a 'dead' document, once written and never changed. It is changed and updated REGULARLY through a very clear process.
Therefore it IS a current document, and says exactly what it means, or it would have been revised.

So please, feel free to find a quote from the Constitution that *must* be interpreted contextually/historically, that hasn't been later updated to make modern sense.

Re:So.... what's the outrage again?

[rhendershot]

In the 1700s, there were no terrorists flying planes into buildings. Therefore, your right to not be searched unreasonably needs to be removed because if the founding fathers had this "threat" they would have taken it into consideration.

true.

There were terrorists burning your outlying farm-stead. Perhaps you'd be one of the lucky ones the immigrants were using to demonstrate the benefits of "co-habitation". Those were ugly. I can't even begin to tell you about that without a graphics warning.

Or you could be a beneficiary of a wave of "consultants" from the germanies.

Total dead: something like 20% failure rate for pioneers (yeah, by failure I mean death). I doubt you could find a contiguous geographic location that had 20% of it's populace affected by the deaths from the Twin Towers insurgency.

We can affect our environment more drastically than could they but our basic interactions have not changed.

Our Fathers had experienced Threat in a way you can only piss close to. You ill-informed, self-righteous, arrogant, ineffective little gnat.

You think them so stupid that they had not considered how not so long ago the sword was the emminent weapon and how accurate and long-range projectile weapons had changed their world?! These were educated people!

Seriously?!~

Please think through it again. They lived at a time when their environment, their world, was far more volatile than ours (USA). They had experienced technological invention and industrial expansion as well as actual battle on their homesteads, towns, and properties. They had had to fight, literally actually to fight, for everything that was theirs.

And, that Patriotism and effort in an inimical world held on throughout exterior threats (1812, Mexican/American, etc.) well into the new century.

The one thing in this story about which our Founders probably were unprepared would be the our (USA-All) unconcern.

Re:So.... what's the outrage again?

[Bigjeff5]

By the same token, why do MSNBC or CNN or any other news agency publish any story? I'll give you a hint: it's exactly the same reason Fox News does, though the target audience is different, so the content is different.

They are different sides of the same coin, and if you got the men behind the curtains in the same room they'd probably all be patting each other on the back.

Re:So.... what's the outrage again?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think terrorism is in there, back then it was just known as piracy

Re:So.... what's the outrage again?

[Anonymous Coward]

The figure of speech, "reactionary," implies an element of self-defense against liberal belligerents, for neutrality requires no tolerance. It is impossible to react against pacifism.

Knee-jerk, fundamentalist stereotypes are dupes, regardlessly.

They believe they are bound by the moral authority of Fathers who never sired them, a compact signed by strangers, and free according to liberties which are not Biblical.

They rejoice in wonder at capitols, built as temples to idols on talismanic grids, dedicating children and the increase of their labors.

Rather, if the reverence of the Most High was the beginning of your wisdom, the interpretation of the matter would be as low hanging fruit for you.

Worrying trend

[Darkness404]

This is a very worrying trend, parents should not "wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work" because otherwise that leaves things into interpretation and prevents people from forming their own opinion.

The constitution wasn't written with symbolism and to make it be hard to read. No. The constitution and other works of that time period dealing with politics were made for the every day voter and the vocabulary, though slightly archaic is a whole lot easier than that of, say, Shakespeare and lacks the annoying, long, wordiness of later authors like Dickens making it very accessible.

What is next? The banning of all primary source materials in school textbooks because they are old?

Re:Worrying trend

[Lunix Nutcase]

What is next? The banning of all primary source materials in school textbooks because they are old?

Except this isn't banning anything. Great slippery slope fallacy though!

Re:Worrying trend

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a very worrying trend, parents should not "wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work" because otherwise that leaves things into interpretation and prevents people from forming their own opinion.

Did you just say that parents should *not* discuss things (History, the US Constitution, how things have changed) with their children, because this would prevent "people from forming their own opinion"? What should we do, leave the kids to absorb the noise that the world throws at us every day?

Do you think that children are incapable of forming their own opinion simply because parents speak to them about things?

Re:Worrying trend

[lgw]

It's simple political correctness: the Constitution mentions slavery, and so must be flagged as "racist". There are a lot of old pop-culture works with racial stereotypes for which this sort of warning is approriate, and I suspect some simple keyword trigger here. It shows how lame their classification system must be, but I doubt they were making a complicated political statement.

Re:Worrying trend

[geekoid]

Banning? nice leap, dickhead.

The constitution isn't some document whose writting may appear to change meaing do to social schanges.
It is a well written doument, and it's not too vague. But it isn't perfect.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constmiss.html

Re:Worrying trend

[Darkness404]

No, you have them read the document and form their own opinion based on that

When parents lead their children to believing something, we have the delusional masses on both the left and right who vote without question for the Republicans or Democrats without thinking about what they stand for just because their parents voted that way and when you have that, democracy doesn't work.

Re:Worrying trend

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a very worrying trend, parents should not "wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work

Exactly, that is the job of the elementary school. Why should parents do the job belonging to the history teacher?

Re:Worrying trend

[icebraining]

Exposing the parent's opinions is not the same as indoctrination. My parents have strong political opinions but I don't necessarily agree with plenty of them. My father specifically tends to side with the positions of our communist party, which I usually find outdated or unrealistic.

It's true that they have a great influence in my political interests, but they've also motivated me (by example) to read and inform myself about the different political views.

Re:Worrying trend

[Red Flayer]

When parents lead their children to believing something, we have the delusional masses on both the left and right who vote without question for the Republicans or Democrats without thinking about what they stand for just because their parents voted that way and when you have that, democracy doesn't work.

I think you overlook the fact that it's possible for parents to discuss the works with their kids, without forcing their viewpoints on the kids. How the kids interpret and form viewpoints on issues is a function of the material they digest and the culture they are surrounded with. It would be irresponsible for parents to not guide their children to some extent, at the very least to encourage consideration of varying viewpoints.

I'd also like to point out that when parents lead their children's beliefs, there are beneficial aspects as well. We have accumulated a culture that can have negative, as well as positive, impacts on the views of developing minds, and IMO it is part of a parent's responsibility to counter the common culture where necessary.

Re:Worrying trend

[senorbum]

Parents discussing with their children about what the parents think doesn't force children into beliefs. Preaching to children that this is right and that is wrong etc. etc. does. Being a good parent is about discussions with an open mind from both sides.

Re:Worrying trend

[raddan]

Discussing something substantive with your parents: oh, the horror!

They should just replace the sticker with "Just watch Dancing With The Stars. You'll be happier."

Re:Worrying trend

[human-cyborg]

WHAT! I can't believe I actually read that! Of course parents should wish to read and discuss important and historical topics with their children! Even if they don't /wish/ to, they should see it as their obligation for creating a new life form.

Children require guidance; they don't yet have the knowledge to make important decisions. This is how they learn, parents need to teach their children how to make educated decisions. If you plonk a kid down in front of the constitution, and they've never seen it or anything like it before, they won't have the slightest clue of it's importance or what it means.

I agree with your remark about symbolism and the language of the document. It was designed for the average voter, but CHILDREN AREN'T VOTERS, and for good reason. They BECOME voters with help from their parents.

I strongly think that many people are way too lax when it comes to raising their children these days. And I don't mean lax on strictness, I mean lax on involvement. So many shirk off their responsibility and blame others when things go wrong. Your kid shot another kid at school? Oh, well, it must be the video games and the rap music, and the schools' fault for not noticing signs of anti-social behaviour sooner.

Re:Worrying trend

[swb]

Anything that does not make its primary purpose the empowerment and restitution of oppressed peoples is inherently racist, classist and reactionary.

Re:Worrying trend

[Anonymous Coward]

>> What is next? The banning of all primary source materials in school textbooks because they are old?

Well if you happen to be in Texas...

Re:Worrying trend

[canajin56]

Absurd slippery slope aside...yes, you should be "indoctrinating" children with the fact that not everything they read is 100% true. Children are trusting by default. And until they're fairly mature (12 or so, so around about Jr. High), they cannot think abstractly in any great detail. So, while logically a child may understand that not everything a person says is true, and may also understand that books are written by people, without explicit instruction, they will absolutely not come to the conclusion that a book can be wrong. Can be a story, yes, and stories are about made up situations. But not plain wrong.

So the point is, if you give a 10 year old a book, that you tell them is not a story, but about real events, then by default they will believe it when it says that blacks are an inferior sort of person. So you really do have to either wait until they are older, or explicitly tell them that in the past, people believed different things than they do now, and that not everything a book says is always going to be true.

In another example, "Water Babies" is a "classic work" of children's fiction. It describes people being as fat as a negro, as lazy as a negro, greedy as a jew, things being fuller than a jew's coinpurse, etc. An 8 year old reading that book will not think "Hmmm, those seem to be unfair similes, they must have been OK at the time" they will just think "Those are acceptable comparisons". There are exceptional children who are far more abstract and introspective at a younger age, but it's quite rare, mental development typically follows a pretty fixed progression. So, with almost any small child, if you tell them that a well respected historical figure said this, they will believe it.

Re:Worrying trend

[Anonymous Coward]

No. The constitution and other works of that time period dealing with politics were made for the every day voter

The everyday voter? You mean a white, land-owning male. And even they could not elect their own Senators; their rep in the House did that for them.

The time in which the constitution was written was much less democratic than it is today. I don't think there's any way around it. I'm sure a lot of the wealthy land-owners who wrote the constitution would be quite disgusted with your notion of appealing to the "common" voter.

Re:Worrying trend

[lgw]

Wow, I can't tell whether you were being intentionally or unintentionally ironic, but: entertaining either way!

Re:Worrying trend

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, the Texan retardlicans will just omit what they don't like. Take for instance, the omission of Thomas Jefferson from the list of influential writers.

Re:Worrying trend

[hey!]

A trend? What trend? Are you seeing these stickers on copies of the Bill of Rights all over the place?

Who ever heard of this isn't some kind of publicity stunt? Or even a political stunt? Or an employee getting at the boss by some ham-handed literal interpretation of a company policy. Or (most likely) an isolated instance of idiocy.

Are people so darned addicted to outrage that they have to turn every isolated event into some kind of movement? Do we have to get hysterical every time somebody says or does something stupid? Because if we do we aren't going to have time for anything else.

Re:Worrying trend

[Eli Gottlieb]

I honestly cannot tell if you're serious or not. Enlighten me.

Re:Worrying trend

[Anonymous Coward]

What is next? The banning of all primary source materials in school textbooks because they are old?

Except this isn't banning anything. Great slippery slope fallacy though!

That was not an appeal to emotionality, but an application of the logic that old things are obsolete, if not detrimental - the central credo of progressives.

Re:Worrying trend

[swb]

Personally, I think the line of reason I stated is utter bullshit; the kind of "truth" that you might be exposed to in some Maoist political education.

But I think it underscores the sort of thinking that underlies pretty much a lot of what passes for left-wing political correctness in this country, because the unspoken corollary is that anything that DOES make the restitution of oppressed peoples its primary purpose is then judged an unconditional good.

It's why you never want to get dragged into a philosophical debate with leftists without forcing them to define their terms. Marxists and their ilk live in a world of philosophical constructs that are neat and internally logically consistent but totally unrelated to the real world.

Re:Worrying trend

[Eli Gottlieb]

I'm a fairly hard-left progressive (by American standards... in Europe I'm center-left swinging center-right on a couple of issues) myself, but you've got a damn good point. The sheer amount of pseudo-Marxism and cultural Marxism running around today pretending to be solid intellectual Leftism is appalling.

Warning Labels OK for Evolution, not for Slavery?

[CheshireCatCO]

What's amusing about the flap is that I'd be willing to bet that at least some, if not many, of the people upset by this have no problem at all with warning labels on biology textbooks.

"Copyright 2007"

[Anonymous Coward]

The warning itself says "Copyright 2007". Why is FoxNews complaining about this now, 3 years later? I'm sure they'll try to blame this on Obama, the people who support him, and their 'attack on America' somehow.

And why is Slashdot acting as a frontman for FoxNews?

Re:"Copyright 2007"

[e2d2]

Is there something wrong with the article? If not it's a valid point. Or are we only supposed to discuss things from 2010 appearing on Huffington Post?

Re:"Copyright 2007"

[Red Flayer]

And why is Slashdot acting as a frontman for FoxNews?

Pop quiz:

What tech/nerd site has an editor who is a Republican party official and is will soon be attending a Republican leadership conference?

Need a hint?

It's not reddit, digg, fark, or any other site that cannot be abbreviated as /.

Re:"Copyright 2007"

[Hurricane78]

Because not only statistics prove that the amount of facts on Fox News is negligible and every “story” from them is by definition designed for deliberate evil manipulation of the people, but also because they even admitted it themselves in front of a court.

It’s like a boy who cries wolf 99.9999% of the time, and you want us to trust him on the one time he is right. Well, you know how the story ends...

Re:"Copyright 2007"

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a link to an NPR summary that then links to the Fox News article. Does that help unbunch your undies any? I mean -- my gosh -- it's NPR for goodness sake.

http://topics.npr.org/article/03B10xA9RTaef

Re:"Copyright 2007"

[Bigjeff5]

Because not only statistics prove that the amount of facts on Fox News is negligible

Uh, first off, statistics rarely prove anything, and second, citation please?

Or is this one of those "60% of the time it works every time" made up statistics of yours?

It’s like a boy who cries wolf 99.9999% of the time, and you want us to trust him on the one time he is right. Well, you know how the story ends...

Yeah, the townsfolk don't listen to the boy and the wolves get all the sheep. I'm thinking you only got half the lesson from that fable.

Re:"Copyright 2007"

[Eli Gottlieb]

True, but what tech/nerd site has a common, widespread body of opinion believing that Jews constitute a malign conspiracy who brought about the economic crash? Reddit.

Idiocy knows no party.

Re:"Copyright 2007"

[e2d2]

Use your brain to find truth, not statistics some one fed you. How can you claim to be a critical thinker if you've blindly disqualified a source of information because it's biased? All news is biased.

Re:"Copyright 2007"

[Anonymous Coward]

A large number of their stories come from AP feeds. So, perhaps you're right.

In keeping with tradition, really

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The US Constitution itself is a politically correct document. Look how it dances around the issue of slavery: "Person held to Service or Labour" and "three fifths of all other Persons" are the really egregious ones. Everyone knew who these "other Persons" were, but nobody wanted to say it. It wasn't until 1865, almost 80 years later, that the word "slavery" appeared in the 13th amendment, when it was safely in the past tense -- and then in 1870, when the mealy-mouthed Southern gentry, who had been willing to fight a war on behalf of slavery but could never talk about it when Yankees were about, were back in Congress, the 15th gently whispers about "previous condition of servitude."

So for those who think PC is some new an unique blight on our language, sorry, it's pretty much part of our national DNA.

There are other instances which still cause trouble today. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means that it's illegal for the government to give money to churches just as much as "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means that it's illegal for for the government to ban them. And "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is explanatory, not prescriptive; "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is the part that has the force of law, and all they really needed to write. But there's been enough wiggle room in the phrasing for the enemies of liberty to exploit for the last 220+ years.

Re:In keeping with tradition, really

[Reziac]

Dvorkin says, The US Constitution itself is a politically correct document. Look how it dances around the issue of slavery: "Person held to Service or Labour"

Like most people who focus on the issue of slavery, you're forgetting the practices of indentured servitude, which was probably more widespread at time than was slavery.

And the South didn't fight over slavery; that issue didn't enter the war til later, and Lincoln was only bent on hurting the south, not helping the slaves -- read his own words about it. The war was about states' rights, and against crushing economic pressure brought by northern industrialists.

Re:In keeping with tradition, really

[Anomalyx]

Oh, but in regard to the religion thing, they already have severely infringed on the "no prohibiting free exercise thereof". Churches are made to become 501(c)(3) if they wish to be tax-exempt (even though they should already be by default), after which point the church is banned from speaking on certain topics, such as homosexuality (more specifically, speaking against anything the gov't has declared legal), under threat of losing tax exemption. When's the last time any of you churchgoers heard anything about homosexuality in church? Abortion? Wait... are there any churchgoers on /. ?

Re:In keeping with tradition, really

[Anonymous Coward]

Please explain to me how the IRS is allowed to give churches special tax treatment under section 501c3 "tax-exempt religious organizations" without making laws respecting establishments of religion?

The US government is about as secular as Iran's government. The only difference is that atheist politicians must pick a religion before running for office otherwise they have a snowballs chance in hell at the polls.

Re:In keeping with tradition, really

[couchslug]

"But there's been enough wiggle room in the phrasing for the enemies of liberty to exploit for the last 220+ years."

There is not "wiggle room". There is the lie that there is "wiggle room", which is very different.

"Militia" and "rights" had specific meanings at the time of writing, when the revolutionaries understood very well that citizens might have to shoot and kill their government. Those revolutionaries had done just that, with real muskets shooting real lead balls.

Let's always keep in mind that the freedom we enjoy (and many of us want to give away) was secured by people who. at risk of their lives, goods, and liberty, KILLED:

Tax collectors.
Government officials.
Tories.
British soldiery.
Hessian mercs.
Whoever else got in the way.

That modern illiterates think "militia" means something different in the context of the Constitution than what it meant at time of writing is a fault of their _willful_and_wanton_ignorance_.

The Founders weren't teabaggers or rabid Bible Thumpers in the modern "crazed white trash" sense, they were Revolutionaries who built a system embedding the CAPABILITY of REVOLT so that it is available as a last resort.

Re:In keeping with tradition, really

[sageres]

We have the Service of Labour for many years, it is just now called "convict chain gangs". Every time you go on the highway and see a bunch of men in jumpsuits picking up trash while a guy with a van calmly drives it behind them -- that means these people are by definition -- held to Service of Labour.

Re:In keeping with tradition, really

[careysub]

...

And the South didn't fight over slavery; that issue didn't enter the war til later, and Lincoln was only bent on hurting the south, not helping the slaves -- read his own words about it. The war was about states' rights, and against crushing economic pressure brought by northern industrialists.

Well, that's the story that the South has been selling for 140 years or so anyway. Not slavery, so siree! Just Northern Oppression! Relentless repetition by Southerners (the North stopped caring particularly a century ago) has given this claim a wholly unwarranted veneer of plausibility. Examination of the words and deeds of the men who actually led secession reveals this to be Southern fantasy.

Read Charles B. Dew's Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War http://www.upress.virginia.edu/apostles/index.html. Dew examines the actual speeches, arguments, and publications of the secessionists in the months after Lincoln's election, when the South seceeded, fired on Union forts, and thus began the Civil War. The remarkable thing is that the preservation of slavery was the only thing on these men's minds. At the outset of the Civil War, the leaders of the South were of one mind - they agreed unanimously that the purpose of secession was to keep African-Americans enslaved.

Destroying slavery was not first on Lincoln's agenda, but preserving it was first on the minds of the South.*

It is striking that as soon as the smoke cleared from the battlefields, the Southerners tried to make slavery disappear from the picture and recast it as a "noble cause". One might almost suppose they realized how profoundly in the wrong they were, and that history would revile them without a whitewash.

(* And there is a classic book: The Mind of the South by W.J. Cash that makes it clear how central subjugation of African Americans was to Southern identity, to poor whites just as much as rich landowners.)

Re:In keeping with tradition, really

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Lincoln was only bent on hurting the south, not helping the slaves -- read his own words about it.

I have, and your interpration is not only wrong, but bizarrely so. Lincoln's overriding concern was holding the Union together, and he had no desire to hurt the South; if anything, he wanted to bring the war to an end much more quickly and humanely than most of his political allies in the North did. His personal distaste for slavery did harden into political policy as the war progressed, and the Emancipation Proclamation was a recognition that the contination of slavery was inextricably linked to the survival of the Confederacy. In 1861, he was naive enough to think that the war might be settled quickly and the nation restored to its antebellum state. By late 1862, he knew better.

I have also read the words of the agitators for secession and the leaders of the Confederacy, and it is overwhelmingly clear that the only states' right which was sufficient to inspire sesession in its defense was this: the "right" to make and enforce laws holding human beings as slaves. Without the fear of abolition, no other cause would have split the Union; with that fear, nothing could hold it together. Modern Southern Confederate apologists who frantically try to find something -- anything! -- other than slavery to justify secession are denying their own ancestors' words.

You know, I understand the desire to make one's ancestors out to be more noble and heroic than they really were. Practically everyone does it to some degree or another. But it can blind us to the reality of the past. Half my family is from the Southern US, and the other half is Russian. I can admire the courage many of my ancestors displayed in their struggles, and even sympathize with their ideals to a degree ... but I never forget what both the CSA and the USSR actually were.

Re:In keeping with tradition, really

[Low Ranked Craig]

And "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is explanatory, not prescriptive; "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is the part that has the force of law, and all they really needed to write. But there's been enough wiggle room in the phrasing for the enemies of liberty to exploit for the last 220+ years.

They didn't need to write it, but it does explain quite elegantly why the right exists. Penn and Teller do a good job of explaining this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM

Re:In keeping with tradition, really

[heruvian]

Apparently, you havent read the "cornerstone speech" by the vice president of theconfederacy, Alexander H. Stephens.

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

Re:In keeping with tradition, really

[BZ]

> even though they should already be by default

Why should they be, exactly? What's special about churches that's not special about other clubs, associations, etc?

Re:In keeping with tradition, really

[Anonymous Coward]

And "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is explanatory, not prescriptive; "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is the part that has the force of law, and all they really needed to write. But there's been enough wiggle room in the phrasing for the enemies of liberty to exploit for the last 220+ years.

I can see the explanatory explanation, as it doesn't seem to make much sense otherwise (at least not two centuries later).

But... it still seems wrong. The rest of the constitution and bill of rights are written rather concisely. I don't believe there are any other parts that mix law and explanation like that. You can't just trim a large chunk of a sentence out elsewhere and keep the meaning the same. Why would they do that here? That's what makes me believe it's some sort of qualifier who's meaning got lost over time.

Re:In keeping with tradition, really

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Like most people who focus on the issue of slavery, you're forgetting the practices of indentured servitude, which was probably more widespread at time than was slavery.

I'd be interested to see the numbers on indentured servants vs. slaves; I suspect that by the late 1700s there were more of the latter than the former, but I don't really know for sure.

In any case, it's irrelevant. Indentured servants weren't the "other Persons" the three-fifths compromise referred to at all, and while they were indeed "Person[s] held to Service or Labour" there was never anything for indenture like the massive enforcement apparatus devoted to slavery. Indentured servants -- who, in theory at least, had voluntarily signed their contracts of indenture -- disappeared into the West (which at that point meant just about anything away from salt water) all the time, and most people just shrugged it off. No court ever held that an indentured servant could not, by some condition of birth, bring suit for his freedom. There was no national Fugitive Indentured Servant Act. And most importantly, indenture was a temporary condition; slavery was lifelong. The "Service or Labour" referred to in the Constitution was quite specifically that variety which was involuntary, permanent, and based on the color of skin.

Re:In keeping with tradition, really

[Anonymous Coward]

| The US Constitution itself is a politically correct document

Is this the same Constitution that Bush, (yes the guy that swore an oath to defend and protect the Constitution), referred to as "just a god damned piece of paper"?

www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

Re:In keeping with tradition, really

[king neckbeard]

Well, the constitution allows for that. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. "

Re:In keeping with tradition, really

[Anonymous Coward]

If it is true the reason for the Civil War was slavery, then one must believe Lincoln would not have waged war had the South wanted to secede because of federal taxation or some other non-slavery issue. Lincoln stated clearly his aims were preservation of the union. Period.

It is true the South wanted to preserve the slave trade, but their motivations for wanting out from under the boot heel of the federal government were more varied than that. Otherwise, only wealthy slave owners would have taken up arms in the Confederacy. Why would people who never owned a slave, and never would, also take up arms?

Believe it or not, some people just don't like being ordered around by Brown Shirts from Berlin or White Shirts from Washington, no matter what the issue.

I cringed when the Interior Secretary (?) recently claimed the federal government is keeping its boot on the neck of BP. To complete the imagery, he needed only don a brown shirt and black jackboots while raising his fist in angry rage at BP.

That's the kind of image the South had of an overbearing federal government.

Re:In keeping with tradition, really

[SteeldrivingJon]

"The war was about states' rights, and against crushing economic pressure brought by northern industrialists."

Bullshit. The slave states were just fine with violating "states' rights" with the Fugitive Slave Act.

It was about slavery. The confederate vice president said so in his "cornerstone" speech in 1861.

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right."

Re:In keeping with tradition, really

[Anonymous Coward]

Total BS -

The Civil War, just like 99% of ALL wars, can be traced to money. The South felt it was underrepresented in Government and unfairly taxed. The North simply couldnt do without the economic benefits of the South (warm water ports, cotton, etc.). The South legally suceeded...the North reeled it back in. Slavery was an excellent reason to villify the South - but by no means the driving force. Hence the emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in the South - hoping for a slave revolt.

Check out Lincoln's writings on Blacks and prepare to be HIGHLY dissappointed that he is considered some kind of enlightened man.

Do you think 150,000 dirt poor Southerners would die so the wealthiest fraction of their society could continue living like barons? really?

Do you think 300,000 Union soldiers died to aide the plight of the black man? When the Union Army used blacks as porters by and large until late in the war while the South routinely armed them?

I WISH history could be sanitized to totally "good" vs. totally "bad"...

The South perpetuated slavery and thus automatically fails in the "nobility" argument...but the realy truth is complicating and depressing for both sides...

Re:In keeping with tradition, really

[jabbathewocket]

Quick question there.. do you think that the word establishment means a "religious location such as a church" or do you think that it means "creating a church of the united states" ?

You see your reading is implying that you believe the former, when the document is referring to the latter.

Given your statement about the right of the people to keep and bear arms, it implies that you are attempting a revisionist read of the document.. Unfortunately for you in our system of government, the words do not change meaning over time.. the document has to change via amendment to change the meaning of the words.

Re:In keeping with tradition, really

[JesseMcDonald]

Lincoln's overriding concern was holding the Union together

That's kind of the point. The South's reason for secession may have been the preservation of slavery, but the North's reason for fighting them was to prevent the secession, not to end slavery, at least in the beginning. Obviously "fighting to end slavery" made for much better PR later in the war, and both sides tried to put the best spin they could on the matter. I'm not trying to say that South was guiltless, by any means. But the North should have let them secede, treating their escaped slaves as political refugees and working through diplomatic and economic channels to fix their internal policies. Or at least acknowledge that the "Civil War" was really a war of conquest and subjugation rather than downplaying it as internal politics.

BTW, I speak as a Northerner; none of my family (so far as I know) is from any former Confederate state.

Re:In keeping with tradition, really

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds politically correct today, but it seems also quite possible to me that the words themselves have changed in meaning. For example, what did "service" mean in the 1790s? I can tell you for one that it has the same root as the Latin word for "slave". So, perhaps that was a non-euphemistic term for slavery in its day. (Citation needed, I admit, but just opening the possibility.)

Re:In keeping with tradition, really

[Anonymous Coward]

The South started an armed rebellion to preserve slavery. The North didn't start the war, and I really don't care what reasons you think the North had for responding with force to the Southern rebellion. The South started the war, and they started it to preserve slavery.

The country was already in the slow process of abolishing slavery when the South rebelled. When Lincoln was elected there was no doubt in anyone's mind the direction the country was going. Slavery would end. The South's war of aggression just hurried the process along.

Re:In keeping with tradition, really

[JesseMcDonald]

The North may not have started the process of secession, but they definitely caused the war by refusing to allow the southern states to secede. The South did not fight a war of aggression; unlike the North, they did not attempt to force any other states to join them in leaving. If the North had simply allowed those states to leave that wished to do so there never would have been a war.

Slavery would have ended even without the war—political issues aside, it was becoming economically impractical, even for agriculture. Unfortunately, due to the Union's victory in the Civil War we ended up replacing one kind of slavery with another, one less personal but more insidious, and harder to escape.

Re:In keeping with tradition, really

[MindlessAutomata]

The Civil War was and wasn't about slavery--it was for the south, but it wasn't for the North. For the North, it was mostly about just keeping the states and the territory that they were on in the union.

Re:In keeping with tradition, really

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not really well versed in history or economics, are you? Let me break it down for you: industrialized urban centers were home to tens of thousands more people than comparable geographic areas in the south. This is because the marginal utility of laborers in factories decreases at a much lower rate than that of agricultural workers. As a result, the north had an unbreakable super majority and the south had no meaningful representation. Additionally, since value added processes built the most wealth, the north had considerably more cash than the south. Seeking to correct that problem, southern states decided to secede and thereby regain control of their own fates.

Re:In keeping with tradition, really

[geekoid]

It as clearly about Slavery. Look at the papers from the time, and I suggest you read his words again.

It wasn't the only issue, but it was a strong one.

Yes, it was about states right. Specifically the right to treat humans as cattle, and indenture people and their families.

Re:In keeping with tradition, really

[Anonymous Coward]

The North may not have started the process of secession, but they definitely caused the war by refusing to allow the southern states to secede

That's bunk. Nothing in the Constitution is recognized as giving any State the right to secede. If a Southern State wanted to secede, it could have followed the legal process to amend the Constitution, or appealed to the Supreme Court to recognize the right. No Southern state chose not follow legal channels, and instead the Southern States formed militias to aggressively attack the North.

The South were the aggressors in the conflict, and they held no legal or moral right to pursue the war they started. Moreover, they explicitly claimed to be pursuing the war of Southern Rebellion to preserve the immoral tradition of legal slavery. It makes no difference to me why the North chose to fight back against Southern rebellion. The South started the war, and they started it to preserve Slavery.

Finally, I have to take issue with your last point. Everyone agrees that some governments impose a form of Slavery on their people. I disagree with your claim that the United States Federal Government does as such. But, feel free to move to a country with less government. I hear Somalia is nice this time of year.

Re:In keeping with tradition, really

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't tell you how surprised I was to learn that people living in other parts of the country get entirely different interpretations of history than I did and entirely different from each other.

The way I was taught about the Civil War, it was a foregone conclusion that it was about slavery. But what was interesting to me was that it wasn't *just* about slavery. Remember, just 70 years prior the states ratified a constitution on the premise that this was a union of more-or-less autonomous states.

Yes, southern states wanted to preserve slavery and, yes, that was wrong.
But the issue of slavery gave the impetus for the southern states to exercise their perceived right to leave the union that they had entered into.

Was the end of slavery a major outcome of the Civil War? Yes, and thank goodness.
But there was a second major outcome of the Civil War: it became clear that the U.S. was like a roach-motel; you can enter but you can never leave (at least, not without a fight).

In that sense, the southern view of "Northern aggression" isn't entirely inaccurate. They thought they were exercising their right to leave the union (which happened to be so they could preserve slavery) but the North asserted they did not have that right and, hence, war. Viewed in this light, the South just wanted to take their toys and go home, but the North said you can never leave.

Had it been a state seceding due to a disagreement over Prohibition and the remaining states fighting to prevent secession, there would be people who saw the "first-order" cause as being Prohibition and those who saw the "second-order" cause as being states rights. Both are accurate accounts of the cause of the war, but one looks a little deeper than the other.
   

Re:In keeping with tradition, really

[Anonymous Coward]

But there was a second major outcome of the Civil War: it became clear that the U.S. was like a roach-motel; you can enter but you can never leave (at least, not without a fight).

Bunk. The process for legal and peaceful succession from the United States has been unchanged since the ratification of the Constitution. The process is as follows:

1. Amend the Constitution to allow succession.
2. Succession

The inability for the Southern States to follow this legal and peaceful process, and their attempt to subvert this process through violence and armed insurrection, led to the war.

Re:In keeping with tradition, really

[Reziac]

Per'zactly. I shorthanded it down to 3 lines (my, what a controversy that caused), but that's really what it boiled down to.

You cannot mandate and enforce desirable behaviour without doing at least as much harm (either to the object, or to someone else). This is a great example of that.

And I agree, it was the beginning of a much more insidious servitude. But hey, now all Americans get to participate equally, instead of it being applied only to a select few!

"Democracy imposed from without is the severest form of tyranny." -- Lloyd Biggle Jr.

Re:In keeping with tradition, really

[careysub]

Lincoln's overriding concern was holding the Union together

That's kind of the point. The South's reason for secession may have been the preservation of slavery,

Let us stipulate it was the South's reason for secession... moving on now.

but the North's reason for fighting them was to prevent the secession, not to end slavery, at least in the beginning. Obviously "fighting to end slavery" made for much better PR later in the war, and both sides tried to put the best spin they could on the matter. I'm not trying to say that South was guiltless, by any means.

Oh, good. I'm glad you don't feel the states that abrogated the U.S. Constitution in order to keep million enslaved, and fired the first shots were guiltless. You had me worried there.

But the North should have let them secede, treating their escaped slaves as political refugees and working through diplomatic and economic channels to fix their internal policies.

Oh. My. G*d. If the South had seceeded there would have been no force at work at all to end slavery. Slave agriculture was the basis of the South's economic system, it was extremely profitable, it was still expanding in 1861 and it had near universal and unquestioning support among the white population (and tellingly, in the white churches). All of the rich and powerful men in the South owed their position to the slaves they owned.

You are arguing that the correct course of action would be one that would have left millions in slavery well into the 20th century. Mechanization did not replace manual labor in the cotton field until 1950.

BTW, I speak as a Southerner. My family hails from South Carolina - the center of slavery (more than any other state), and the leader of the secession.

Re:In keeping with tradition, really

[Bigjeff5]

It wasn't the only issue, but it was a strong one.

It was the only issue for the South. It was illegal to own slaves in the North, and the Mason-Dixon line ensured that few, if any new states would be states where slavery was legal. The South had a fraction of the population of the North, and the North was growing far faster than the South, which means the southern states had less and less influence in Congress.

The prevailing opinion in the North was, and always had been, that slavery was wrong. The Constitution was written such that it was technically legal, but in my opinion that was only because at the time the passage of the Constitution was shaky enough, and making no allowances for slavery would have ended the United States of America right then and there.

They were willing to push laws to slowly fix the problem, but they were not willing to fight a war over it. They were, however, very much willing to fight to keep the Union intact. If not for that, there would have been no war, and the South would have been able to secede peacefully.

So it's important to recognize that for the South, it was 100% about slavery, and their weakening ability to protect their right to practice slavery. The North was anti-slavery, and it was not going to back down from that position. However, it was not so anti-slavery to fight a war. The North fought solely to preserve the Union, the eventual end of slavery was simply a bonus for them.

WARNING

[Dexter Herbivore]

WARNING: This book is fiction, any relationship to people living or dead is purely co-incidintal?

This is his standard disclaimer guys

[neltana]

Hate to break up of the controversy with facts, but this disclaimer is just boilerplate the distributor puts on all of his products. He publishes lots of public domain works and he got sick an tired of people complaining about the language or mores.

You can get the full story on his blog: http://warrenlapine.livejournal.com/

I've known Warren for years. If he had been trying to make a point, he would flat out say that was what he was doing.

Re:This is his standard disclaimer guys

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's his Wikipedia entry to fill that out.

At least now he's got proof that people read the disclaimer. Personally I don't see what's wrong with his equivalent of "this is an old book -- please turn your brain on", however I do question that his 'standard boilerplate' for public domain works is a Copyright. WTF?

Please don't give me any nonsense that it's about modern page numbering or indexing. Distributions of public domain works should always clearly point out what portions are public domain, and anything less under a blanket copyright statement is a form of fraud.

Re:This is his standard disclaimer guys

[neltana]

Well, okay, that is a legitimate point, I think it does create a false impression that he holds a copyright on the entire piece. Now, while folks are probably smart enough to figure out that he doesn't actually control distribution rights for the Declaration of Independence, that might not be quite so clear for an old Tom Swift book.

I guess I could say that he is copyrighting his disclaimer so that nobody else can use it.

But seriously, I think he needs to include a standard copyright notice to protect elements he did create (covers, etc.). But now that he will undoubtedly be reworking his standard disclaimer, maybe he should consider adding a bit about it only applying to portions "not in the public domain."

Re:This is his standard disclaimer guys

[geekoid]

You factmonger!

Re:This is his standard disclaimer guys

[Bigjeff5]

But seriously, I think he needs to include a standard copyright notice to protect elements he did create (covers, etc.).

Copyright is automatic, a notice hasn't been required for decades. Furthermore, very little, if any, of what he did to the books would be copyrightable. Unless he is abridging them and releasing a "new" version of the old work, he hasn't got much of anything to copyright. I mean, the cover? Yeah, but really? All someone has to do is put a different cover on it and they aren't violating copyright. The only think copyrightable there would be any artwork. The composition of a compilation work in its entirety may be copyrightable, but that's pushing it. Even releasing another compilation with the works in the same order would not be copyrightable.

Putting a copyright notice on the work gives the impression he owns copyright on the work itself. That's also known as fraud. A copyright notice isn't necessary at all, but if he wants to put one on there it should clearly apply only to the elements he has an actual copyright for.

Re:This is his standard disclaimer guys

[neltana]

A notice isn't required, no (so "need" was a poor choice of words on my part). But there are some very good reasons to include one...in fact, I think you will find most publishers include one. If you don't include it, it makes it easier for someone to claim innocent infringement. And if you are asserting copyright on a portion of a publication that includes major portions that are well-known to be public domain, it never hurts to notify folks that a copyright is being asserted.

But I think the copyright notice in question should be revised to make clear which portions are covered and which are not. I don't think the distributor and publisher are trying to pull a fast one, though. Who would honestly believe that they owned the copyright on the Constitution? It could be clearer, but clearly it isn't fraud.

well, it is true.

[retchdog]

``This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today.'' Uh, yeah.

The "disclaimer" is not only mere boilerplate for all their historical documents, but a value neutral and true observation. The trolling comes from pure speculation.

And it gets better: `By putting on the warning, you’re making controversial something that’s not controversial: our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence.'' Right. I seem to recall W saying that it was just a "goddam piece of paper." Nothing controversial there.

The fact that we've already amended the Constitution 27 times suggests fairly strongly that the disclaimer is true as stated.

Re:well, it is true.

[IndustrialComplex]

The fact that we've already amended the Constitution 27 times suggests fairly strongly that the disclaimer is true as stated.

10 of which were immediately passed and almost understood to be part of the original document. The passing and the repeal of prohibition are two other amendments that don't really seem to fall into the 'revision' category.

Actually there was one thing I liked about the prohibition amendment. It demonstrated that there was a time when the Federal Government actually followed the Constitution and didn't claim the Commerce Clause gave it ultimate power over everything.

Re:well, it is true.

[retchdog]

The passing and the repeal of prohibition are two other amendments that don't really seem to fall into the 'revision' category.

But they sure as hell do not consistently "reflect the same values."

And I agree completely wrt the Commerce Clause. It's an overshadowing blot on our nation.

Re:well, it is true.

[audubon]

I seem to recall W saying that it was just a "goddam piece of paper."

You seem to recall that, do you? I suggest you check your facts.

Re:well, it is true.

[lwsimon]

Can you cite your source on Bush Jr.'s quote? I've heard it referenced, but never proven.

Re:well, it is true.

[retchdog]

Good call, thanks. I was suspicious about it but wrote it anyway. Nonetheless, you don't have to look far to find very large and organized groups with their own ideas of what should and shouldn't be in the Constitution.

Re:well, it is true.

[retchdog]

my bad. see above.

Re:well, it is true.

[Bigjeff5]

you don't have to look far to find very large and organized groups with their own ideas of what should and shouldn't be in the Constitution.

Which doesn't matter at all, because we actually have the Constitution and can read what is actually in it. If a group wants to change it, they aught to get the 2/3 congressional majority and 3/4 state ratification necessary to change it. It has been done 27 times in the past, for big issues like Slavery and Women's Suffrage and (unfortunately) Income Tax.

What has been going on over the last 100 years (it was going on before, but much less than today) is the Federal Government has been stretching the definitions of a single clause in the Constitution, and for the most part they have been getting away with it. It has gotten to the point where Congress doesn't even bother to consider if what they are doing is constitutional. That is left up to the SCOTUS, which only looks at cases brought before the court, so until someone fights an unjust law nothing at all happens.

Re:well, it is true.

[retchdog]

Yes, it does matter. Democracy matters even when it's functioning correctly.

wow, what an overreaction

[geekoid]

terminology changes. There just trying to get people to think realize that.

An example I use is from H.G> Wells War of the Worlds:
"His landlady came to the door, loosely wrapped in dressing gown and shawl; her husband followed ejaculating. "

It involves some papers that will use terms to have a different meaning at the time or context.

Good thing we have the Constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

So there's nobody who can tell them "you're not allowed to do this".

Yes

[Nuskrad]

Because it's still perfectly acceptable to consider a black person as only 3/5 of a person, and it's perfectly acceptable to refer to native Americans as 'savages' (as in the Declaration of Independence).

Re:Yes

[the linux geek]

It said nothing about black people. It referred to persons bound to labor, which SURPRISINGLY ENOUGH included a large number of white indentured servants (and IIRC some outright slaves.) Nice try though.

Re:Yes

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Because it's still perfectly acceptable to consider a black person as only 3/5 of a person, and it's perfectly acceptable to refer to native Americans as 'savages' (as in the Declaration of Independence).

You've never been to /b/ then ?

Re:Yes

[wholestrawpenny]

Get some historical context on the reasoning of that figure. It wasn't because they considered blacks less worthy than whites.

Re:Yes

[misexistentialist]

"Savage" is like "retarded". It's a descriptive word that took on a negative bias, but still is useful unless you are being dishonest. What else where the stone-age natives if not savages?

The 3/5 thing is weird, but modern affirmative action considers blacks to be an even smaller fraction of a person, though no one would dare quantify it.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

The 3/5 rule in the Constitution does NOT consider a black person to be 3/5 of a person. It is in the Constitution to limit the power of Slave states in the House of Representatives.

Re:Yes

[JesseMcDonald]

That's only with regard to population metrics, specifically those used to determine political influence in the House of Representatives. What, you would have preferred for the pro-slavery states to be able to count their slave populations in their favor when voting on national policy? The 3/5 Compromise undermined the practice of slavery; it wasn't meant to belittle slaves at all.

Re:Yes

[DedTV]

It considered slaves to be 3/5 a person. Which was actually granting them more status than they had. Before that, they were merely property with no human rights at all.
Originally the African "slaves" in America were actually indentured servants. Orignally (in America) it was Native Americans who were used as Slaves. But Indians weren't very skilled at laborious farming, they were not born into slavery and thus were often very motivated to escape and didn't have far to go to do it, and they were highly susceptible to European diseases and thus had a nasty habit of being constantly sick and often dying on their masters.
Africans however were skilled farmers, much less susceptible to European and tropical diseases than the Indians, and in Africa the enslavement of conquered people whose children were born into slavery and self-imposed slavery by the impoverished was commonplace so African slaves were much more accepting of enslavement and less inclined to escape, and if they did wish to escape they had the issue of standing out among the white population and tended to have a problem with the 4000 mile swim back to their native land.

The tobacco boom in Virginia and the Carolinas in the early to mid 1600s, coupled with the expiration of many indentured servant agreements created a massive labor shortage. This created a business opportunity that the Dutch recognized and they began buying slaves from their African masters and importing them to the US to work the Tobacco fields. And as with any other valuable commodity, nefarious people who didn't have legitimate slaves to sell stole (ie kidnapped) them and sold them as their own.

But originally they were still bought as indentured servants who were to be freed after a certain period of time. But as we still see so often today, the corporations (plantation owners) lobbied for, and were eventually successful (first in 1661 in Massachusetts) in getting perpetual servitude laws passed which in effect created true slavery. Over time those laws were expanded and eventually relegated slaves to the same status as livestock.

By giving them the status of 3/5 a person, the Constitution reimposed some humanity to those who had been completely stripped of it over the preceding 100-or-so years.

Re:Yes

[pommiekiwifruit]

Note that in England, even though slavery was declared illegal in 1772 (sparking off the American revolution as Americans fought to keep their slaves), domestic servants (male and female) only got the vote in 1928 IIRC - ten years after property owning women got the vote!

Thus we get the distinction between manumission and emancipation.

sound and fury, anyone?

[lapsed]

The US constitution does say something about slaves being 3/5 people (correct me if I'm wrong -- I'm not an American). Having said that, it looks like a boilerplate warning that that the publisher would attach to reprinted historical documents that some people might find offensive and that might require a bit of historical context to fully understand. And who's linking to Fox for this story? Is anyone other than Fox and Conservapedia upset?

Re:sound and fury, anyone?

[king neckbeard]

The 3/5 compromise was for voting purposes, but it has been changed with the 14th amendment, which should be included in any publication of the constitution, along with the other amendments.

Re:sound and fury, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

The 3/5 compromise was for voting purposes, but it has been changed with the 14th amendment,

Sounds like views on race and ethnicity have changed since the Constitution was originally written. That's something I will discuss with my children.

Voting (for the eligible white voters. Slaves were counted, but couldn't vote), distribution of taxes, how many representatives your state receives in Congress, how many people are in your Congressional district, and probably other things. This affects many (most?) areas of governance at that time, and is a pretty big deal.

Re:sound and fury, anyone?

[king neckbeard]

We aren't distributing the original constitution. We are distributing the current constitution, which had its last change in 1992. It effectively has a lot of the needed 'commentary' built in. I would agree that parents should talk to their children about this, although in many cases, the children will be more knowledgeable than the parents. I think a much bigger concern than outdated word choices and peculiar clauses that have lost relevance or have been amended is the mechanics of the constitution and the reasons why these things were chosen.

Re:sound and fury, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

The copy of the Constitution that I received earlier this year was the original text, along with all of the amendments at the end.

Good.

[dward90]

Any production of the Constitution should have warning labels all over it. Almost every detail of government, technology, and daily life has changed since it was written. Two hugely important entities that didn't exist at the time: our all-or-nothing 2-party nonsense, and Corporations (big C).

Literal interpretations and "government can only do what is written here" is nonsense. For instance: the constitution does not give the Congress the right to establish a national Air Force. Because of the 10th amendment, each state should have sovereignty over issues not directly stated by the constitution, each state should logically have its own Air Force. Infallibility of 200+ year-old documents is BS.

Oh noes! Teabaggers are outraged!

[0xdeadbeef]

I'm guessing they put this on every "classic" work of literature they publish. You know, the ones busybodies are always trying to censor for the bad words, but really because they portray slavery and racism realistically.

Re:Oh noes! Teabaggers are outraged!

[jjoelc]

Mark Twain really pisses people off... If he were pissing people off for something other than the use of the word "nigger" then I think he would be proud. I wonder what he would have to say about the uproar over things like this...

this FP foR@ GNAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Is also a miserable 7hings I still free-loving climate battled in court, Troubles of those on my Pentium Pro visit engineering project may disturb other The curtains flew God, let's fucking would mar BSD's it just 0wnz.', I'll have offended here, please do not anymore. It's slings are limited, are about 7700/5 and committees series of debates sure that by the intentions and Are the important again. There are consistent with the corporations and building is Tops responsibility never heeded started work on this exploitation, A NEED TO PLAY have their moments And shouting that of OpenBSD versus and piss cocktail. may disturb other Very sick and its later seen in Get tough. I hope Reaper Nor do the If I remain these rules will are She had taken

Re:Warning Labels OK for Evolution, not for Slaver

[Anonymous Coward]

Warning: This book may contain facts that are incompatible with the superstitious fairy tales that your parents ignorantly used to scare you into being a good boy.

From the article

[selven]

From TFA:

"Any idea that's 100 years old will probably offend someone or other,"

Any idea no matter where/when/who it comes from will certainly offend someone or other.

These warnings were probably a reactionary measure taken after angry parents called in asking why they publish Huckleberry Finn when it has so many instances of the N word in it. A disclaimer isn't going to satisfy these people. We, as a society, should instead simply buckle down and accept that some people say/said things we don't like.

New for nerds.

[Phoenixlol]

Stuff that matters?

Warning! This document dangerous to government.

[Rene S. Hollan]

I think the title describes the only warning the Constitution requires.

3/5ths compromise

[langelgjm]

You forgot one:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. (Art. 1, Sec. 2, Para. 3)

Re:3/5ths compromise

[bsDaemon]

But if an Indian pays taxes, then he counts as a whole free person?

Re:3/5ths compromise

[IndustrialComplex]

You forgot one:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. (Art. 1, Sec. 2, Para. 3)

Which ironically, isn't a problem any more since we have decided that all people are free persons.

Re:3/5ths compromise

[conspirator57]

and that was amended out. it's kept in the text for context. you know kinda like a changelog from svn. it helps you not repeat mistakes. something about learning the lessons of history. i forget.

Re:3/5ths compromise

[HeronBlademaster]

That section was amended implicitly when slavery was banned, by making everyone "free Persons".

In other words, you are correct in that the section you quote is not a great guiding point, but that's irrelevant, because we changed it over a hundred years ago.

In other words, the system works as intended, so it's silly to put warning labels on it.

Re:3/5ths compromise

[jLewis42]

Also voting was restricted to white men

Re:3/5ths compromise

[sageres]

3/5th was done specifically for a noble cause by the Northern States to combat the Southern States' push for protection of the 'peculiar institution', i.e. the Slavery. Basically the constitution writers would fear that the slave owners would use every slave they own to cast a full vote, according to the wishes of that slave-owner. So the compromise was made to count it as just above half vote (60%), so that it would take five slaves to equal three votes. The writers of the constitution wanted to put the breaks on the slavery (such as Thomas Jefferson, for example), but it met with a lot of opposition, and the convention was in jeopardy. This was the only way to create this compromise for the constitution to be ratified and the United States of America to come to existence.

Re:3/5ths compromise

[langelgjm]

Yes, I know it was amended. The OP also mentioned a repealed amendment (prohibition) as one of the "not great" guiding points, yet failed to mention this.

Also, it's hardly irrelevant - it's history, and represented the content of the document for nearly 80 years.

Re:3/5ths compromise

[commodore64_love]

That's correct. The Cherokee that lived in South Carolina paid taxes, counted as whole free persons, obeyed the laws, and even appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court when their tribal lands were being confiscated by the State.

Unfortunately the U.S. Supreme Court found in favor of the Cherokee, that they could keep their homes, but a certain asshole president ignored the court's ruling and used the army to force the Cherokee to move to the western territories. If anybody should have been impeached, it should have been him - Andrew Jackson (D).

But because it was Indians, nobody cared enough to defend them, not even their own representatives. Kinda like how people turned a blind eye when innocent Americans were thrown-into concentration camps & their property confiscated by President FDR.

Re:3/5ths compromise

[commodore64_love]

Personally I think that's a good part of the Constitution.

Without that compromise, a war between the North and South would have broken-out in 1786. Or maybe the U.S. would have been dissolved completely, and we'd have 13 independent States, all warring with one another (as frequently happened between the European states). Better to compromise now, and fix the imperfections later (1865 - slavery abolished), then to be stubborn and destroy a ten-year-old nation.

Re:3/5ths compromise

[vxice]

Still that part still is a product of its time and if the constitution is included in whole would still be there. Why a person might not be a free person and only count as 3/5 would still need explaining not offered in the text of that specific document.

Re:3/5ths compromise

[Red Flayer]

If anybody should have been impeached, it should have been him - Andrew Jackson (D).

Ah, keep banging that partisan drum.

Too bad anyone who understands US political history understands that the Democratic Party of Jackson's time is irrelevant to the Democratic party of today -- and if anything, is equivalent to the Republican Party of today.

Re:3/5ths compromise

[scipero]

This is too simplistic. You may argue whether his assessment was correct, but from all the (copious) surviving evidence Jackson believed that relocation was the only solution to a horrific problem. It was an ugly process, to be sure. R.V. Remini puts it very well: "It was harsh, arrogant, racist---and inevitable."

And your representation of Marshall's SCOTUS ruling is misleading. It was rather fuzzy on precisely what property the United States was responsible for protecting. And it lacked any injunction on the executive branch to defend that property. It also stated categorically that the Cherokee were not a sovereign nation.

As an American I am personally shamed by the whole episode. The blame cannot be glibly laid at Jackson's feet. The blame, dear C64 lover, lay not in our leaders but in ourselves.

Re:3/5ths compromise

[JesseMcDonald]

Or perhaps the southern states, with their higher (enslaved) populations, would have succeeded in making slavery the rule in the northern states as well. The effect of the 3/5 Compromise was to reduce the political influence of the southern states, after all. It wasn't designed to belittle the slaves.

Re:3/5ths compromise

[lwsimon]

That one has already been amended out. Following the process we were talking about...

Re:3/5ths compromise

[hansede]

Too bad anyone who understands US political history understands that the Democratic Party of Jackson's time is irrelevant to the Democratic party of today -- and if anything, is equivalent to the Republican Party of today.

Or, perhaps, like trying to compare monetary values of the past to today's currency, comparing parties of the past to today's parties is comparing apples to oranges. However, I agree that the "(D)" was unnecessary.

Re:3/5ths compromise

[Ranten_N_Raven]

Don't forget the purpose of that -- It's actually an anti-slavery item. It limited the slave owners' number of seats in the House, which is based on population. Having slaves counted in their census gave them extra seats. Talk about "buying votes!" This limited that.

Re:3/5ths compromise

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, No. You are incorrect. The Democrat party of the day was a populist non-constructionist party, which would not be analogous to the modern R.

But thanks for playing.

Re:3/5ths compromise

[Red Flayer]

The Democrat party of the day was a populist non-constructionist party,

Jackson's Democrats adhered to anti-federalist Jeffersonian politics. Who is the (theoretically) anti-federalist party now?

Re:3/5ths compromise

[shoemilk]

Get him off our money! Seriously, I work in Japan and show children the money. They ask who the people are and when I get to the $20, I have to tell them what a horrible person he was.

As stated, the (D) hurts your argument dramatically. It's like putting an (R) next to Lincoln. They'd be reversed in today's world.

Re:3/5ths compromise

[commodore64_love]

You missed the part where I also slammed FDR, who is very similar to modern democrats, and committed the same crime (removing innocents from their homes).

As for the early 1800 democrats, they were more akin to the Libertarian Party today. They followed the Constitution to the letter, and advocated nullifying unconstitutional laws (like the Fugitive Slave Act). Almost none of the modern R's or D's follow the constitution, or even bother to read it.

Re:3/5ths compromise

[commodore64_love]

Fuzzy? It seems clear-cut to me. That was their land. It was guaranteed to them by treaty. The treaty and law was upheld by the highest court in the land. Nobody had any right to remove them from it.

hmmm...

[Galestar]

Comment'); DROP TABLE Comments; --I wonder if you sanitize your inputs on comments?

Re:hmmm...

[Galestar]

errr... wrong story

Warning Unnecessary

[twoallbeefpatties]

No one actually reads the Constitution anyway. They just tell you what it says.

Re:Warning Unnecessary

[oldspewey]

Exactly. Like this guy.

Re:Warning Unnecessary

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody expects the Constitution.

Re:Warning Unnecessary

[DudeTheMath]

"With these ten amendments: the right to assembly; the right to bear arms; ...; ah, eleven amendments: the right ...; ah, twelve--Everybody out! We'll start over!"

Re:Warning Unnecessary

[dnahelicase]

Can anyone still read it? Isn't it written in latin? Don't you have to pay someone to interpret it for you?

Re:Warning Unnecessary

[ScrewMaster]

Can anyone still read it? Isn't it written in latin? Don't you have to pay someone to interpret it for you?

Nah ... I think you're referring to my condominium association's bylaws. Damned if I can figure them out.

The works of ancient Greek philosophers.

[Deus.1.01]

Really should get this sort of warning...people need to stop thinking that they were the best and the brightest of human civilization, since they made shit up that impeeded alot of human scientific endevours.

Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with interpretation is that it's subjective and changes over time. Also, human language is vague.

When you hear people claim they're for strict interpretation, that's a somewhat dishonest shorthand for favoring someone who reads the constitution to suit their specific needs and prejudices.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[conspirator57]

no, actually, when i say it I mean that no one section should hold primacy over the rest. So for example, Bush had legitimate Article II power to run the military and defend the country but he overreached when he claimed it enabled him to annul Habeas and the 4th amendment. See how that works there? Each part of the constitution is as important as each other part.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[2names]

Also, human language is vague.

****A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.****

How the fuck is that vague? What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do people not understand?!?!?!

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

For starters it doesn't mention how the militia should be regulated, what constitutes Arms or where they have the right to keep and bear them.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Minwee]

What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do people not understand?!?!?!

The part where the people are tearing the arms off of bears.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[inviolet]

How the fuck is that vague? What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do people not understand?!?!?!

There is room for legitimate disagreement over the definition of 'arms'. To wit: does it include machine guns? Flamethrowers? SAMs? Nukes? Why or why not?

A political right means that anybody is automatically WRONG to interfere with you when you do it. By 'wrong' I mean: it would create an environment unsuitable for creatures with our nature and requirements. For example, it is wrong to ban books, because our nature as rational sovereigns is to pursue truth independently and then build consensus by persuasion.

Regarding the RKBA, it is automatically wrong for someone to take away a means of self-defense that is practical in those situations where the state can't protect you. Today that amounts to handguns, shotguns, etc.; tomorrow it will mean stun-phasers, sleep rays, whatever. It does not and will not include nukes (etc.) because it is the state's prerogative to protect you in those contexts... hence, nukes are not included in the RKBA. In other words, it is not automatically wrong for somebody to say you can't have a nuke.

That said, I'm a rabid gun owner, CCL, second-amendment advocate, and so forth. But I think we do ourselves a disservice when we insist that the RKBA is infinite, or without context.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno. What part of A well regulated militia don't you understand?

I disagree with the USSC ruling that there is a personal right to bear arms, but it is the law of the land. The First Amendment is MUCH clearer - and is also disregarded as to its plain reading. What part of "shall make no law" is vague or open for interpretation? Maybe we could had "...and we really, really mean it." as a new amendment?

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

Arguing over the constitution is like arguing over the bible and the way Libertarians interpret the constitution has convinced me that it is now a worthless document and that we should start from scratch.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, human language is vague.

****A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.****

How the fuck is that vague? What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do people not understand?!?!?!

The part where it is?

Captcha: disarm. Heh!

Re:Interpret it correctly

[fotbr]

Because it doesn't say that a well regulated militia is not to be infringed. It says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed because a militia is required.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're ignoring the whole "militia" thing to suit your own viewpoint? The right of the people to bear arms shall not violated as far as creating a militia is concerned. How the fuck are you going to ignore that? It's apparently fucking vague enough for you to be fucking confused to completely fuck up the meaning. It's called "context" and frequently ignored by the right-wing in any country terrorists/teabaggers alike.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

I take it that you, as an owner of 18th century "arms", are a member of a well regulated militia?

Re:Interpret it correctly

[jdgeorge]

How dare you answer that question in concise, direct, thoughtful, and non-inflammatory terms! Gah!

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Kijori]

Also, human language is vague.

****A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.****

How the fuck is that vague? What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do people not understand?!?!?!

"A well regulated militia" - what exactly is a militia? When exactly does one become "well regulated"
"the right" - is this an absolute right? Can it be contingent on something else, such as obeying the law?
"the people" - who are the people? Does it refer to individuals or the collective? If it's the former, is it everyone, or only adults? What about foreign citizens?
"keep and bear" - What exactly does this entail? Does the right to "keep and bear" also give the right to buy and sell? Can you bear the guns everywhere or only to certain places?
"bear Arms" - what exactly are the arms? Does it include all weapons or only those envisioned by the framers?
"shall not be infringed" - When is the right infringed - is it infringed if some guns are banned or only if all guns are banned? What about if all guns are banned but other weaponry is available? What if guns are not banned but are made prohibitively expensive - does this infringe on the right?

If you've ever read a modern contract you'll know the lengths lawyers have to go to to try to remove all uncertainty - and they almost never succeed. Derrida said that since every word is defined only by other words it doesn't matter how far back you go, you can never get to a solid anchor; change the underlying assumptions that the reader of a text holds and you change the meaning of the text, even though the words are still the same. Even if you could give an absolutely solid answer to every question I posed above - and you can't, no-one can - there would still be more questions. As the GP said - human language is vague.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

That's very vague, actually, because the term "Arms" is not defined, for good reason (how could the writers know what weaponry would consist of 200 years in the future). The amendment does not say that the right of the people to keep and bear any Arms they so desire shall not be infringed, just that we have a right to keep and bear arms in general. It can easily be interpreted in such a way that completely abolishes firearms while allowing the people to carry clubs, or knives. It was also written at a time when the US had no standing army and a well-regulated militia actually was necessary to the security of a free state, so it is also possible for the second amendment to be challenged on the grounds that we have full time military protection so the first assumption in the amendment is rendered false.
I'm not sure I believe that the writers meant for much of the constitution to be so vague, but a lot of it ended up vague, especially the second amendment.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[vxice]

Most of the vagueness surrounds the part about well regulated militias. Should only well regulated militias be allowed to bear arms? Who regulates the militias? Are only state militias allowed or can there be private militias independent of the state aside from regulation. And finally if the militias are to be well regulated why wouldn't their weapons be regulated as well? Really the right for every citizen to bear arms has little to do if only state run militias under heavy oversight are permitted and their members allowed to carry weapons. On the other hand well regulated can mean private militias that only have to register their name to be considered regulated then yes every citizen would be allowed to carry weapons. Due to the ',' in the sentence it is implied that the second half be taken in context of the first as they are related and clearly well regulated does not include everyone and their mother being allowed to purchase weapons without any kind of background check and belonging to no formal militia. Just to state my opinion when we asked kindly for the British to leave and they didn't we expelled them forcefully. And I have yet to see why a government of the people by the people and for the people would have any reason to have a monopoly on force, if they become out of line in my mind armed citizens act as the fourth branch of government and any restrictions on weapons is an attempt to pacify that branch and you have to ask for what reason? If they are a government for the people the people should, for the most part, be happy with their performance and thus no need to be afraid of an armed uprising even in the case where people are out to protect their interest at the expense of others the others if they outnumber the few vested interests be out gunned and out-manned making their attempt futile.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

******A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State*****

About as hard as that part is for people who think the second amendment is about everyone having a gun, when instead it is actually establishing a standing army when England said we could not as a colony.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Khyber]

No, the Militia Act does to some degree, however.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[conspirator57]

except that there are plenty of laws abridging the right to free speech. some are not trivial like the "fire in a crowded theater" laws.

and you conveniently ignore what militia meant when the document was written. militia was you, me, and everyone with a torch, pitchfork, or flintlock. since that part hasn't been amended since then, the meaning of the words at the time it was written should prevail and indeed has prevailed. or are you arguing against private ownership of firearms at the time of the revolution too? do you think we ought to return ourselves to British rule?

See the part of the Declaration of Independence:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Clearly we have a functional tradition of armed rebellion when appropriate. what ethical grounds do you claim to remove the ability to do so? are you so naive as to think that our current (not Obama, think a bit more medium term, please) government won't eventually slide into tyranny and need overthrown?

Re:Interpret it correctly

[conspirator57]

cool, but document it and then follow it. oh wait. that's not convenient. my bad.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, first of all, you are ignoring the first half of that amendment. If you join a militia, sure your right will not be infringed, but not otherwise. I strongly disagree with the Court's decision in Heller for that reason.

Additionally, would you also support an absolutist interpretation of the 1st Amendment? "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". Does this mean that libel and obscenity can not be regulated? That child pornography must be legal?

Finally, show me where in the Constitution it says that the 2nd Amendment should apply to the states and not just the federal government?

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Tmack]

How the fuck is that vague? What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do people not understand?!?!?!

There is room for legitimate disagreement over the definition of 'arms'.

I think this correctly sums it up: http://www.bustedtees.com/secondamendment

tm

Re:Interpret it correctly

[smooth wombat]

The problem is, there's a misprint in the wording. It's not bear arms, it's bare arms. Everyone has the right to bare arms.

Also, it's vague because the way it is written, it seems you can have arms because you are part of the militia since the militia was to supplement any standing army.

Little known fact: people still had to register ownership of their weapons so the government knew who they could call on to muster the militia. The NRA will never admit to it because that would do away with their efforts to not have people register today.

For reference: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504383_162-5258192-504383.html

And for the link to the Militia Act of 1792 which required white men (only men) to be notified upon their 18th birthday that they are automatically enrolled in the militia: http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

After all, if you're going to call forth the militia, it's a good idea to have some way of knowing who actually owns a weapon, don't ya think?

Re:Interpret it correctly

[gknoy]

****A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.****

How the fuck is that vague? What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do people not understand?!?!?!

- What constitutes "arms"? Personal small arms only? May we own and use tanks/jets/cannons/PT boats/SAMs?
- Is it infringement to tax ownership of arms?
- Is it infringement to require a permit for concealed carry?
- Is it only for people in a militia, and if so what constitutes one?
- Does this apply to non-citizens and illegal immigrants?

Few people disagree that such rights shouldn't be infringed, but many seem to want to redefine (or argue about, or "reinterpret") what the surrounding terms mean. The fact that the founders did not lay out in explicit detail that "'Arms' refers to any weapon operatable by a person or group of persons" (e.g., tanks are OK), or "This refers to all people, not merely citizens in a militia" means that it is something that people will interpret differently.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[conspirator57]

militia != standing army

read history doof.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[orthicviper]

for those who find those words vague, all they'd have to do is see what the founding fathers said about guns. then it becomes quite clear. http://www.cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, human language is vague.

****A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.****

How the fuck is that vague? What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do people not understand?!?!?!

As long as they belong to a well regulated militia, I have no problem with that.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[snowgirl]

Even your right-wing Supreme Court Justices held that regulation is not an infringement of our rights to bear arms.

However, regulations that are so strict that they default to deny is however wrong.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

Human language can be vague. The sentence you quoted may seem straightforward, but let me play Devil's Advocate.

• Define "Arms". Does a knife count? How about a sword? A pistol? A machine gun? A thermonuclear device? Chemical or biological weapons?
• Is the right to keep and bear ammunition included in the right to keep and bear Arms?
• Do you have the right to keep and bear Arms, but not to use them? The definitions of the word bear I found say nothing about using, just having.
• Are you required to belong to a "well regulated militia", as described in the first part of the sentence, in order to keep and bear Arms? [As written, I'd probably say no, that the first part is providing motivation for the second, but you could theoretically argue there's a connection.]
• Does "shall not be infringed" mean that you can never take Arms away from someone? Not even if they have been tried for a crime by a jury of their peers, convicted, and are currently incarcerated?

Again, I'm just taking the Devil's Advocate position.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Low Ranked Craig]

It's quite simple and progressive moonbats seem to lose reading comprehension when reading the 2nd amendment. Now that the reciprocal insults are out of the way, lets parse:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State - this means that in order for a country to exist it needs an army to defend itself, yes?

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed - this means that the rights of the citizens to keep weapons shall not be interfered with by the government. so far, so good?

The context: The founders and the people of the colonies had just fought a war with Britain for freedom, and they clearly understood, better than any of us today apparently, that governments have a tendency to become self serving and oppressive. see the collected works of Thomas Jefferson, et.al for more details. If you read the other writings of the founders from that time period, you will understand that the point of the 2nd amendment is to ensure that the people retain at least some ability to defend themselves from the militia of the oppressive government.

That's the context of it. Or perhaps you think those hack framers just fucked up the wording? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Tarsir]

So if the fact of regular citizens owning guns no longer has a bearing on the militia, does that mean the right to bear arms can be infringed? In other words, does the right to bear arms hinge on it being a requirement for a well-regulated militia, or not? It's complicated stuff.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Genda]

You're absolutely right... it's obvious that the founding fathers intended that American Citizens have the right to build and occupy stone fortresses and posses the arms of bears. How could we have gotten it so wrong!!!

Re:Interpret it correctly

[raddan]

Usually, the start of a sentence has something to do with its ending, so it's natural that people would think there is some connection between a "well-regulated militia" and the "right to bear arms".

I find it ironic that the same people who complain about a lack of strict constitutionalism in the judiciary complain vehemently when historians suggest that the correct historical interpretation doesn't mean that you get to have a nice little weapons cache in your basement.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[lupis42]

How the militia should be regulated has no bearing on the right of the people, right? It doesn't say anything about the right of the militia.

As for what constitutes Arms, well, that term hasn't changed much, it still means weapons. As where they have the right to keep and bear them, well, if the people have the right to keep and bear arms, (except in certain places), that (except in certain places) part would infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, right? The language is pretty clear on infringement, is it not?

Re:Interpret it correctly

[gknoy]

.... a means of self-defense that is practical in those situations where the state can't protect you. Today that amounts to handguns, shotguns, etc.; tomorrow it will mean stun-phasers, sleep rays, whatever. It does not and will not include nukes (etc.) because it is the state's prerogative to protect you in those contexts... hence, nukes are not included in the RKBA.

I was under the impression that the reason for the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) was that we had just fought an insurrection, and the intent was that the citenry be equipped to do so in the future if it became necessary. In these days, that would imply that we should be as well-armed as the Swiss citizenry. I believe the founded /did/ expect us to be able to own and operate cannons, for example... but, I could always be wrong. They almost certainly expected us to be as well armed as any occupying force (foreign or domestic), which means that I'm pretty sure a ban on assault weapons is not something they'd support. That said, there was surely some level of disagreement among the founders -- I know not everyone agreed 100% with Jefferson. ;)

I think they'd not include nukes. Partly because I doubt they could imagine city-destroying weapons.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[IndustrialComplex]

For starters it doesn't mention how the militia should be regulated, what constitutes Arms or where they have the right to keep and bear them

A well regulated militia is necessary. The Right shall not be infringed. A statement of fact, and a requirement.

It's amazing how non-vague the constitution is until you start trying to interpret in a way that limits freedom.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[snowgirl]

I think it's very good to point out that the First Amendment Right to Free Speech in the USA is perhaps the strongest right that we have. The government cannot stop you from saying ANYTHING, and NO ONE can get the government to make you stop saying something...

Well, except for two things. If it fundamentally threatens national security, then the government can prevent you beforehand. Second, if you commit a crime by your speech, then you're still in trouble.

So, again, the government cannot force you to stop calling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, but they can charge you with a crime afterwards.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[orthicviper]

who is the militia? U.S. citizens, to protect from tyranny. we the people have the right.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[IndustrialComplex]

Is it infringement to tax ownership of arms

It should be. Is it an infringement to tax voting, or to tax speaking your mind?

Re:Interpret it correctly

[b4upoo]

The question is what did the founders mean by militia. Did they mean for law enforcement against criminals or raiders such as Indians? Did they mean as a unit to fight foreign powers that might invade? Or did they also mean as a power capable of rising against our own government if it started to turn upon the people? Or did they mean all of the above?
            Further would the founders have voted for such a document if it was known that women, Indians, blacks and other minorities would be able to vote and own property?
            And even more important, lacking the legal right to duel, or beat down unpopular beliefs and believers either by direct action or by state or even town laws was in play at the time of the founding. Did the founders believe or want federal laws not knowing that the public would be forced to tolerate what they would have seen as outrageous and evil views or behavior?
            I think the founders would never permit the constitution to exist if they knew the issues we face today. If the founders saw some of the ghettos in our nation today chances are those areas would be burned flat to the ground and most of the inhabitants would be killed on the spot with no threat of legal restraints or punishments at all.
 

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Zondar]

You also should be careful not to impose a modern definition of a word when the actual definition at the time was COMPLETELY different.

A clock should be "well regulated", but that has nothing to do with laws or statutes or rules.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

=======

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

        1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

        1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

        1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

        1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

        1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

        1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[IndustrialComplex]

So if the fact of regular citizens owning guns no longer has a bearing on the militia, does that mean the right to bear arms can be infringed? In other words, does the right to bear arms hinge on it being a requirement for a well-regulated militia, or not? It's complicated stuff.

It's only complicated when you argue from the position of trying to limit freedoms.

First, I don't agree with your first point, but that's irrelevant. It can't be infringed until you eliminate that statement from the Constitution, otherwise it makes the entire document worthless.

If you can just claim that 'Oh that doesn't matter in today's society' and then ignore it, what's the point? If it doesn't matter, then change the Constitution.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[jedidiah]

> There is room for legitimate disagreement over the definition of 'arms'.

No not really. Simply place those words in their historical context and try not to make up any self-serving BS.

When you consider the idea of a national muster in the style of Israel or Switzerland, the framework becomes painfully obvious.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[jedidiah]

The militia is everyone eligible to be drafted.

The idea is basically that anyone could be drafted into the army or muster with their neighbors ready to fight a war.

Alternatively, citizens could be deputized by local law enforcement when needed.

Such ideas of social self sufficiency are currently out of style. So the idea of a citizen militia or a posse are looked down upon by certain people.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[warrior389]

mod up

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anomalyst]

It is also missing the part where it enumerates whether or not you to keep the paws as well or just the arms to the wrist joint.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[zeropointburn]

The militia is mentioned only as a reason to ensure citizens are allowed to possess weapons, and as an insight into what weapons were intended. It is not the only reason for citizens to bear arms, nor is the right to bear arms inextricably tied to the existence and regulation of a militia. In the time that the Constitution was written, the militia was the most common military organization. The weapons indicated are therefore the weapons of the military. Grenades, assault rifles, cannons, claymore mines, etc., etc. in comparison to the modern military.
  Currently, a license is required to own most weapons. It is possible to get a license to own an automatic rifle or shotgun, or to own a rocket launcher (listed as an infernal machine). It is possible to get a license to own and fly a fighter jet (but not with live weapons) or own and operate a combat tank (but not with live weapons). These licensing requirements are strictly speaking unconstitutional. Our society allows them because we are afraid of the crazy guy down the street and we don't want him in an Abrams blowing up courthouses. Our society limits them because we are afraid of the burglar or armed intruder and we want to have a reliable weapon for self-defense.
  Our society has no real conception that one of the original purposes of a well-armed populace was to ensure fair governance. A corrupt government is easily overthrown when the average person has weapons and training comparable to the military. It is unfortunate that we have all been trained to be so stupid and so accepting of pre-digested answers that we are unable to react to failures of government in any meaningful way. The right to bear arms is meaningless today, except as an outlet for hunting and for security theatre and for a little sense of rebellion, all carefully controlled by the state.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Captain Splendid]

As for what constitutes Arms, well, that term hasn't changed much, it still means weapons.

No it doesn't. Try buying an RPG, or a tank, or a nuke. Let me know how that works out for you.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Ungrounded Lightning]

For starters it doesn't mention how the militia should be regulated, what constitutes Arms or where they have the right to keep and bear them.

For that you do what "historiographers" do: Go back to the writings of the time and find out what the words meant to the authors and the other politicians who debated, suggested, and approved the wording. These people wrote a LOT of stuff which has survived in the historical record, much of it explaining what they meant or debating what it should say and why.

The editor of _The Federalist_ - the political party paper of one of the major factions, in which much of this stuff was published - was Noah Webster, who was also a language reformer who wrote the then-definitive textbooks for teaching American English and compiled and published the first dictionary of the American English language. Timeline:
  - 1783 Speller published.
  - 1784 Grammar published.
  - 1785 Reader published.
  - 1787 Constitution completed.
  - 1789 Bill of Rights completed.
  - 1806 Webster's first dictionary published.

It's pretty clear that

  - "Militia" was "everybody with their privately-owned arms" (later defined in law as divided into the "organized militia" - males of appropriate age except for those exempt due to things like being in other government service, and the "unorganized militia" - everybody else able and willing to fight.

  - "Arms" in private hands at the time included warships, cannon (both small and large, including crew-served weapons on shipboard and on carriages), the latest smooth bore, rifle, and pistol technology, rockets, bombs, bayonets, swords, daggers, and other edged weapons, etc. Figure on it including anything of potential military application. (They also understood and promoted progress and invention, and knew about attempts at automatic weapons and interchangeable parts for mass production. So figure it includes future developments, just as "press" includes automated high-speed presses and broadcast media, and "papers" includes electronic records.)

  - "Well-regulated" at the time meant "well-adjusted" or "in accurate operating condition", not "under the rule of a government official". Like a voltage regulator, not a beaurocrat. A clock was "well-regulated" to keep accurate time. A double-barreled shotgun was "well regulated" if the shot patterns from both barrels hit the same spot. "Well-regulated" for a militia meant that they had training in how to shoot and how to work together. At the time this was typically done on a local level, with periodic practice and with officers elected by the militiamen themselves.

  - Where: 1785 August 19. (Jefferson to Peter Carr). "As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a mederate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independence to the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks."

Obviously Jefferson didn't completely agree with Webster's attempts to "regulate" American English spelling.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Profane MuthaFucka]

You don't have the freedom to own a modern gun. The Constitution referred only to flintlocks which fired balls down a smoothbore barrel. I'm all for being REALLY strict about the intent of the Founders. And I doubt any of them were thinking of pump shotguns held by Republican men with small cocks.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[JesseMcDonald]

I think they'd not include nukes. Partly because I doubt they could imagine city-destroying weapons.

I think that, given some time to consider it, at least some of them would include nukes. However, unless you can prove to everyone that your nuke is safely inert—that you are perfectly sane, and that the nuke can't be activated by anyone else and won't go off on its own—then simply by having one you put everyone around you in a state of "imminent threat of irreversible harm" and they would be perfectly justified to react in self-defense. Smaller weapons don't pose that kind of imminent threat simply by existing, at least not in isolation. You might run into a similar problem if you wanted to store copious amounts of explosives in a residential area, though.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[sanosuke001]

It is the responsibility of the people to overthrow their government if/when it becomes oppressive. The founders wholeheartedly believed in this. Because of that, they wanted us to be able to fight for our freedom; the 2nd amendment was meant to protect that right. The day the government takes that right away is the day we know they've gone too far. There would be other reasons, but losing this right must be the last straw. If it isn't, we lost our ability to fight back.

This is one of the biggest reasons I own guns. I don't trust the government; I don't trust anybody, really. This is a good thing. If everyone trusted everyone else, we would all be dead. However, I also don't want to be defenseless if/when something happens. Being prepared for someone who has decided that they deserve to be in power over me/you/anyone else is, and always should be, an absolute right of everyone.

Also, target practice is fun!

Re:Interpret it correctly

[digsbo]

Regulated in the language of the day meant "trained", not regulated in the sense of "controlled", so the point was that the citizenry had a right to assemble in force and be prepared to defend themselves. The opposite of today where that right is denied, and the government maintains a legal monopoly on the use of force.
None of the other phrases offer any substantial confusion to most people reading it today.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Scutter]

You don't have the freedom to own a modern gun. The Constitution referred only to flintlocks which fired balls down a smoothbore barrel.

Really? Maybe you could point out the part that talks about flintlocks. I can't seem to find it.

By your logic, the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to computers and ball-point pens.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[JesseMcDonald]

Usually, the start of a sentence has something to do with its ending, so it's natural that people would think there is some connection between a "well-regulated militia" and the "right to bear arms".

There is a connection: the first clause provides the reason for the second clause, explaining why the right shall not be infringed. However, it doesn't modify the second clause in any way. This is the plain meaning given the way the amendment is worded; it takes some rather impressive linguistic contortions to interpret it any other way. The language hasn't changed that much in the last couple hundred years.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[DoctorFrog]

The idea that individuals should have the right to keep and bear arms is an interpretation, not necessarily supported by the text, though. It's an interpretation I find eminently reasonable, but it's not the only possible one.

It's also possible to interpret it as saying that "the people" as a collective (rather than as individuals) have the right to keep and bear arms, to prevent their subjugation by foreign powers. That also fits the facts of the context.

In which case the people of the United States are served by having established a standing army (which we didn't have at the time), with no limit on the weaponry it can keep and bear, commanded by civilians elected by the people.

That's not the interpretation I would favor, but it's legitimate and justifiable by the text. My intent is strictly to show that more than one interpretation is possible.

As it happens my own interpration, and yours, are not binding. The only binding interpretations of what the words mean are the interpretations made by the Judiciary - that's their job, as defined by the Constitution they interpret for us.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what's wrong with gun-nuts and the NRA--They are completely willing to sacrifice the intended purpose of the 2nd amendment to advance the unintended consequence of it. The second amendment isn't for personal protection or hunting, its about the citizenry being able to fight a war against an organized army. Any weapon an army has access to the citizenry should as well.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[dougmc]

What part of "shall make no law" is vague or open for interpretation?

For starters, how about the part that you omitted - "Congress shall make no law" ...

Taken literally, that means that the states can make such laws, cities can make such laws, hell, even the President or Court or any other government agency could make such a law if they are permitted to make such laws.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[tenco]

The problem is, there's a misprint in the wording. It's not bear arms, it's bare arms. Everyone has the right to bare arms.

I guess that's a relief for every constitution abiding citizen of the US of A, especially in summer. I've been told that it can get really hot in California during that time. After all, bear arms are not that practical as a source of meat.

SCNR

Re:Interpret it correctly

[russotto]

Define "Arms". Does a knife count? How about a sword? A pistol? A machine gun? A thermonuclear device? Chemical or biological weapons?

All but the last three obviously count. A nuke is just a really big explosive with a few extra side-effects, but sometimes quantity has a quality of its own, and I'd argue nukes do cross that line.

Is the right to keep and bear ammunition included in the right to keep and bear Arms?

Yes. The Constitution is not a contract written by the Devil or Rod Serling. Ammunition for arms is included under arms.

Do you have the right to keep and bear Arms, but not to use them?

IMO, the Second Amendment does not protect the right to use arms, though I'd argue that some use rights (including the use of arms in self-defense) exist among the unenumerated rights. There is no general right to use arms; you can't just go around shooting, stabbing, or clubbing anything or anyone you want to. Even if you really think they deserve it.

Does "shall not be infringed" mean that you can never take Arms away from someone? Not even if they have been tried for a crime by a jury of their peers, convicted, and are currently incarcerated?

No; it's pretty clear that all the inalienable rights were intended to be revokable in the case of incarcerated criminals. This falls under the "not a contract written by the Devil" clause.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[cayenne8]

"Currently, a license is required to own most weapons. It is possible to get a license to own an automatic rifle or shotgun, or to own a rocket launcher (listed as an infernal machine)."

Well, sure you have to have special licensing for weapons other than common guns, shotguns and handguns.

I'm not sure what state you live in, but where I live, I do not have to have any type of special license to own a rifle, shotgun or handgun. I don't have to register any weapons I acquire, and since I usually buy/sell used weapons with other private individuals, there is no record of transaction or background check at all with the city/state/federal government.

I guess it varies a lot from state to state....with it, in general, being much more restricted in the NE and West Coastal areas of the US?

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Myopic]

"Strict construction" or "original intent" is not 'somewhat' dishonest, it's flat-out dishonest in every way. So I agree with you even more than you agree with yourself!

Re:Interpret it correctly

[AtomicOrange]

The founding fathers didn't say you'd be limited to any sort of weapon, nor that it should be that of the current technology of the day. For an anti-gun post, it's comical that you care to attack pump shotguns which mechanically are so much simpler, flamed, etc than say Mac 10's or Uzi's capable of fully automatic fire. Feel free to expound upon your point, I am truly curious. Otherwise, you're just trolling for ridiculous lashbacks.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Mashiki]

A comma in a principal document is absolute. And in your summery you forgot it, there's two sections there. One in relation to state militia's and the other to the rights of the people.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

No it doesn't. Try buying an RPG, or a tank, or a nuke. Let me know how that works out for you.

Yes, it does. Just because the government infringes on our right to bear arms, doesn't mean the definition has changed.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Dogbertius]

What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do people not understand?!?!?!

The part where the people are tearing the arms off of bears.

"What? Every American is entitled to a pair of preserved bear arms hanging on the wall. How could that possibly be misconstrued?"

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

And what the hell defines a militia?

Re:Interpret it correctly

[WinPimp2K]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State..

Note the wording here refers very specifically to a State - and not a Nation. Given that the Constitution defines and limits the powers of Federal Government, one should not get so hung up on the militia part that one ignores the State and People.

If Arizona had a well regulated militia, it would be free to use that militia to secure its southern border until relieved by Federal troops, and we would not be having this argument over their SB1070. The failure to use Federal troops for this purpose is what you get from a deliberate decision to treat border security as a law-enforcement issue rather than a national security issue. A distinction which is only applied to our land borders - the Coast Guard is a military organization and seems to somehow operate in spite of Posse Comiatus (sp).

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Kijori]

None of the other phrases offer any substantial confusion to most people reading it today.

If that were true then I wouldn't have been able to reel off a whole list of points that were not clear to me from reading the quotation.

The point isn't really whether people find the phrases confusing, it's whether the phrases have only one possible interpretation - and that clearly isn't the case. If you don't believe me try answering them all and then playing "devil's advocate" - I think you'll find that you can't arrive at an interpretation that allows no doubt.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I agree. I've had this argument with people -- whether the first clause in any meaningful way modifies the second clause. I claim it does not. How could it? What if it read The sky being blue and the oceans being dry, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ? Would that first clause somehow invalidate the second? I think it would not.

To me, the part of that amendment open to interpretation are the words "keep", "bear", and "arms". Most of us agree that the right includes hunting rifles, but not nuclear bombs; but everyone draws a different line between those extremes. And, if you are allowed to "keep" your gun locked in a cabinet in a government-approved location, is that good enough? People will disagree. Is it a violation to prohibit "bearing" guns on airplanes? People will disagree. These are policy decisions open to the democratic process, but outright banning guns is not on the table.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[maxwell demon]

A few more points:

You have the right to keep arms. But where does it say you have the right to buy arms? It could just mean that if you inherited an arm, no one may take it away from you.

It says you have the right to keep and bear arms, but not how many arms you are allowed to keep and bear. So you could be restricted to keep at most two arms (one arm isn't possible because of the plural).

Also: "The right of the people" could be interpreted not as the right of the individuals, but as the right of the people as a whole (sorry, I don't know how to word it better; if you know German, it's the difference between the two translations "die Leute" and "das Volk"). So maybe it doesn't say that you individually have the right to keep arms, but that should it be allowed to keep arms at publicly accessible places, so in case it's necessary the people can get them.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with all of your statements except the purpose of the mis-comprehension. At the risk of oversimplifying things, I think the myriad of different anti-2A people fall into one of just a few categories. This analysis is based on my personal experience in life as someone who most would consider "red" in a "blue" state my whole life.

1. They really are ignorant, and don't understand the basic meaning of the 2A. I am not speaking about the conceptual or ideological meanings here or any justifications, just the overt, surface comprehension of the proposition. They think for example that a Militia is required to bear arms, or that machine guns are not reasonable for self-defense, etc... Ironically, I hope there are the most of these type, because at least that means that, shown the right path, these people might be enlightened and change their opinion.
2. Those who, for ideological purposes, try to twist the language to confuse those in category 1. Usually these people are no brighter than average person, but are very arrogant in thinking that their arguments are deceptive and persuasive enough to fool the "dullards" in category 1. Often these types have no formal post high-school education or an incomplete degree and yet regard themselves as highly intellectual and self-taught. There's nothing wrong with not going to school or learning something outside of college, but I have found that some of the most arrogant people I know fall into this category. They often exhibit a feeling of superiority to the point where they feel confident that they can blow smoke at someone in category 1 and if someone actually calls them out factually and proves them wrong, they often resort to louder speech, distracting gestures, going off on tangents, and ad homonym attacks. I think we have a great number of people in this type.
3. Those who know full well and admit what it means but don't care and just want to abolish private gun ownership outright de jure, or de facto through attrition (highly restrictive gun laws). I hope there are the least of these types. Often they use the same tactic of confusing the language as category 2, short of the angry outbursts or calling the 2A antiquated. These people are frequently from very prestigious schools, have a good background, are well spoken, and seemingly well-intentioned. But inevitably, they really just want more control over you. I think there are fewest of these, but they are very dangerous because their credentials give them an authority and credibility that influences and creates the other two categories of people.

So to sum it up:
1. Doesn't understand due to ignorance.
2. Misrepresents 2A to people in category 1 due to some ignorance and some ideological differences. Perhaps
3. Knows full well what the framers wrote ant intended with the 2A and is very crafty at misrepresenting it or casting doubt. This type really thinks he/she knows what is better for you and is willing to lie to you to "save your self". i.e. the ends justify the means.

It's almost hierarchical where 3 is on top, 2 is sort of middle management, and 1 is the pawn, the sheep, the grunt.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Captain Splendid]

Fair enough. However, find me an NRA bigwig who doesn't go pale when you suggest the above items should available for purchase. I'll wait.

Also, I don't find a lot of 2nd amendment activists who don't behave in exactly that way, and I can't figure it out.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State - this means that in order for a country to exist it needs an army to defend itself, yes?

Except there is (or at least can be) a very significant difference between a militia and an army. A militia is of the people. An army is of the government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia

A militia is very unlikely to invade and occupy countries on the other side of the world, for example.

Also, read Article I, Section 8 to see that the Constitution talks about armies and militias as separate entities.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Kijori]

While it is undoubtedly true that punctuation in the original document is important when interpreting it, I don't see how that fact is relevant to any of the points I made in my comment. Moreover I did not forget the comma, it simply was not included in any of the short extracts I quoted.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[VirginMary]

By your logic, people should be allowed to own nuclear weapons!

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with that line of thinking is that no where else in bill of rights is there any sort of explanation attached.

There's no explanation of why we get freedom of speech or religion. Or why we don't have to allow soldiers to stay in our houses. Or why we don't have to incriminate ourselves.

If you remove words from the rest of the bill of rights or the constitution, it doesn't make sense anymore. Putting an explanation in the amendment is horribly out of place, hence why people think there's more to it than just being an explanation.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Johnny Mnemonic]

What part of "well regulated" do you not understand?

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Profane MuthaFucka]

It doesn't. It clearly says the right to free speech. Speech is talking. Writing is not speech. That's why there's another section for the press, which is writing. And, you have to own a printing press too.

I'm a strict constructionist. Very strict. Tell me, are you a white man?

Re:Interpret it correctly

[AK Marc]

How the fuck is that vague?

With the idea that the federal government was a collection of state governments and not a collection of individuals and that "militia" can be construed to indicate state National Guard units, and "the right of the people" is not absolute, as understood by the all sides being seemingly ok with revoking that right upon conviction of a violent felony, a reading of the sentence could be taken to mean "Militia, being necessary to secure the State from foreign States and the State from the several States, the right of the people to join the militia and thus bear arms shall not be infringed."

I'm not arguing that's a correct wording, but it's what some people get from reading it. If it is not vague, as you assert, then why is there so much debate? Why have the first clause? What meaning does it bring? Can you name another clause in the Constitution with no meaning at all? After all, you are asserting that clause has no meaning. As far as I know, there is no meaningless justification in any other clause of the Constitution, so why there? That seems to be an injection of some of this "vague" property you object to so much. And, unless that can be explained, people will try to assign it some value, and that will tend towards readings that have more weight on the first clause than your reading.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[CAIMLAS]

As for what constitutes Arms, well, that term hasn't changed much, it still means weapons.

No it doesn't. Try buying an RPG, or a tank, or a nuke. Let me know how that works out for you.

Are you daft?

nuclear arms
small arms
improvised arms

And so on. The term is hardly vague and was used then in much the same way it is today. There were plenty of canons and warships in private ownership (in fact, most used during the Revolution were, and many ships in the Civil War were as well.) People just have an emotional disconnect due to fear.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Where did the founding fathers mention Glocks? I'd like to know. They didn't mention health care, and they didn't mention Glocks. Fucking activist judges are just creating rights out of nothing.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Zerth]

There is room for legitimate disagreement over the definition of 'arms'. To wit: does it include machine guns? Flamethrowers? SAMs? Nukes? Why or why not?

Considering that private ownership of a warship with crew-served cannons wasn't illegal at the time, I'd say there should be more latitude than currently exists.

Flamethrowers, at least in my area, are perfectly legal until you attack somebody. Much like rifles, screwdrivers, and anvils.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[colonelquesadilla]

The militia referred to is generally regarded to mean something along the lines of "every able bodied male citizen".

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

When you hear people claim they're for strict interpretation, that's a somewhat dishonest shorthand for favoring someone who reads the constitution to suit their specific needs and prejudices.

No, that would be the "living, flexible" Constitution proponents who want the interpretation to be based on what today's meaning of the word "is" is. Strict interpretation means using the words and terminology as they were understood at the time of the document's writing (which CAN be determined with great accuracy; it isn't that long ago and supporting documents are readily available and verifiable). And that means its _not_ up to one particular interpreter, or one particular judge or panel, to 'make up' what they want it to mean today.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Kismet]

****A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.****

I notice you put emphasis on only the portion of the text that you care about. I participated in a series of essays that argued the topic in detail, although not entirely about the 2nd amendment, but using that as an example. Here's the link if you are interested in a logical argument about it. It's too prolix to reproduce here. In short, I pointed out how the 2nd amendment, unlike the other rights in the Bill of Rights, is not a simple imperative but an argument that contains a distinct antecedent and a consequent. Since it is an argument, that means certain things about it could be examined and tested for truth, raising the possibility that there are contexts where the right can be regulated without being infringed (specifically in cases where professional police and military forces are hired). David Cooney argued the other side, but I don't feel that he addressed the important points. I'm always interested in discussion about it.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[AK Marc]

A well regulated militia is necessary. A statement of fact,

Where else in the Constitution did they deal with statements of facts? Is there any other place with such a clause? If not, then why would they add an unnecessary statement of fact to this part and no other? Wouldn't that tend to indicate that it was intended as a constraint rather than a statement of fact?

Re:Interpret it correctly

[CAIMLAS]

Regarding the RKBA, it is automatically wrong for someone to take away a means of self-defense that is practical in those situations where the state can't protect you. Today that amounts to handguns, shotguns, etc.; tomorrow it will mean stun-phasers, sleep rays, whatever. It does not and will not include nukes (etc.) because it is the state's prerogative to protect you in those contexts... hence, nukes are not included in the RKBA. In other words, it is not automatically wrong for somebody to say you can't have a nuke.

Except for the fact that the Constitution makes no such distinction, and the founding fathers were all pretty clear on the 2nd Amendment being included as such to allow for the perceived-necessary governmental reset some years down the line, you would be correct.

The aim of the 2nd Amendment was to allow the citizens to overthrow the federal government, when it became too oppressive. Given the wording of the 2nd Amendment and the founders' dialog on the matter, it's pretty clear that this should include at least up to modern tanks, planes, and all types of personal munitions and arms - but not necessarily exclusive of something larger.

This foregoes the argument that nobody should own such things as nukes, but that's neither here nor there - because people (and countries) do own such horrible things. They exist, and therefore it is necessary to have a practical, realistic countermeasure/prevention method (whether it's MAD or ACBMs).

Re:Interpret it correctly

[trentblase]

Right, so you defend the position that there's no interpretation involved, then you go ahead and interpret the clause to mean that convicts can be denied the right although that appears nowhere in the actual text. You also interpret arms to mean "not nukes." So I'm just gonna go ahead and interpret "people" to mean "not you."

Re:Interpret it correctly

[CAIMLAS]

You're wasting your time. The typical "logical" course of discussion with a Denier goes as follow:

Denier:
Logician: Actually,
Denier: Lalala I can't hear you! I reject your reality and substitute my own through linguist revisionism and doublespeak!

Re:Interpret it correctly

[a2wflc]

they were thinking about any weapon needed to take back the government if politicians get out of control. They weren't talking about hunting or sport or even protecting private property (it was pretty much a given that people could use guns for that). They wanted the people to have an option in addition to voting for keeping control of the government. That means people need to have any weapon the government can have.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Ranten_N_Raven]

I believe the founded /did/ expect us to be able to own and operate cannons, for example... but, I could always be wrong.

Why did the British march on Lexington & Concord? To grab cannons. Why did the Mexicans attack the town of Gonzales? To grab a cannon--see it on the "Come and Take It" flag! The first battles of both American and Texan independence were fought over the right of the citizens to posess field artillery.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Frankly, it doesn't matter what constitutes a militia or how it is regulated for RKBA. I guess the framers did not anticipate the rise in illiteracy and the public education system emerging in the early 20th century.

I'll try to explain. A militia is not necessary to keep and bear arms. A militia is necessary to secure a free state, not to keep and bear arms. Here is a clarification for you

[Since] A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

2. We should be able to keep and bear any arms. Any right not enumerated here is not magically yielded to the fed. In fact these are basically "negative rights" of what the government can't do to you. They can't infringe on your right to keep and bear arms. Sadly, there is no actual mention about the use of arms or of self-defense. Therefore, strictly speaking it would be legal under 2A to carry a briefcase nuke, as it is possible to bear it (if it were mounted on a missile in a silo, truck, jet, or something else then it would get fuzzy). However, it wouldn't necessarily be legal to "fire" it since you would almost certainly be murdering a bunch of people in the process and damaging others' property. If you owned a very, very big lot and could somehow avoid any fallout or anything else leaving your property, then in THEORY this should be legal under 2A. Is it reasonable for someone to want a personal nuke? I don't think so. Taken to the other extreme, there is nothing that says if you are in mortal danger and you have a slingshot that you can fire it and kill your assailant, only that it is legal to keep and bear your slingshot.

Another example, the NFA puts restrictions on rifle and shotgun length and requires special taxes on fully-automatic weapons, BATFE puts restrictions on things like this as well and guns are designated as "assault weapons" that have "no sporting purpose". Last I checked, we don't actually have a right to hunt or target shoot and there is no constitutional requirement that an arm has a "sporting purpose". If there was, there would have to be a definition of what is a sport and who gets to deem the arm worthy of "sporting". Obviously the framers took hunting for granted, because they did not have the mass transportation and refrigeration that has made the modern supermarket possible. But equally obvious, the 2A was not written with the (sole) intention of hunting or target practice. So at the very least, small arms should be legal (fully automatics, hand grenades, rpgs included) since, according the the letter of the law, they can be kept and you can bear them. The definition of "bear" then becomes semantically very important.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Very well. Then you would only have the right to bear arms if you are subject to a certain amount of training, or "regulation". And organized into a militia.

Both of which the NRA and other nuts are against, and not without reason.

I am personally in favor of a training/safety requirement to own firearms, but I can also envision how it would be abused: the training would be hard enough/unavailable, and so become a de facto ban against ownership.

But regardless, even with your vocabulary, there is more restriction in the Amendment than gun PACs are willing to concede.

And finally, this picking nits over language is silly. We should frankly have a new amendment constructed to embody current mores, instead of try to parse the language from the old one. The Constitution is a living document, and we should treat it as such, instead of try to reanimate a corpse. Determining, what, exactly, the most popular, current, consensus is on what levels of freedom should be allowed would be more productive than trying to deconstruct the meaning of the original.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

also, it says the right of the people to keep arms shall not be infringed, which is different than "no infringing on people actually bearing arms". see life of brians "he has the right to bear children, even though he cannot bear children"

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Ranten_N_Raven]

The militia is defined in the law -- US Code Title 10, section 311

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's very good to point out that the First Amendment Right to Free Speech in the USA is perhaps the strongest right that we have. The government cannot stop you from saying ANYTHING, and NO ONE can get the government to make you stop saying something...

Well, except for two things. If it fundamentally threatens national security, then the government can prevent you beforehand. Second, if you commit a crime by your speech, then you're still in trouble.

So, again, the government cannot force you to stop calling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, but they can charge you with a crime afterwards.

Third: effective imposition of 'hate crimes' and political correctness doctrines. No, they can't stop you from saying something but they can make the environment for expressing unpopular (or 'unacceptable to the academic/press/governmental elite') opinions so oppressive, the consequences so harsh, that 'every day citizen' just clams up rather than face the repercussions.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Tell me where it says Glock in the Constitution, or where any founding father mentions a nine. And I'm pretty sure that none of them mentioned popping a cap into someone's ass, so you can forget that too.

Don't invent rights where the founders didn't write them.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

Or the people bearing the arms are to use them in service of the country as part of the militia, not use it to fight against their own government?

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Captain Splendid]

I'm not sure what your point is: Am I wrong for suggesting such things should be able to be bought, or am I wrong for suggesting those items can't be bought?

Re:Interpret it correctly

[noshellswill]

Never anything, anywhere ... and always ... especially up the *zzwhole of smarmy, shitfaced agenda-driven lib.coms. Squeeze trigger as needed .....

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, it doesn't mention any regulations and restrictions, which why people who want to bear Arms (such as guns, a fairly safe interpretation of "Arms") are complaining about the regulations and restrictions being raised against it which are infringing. Take another example ... the 15th:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Interesting stuff ... but doesn't exactly regulate anything at all now does it? I mean ... do I have the right to vote for president or if you are going to buy the new iPhone when it's released? But go ahead and try to pass a law restricting the right to vote for anyone on any level ... it will be deemed unconstitutional. Should some arms be restricted and regulated ... you bet... but the right to bear arms is there and cannot be infringed, so attempts to do so are unconstitutional ... that is the argument of the Armed. Not exactly rocket surgery, is it?

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Sancho]

Well that amendment doesn't even begin to touch on bear claws. Arms, sure, but claws? Not word one. Do claws count as part of the arm? What about pastry bear claws?

It's quite vague, actually.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Mashiki]

Not including a separation in law, changes the meaning of what the law actually says.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[jrouleau]

Oh but the fun of trying to figure out how to limit freedoms when the language is exceptionally clear is a full time job for some. Others of course are straight up trying to imply the words have different meanings or that there was some other point. Lets just say - read it as it was written and lets not look beyond that - is pretty clear when you remove interpetations or second guessing.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[lupis42]

I can find you a lot of free speech activists who don't have a problem with the obscenity conviction of Max Hardcore.

Some people lack critical thinking skills, some people lack conviction, and some people believe that rights should be limited. Doesn't make any of 'em right.

To be fair to the NRA, they aren't really a gun-rights group, and haven't been in my lifetime. They're primary mission seems to be to keep compromising on gun rights whenever put to the test. Now the JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership) on the other hand, have a little more... clarity.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

For that specific time period, the context described above appears sound, since conventional warfare with Britain had recently been waged entirely upon American soil/seas.
Yet are the circumstances today the same as they were when the document was written? Subsequently, is that same context even relevant today?

No.

Hence, in attempting to support the meaning of the amendment in a manner that would seem very reasonable, we've also managed to prove its antiquity and irrelevance in regards to today's modern society. How about that.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Kijori]

Again what you are saying is true but has no relevance here. I did not include the comma simply because I did not quote that part of the article; this has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the sections I quoted were vague.

I suspect that you're bringing up the comma because you want to interpret only the second half of the article as having legal effect. While I would be happy to discuss with you whether or not that is appropriate, it remains totally irrelevant to the point I was making.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[lupis42]

I believe he was saying that you were wrong for claiming the definition of arms had changed. In that regard, he is correct. The definition of Arms has not changed, however the willingness of the American government to abide by the document from which their authority flows has decreased. Perhaps because the people have shown no signs of concern for their rights and freedoms, so long as the government keeps using the word "terrorism".

Re:Interpret it correctly

[geekoid]

but what is well regulated?

Volunteers that just show up when it's time to fight? do they get training? can a 4 year old join up?

Like the poster said:
" it doesn't mention how the militia should be regulated,"

and
"what constitutes arms"

He did not argue with the clarity of the right shall not be infringed.

If logical fallacies and misdirection is all you have. then you don't really know what you are talking about.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[jrouleau]

How the fuck is that vague? What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do people not understand?!?!?!

There is room for legitimate disagreement over the definition of 'arms'. To wit: does it include machine guns? Flamethrowers? SAMs? Nukes? Why or why not?

A political right means that anybody is automatically WRONG to interfere with you when you do it. By 'wrong' I mean: it would create an environment unsuitable for creatures with our nature and requirements. For example, it is wrong to ban books, because our nature as rational sovereigns is to pursue truth independently and then build consensus by persuasion.

Regarding the RKBA, it is automatically wrong for someone to take away a means of self-defense that is practical in those situations where the state can't protect you. Today that amounts to handguns, shotguns, etc.; tomorrow it will mean stun-phasers, sleep rays, whatever. It does not and will not include nukes (etc.) because it is the state's prerogative to protect you in those contexts... hence, nukes are not included in the RKBA. In other words, it is not automatically wrong for somebody to say you can't have a nuke.

That said, I'm a rabid gun owner, CCL, second-amendment advocate, and so forth. But I think we do ourselves a disservice when we insist that the RKBA is infinite, or without context.

I have to say I take exception to "it is automatically wrong for someone to take away a means of self-defense that is practical in those situations where the state can't protect you". The whole point of the army (even the continental army was to gather a group of civilian soldiers (aka Militia) to repel an enemy. The need for an organized Military was then recognized and one was established - however - no where have I seen is there a provision that talks about the state protecting the citizens. In fact the language I have read is VERY CLEAR in that - people are afforded the right to defend themselves and their property from not only the state but the government as well. The constitution itslef was written to protect the new america from the same tryannies that had been lauded over it in the first place. Over the years the Federal Government has continued to seize powers and rights. It is getting to the point yet again a silent revolution is brewing. So the exception that I take is that we are not truly supposed to rely on the state to protect us, in fact, we are given the right specifically so we can protect ourselves from the state. Now I am not a nut job and I dont argue Average Dumbass should be given or possess a nuke, but I do argue that those rights have been eroded to the point that any one who would even remotely try to stand up for that right would end up in jail - precisely why the founders wrote it the way they did /end rant

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

Our society limits them because we are afraid of the burglar or armed intruder and we want to have the government provide their self-defense.

Fixed that for you. Other than that glaring issue, I think you're dead on the money about things.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? So then I have a right to have a 100 kiloton nuke in my back yard and the police can't stop me - it says so right here in this here Bill of Rights! I have the right to keep and bear nuclear arms! Yahoo!

Oh, and if you say "well, the Founders didn't know about nukes, so the reference to "arms" in the Bill of Rights doesn't include nuclear arms," all I have to do is point out to you that the Founders didn't know anything about M-16s and other automatic weapons, either.

So you see, it's really a hell of a lot more complicated than you're making it out to be. For instance, does the right to free speech in the First Amendment give me the right to tell the whole world that [username] committed some unspeakable act? Actually, no, it doesn't - because that would be slander (or libel), assuming that 1. it was false, 2. I knew it was false and didn't bother to check into it, 3. the claim was just credible enough that it might be believed by some number of people, and 4. their belief of that false statement cause [username] harm.

Does it mean that the Congress is prohibited from making a law abridging my speech, but the president can abridge my speech at a whim by means of an executive order?

Natural languages are by their very natures ambiguous - and they depend upon that ambiguity or they wouldn't work (you can't describe a new phenomenon without at least defining its new name using metaphor). Whether fortunately or unfortunately, that very ambiguity makes it impossible to write truly unambiguous law. We have evidence from the ways in which e.g. the Bill of Rights changed that at least Madison was deliberately going for language that could be reinterpreted to widen people's rights.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[snowgirl]

Ok, let's get things straight here... Hate Crimes do not make politically incorrect speech illegal. You can still say "Death to Whitey" or "Death to Blacky". Both of those are not hate crimes. A hate crime is an already criminal act that is done with a motive of denigrating a whole race.

"Why bring motives into these crimes, they're already illegal!" Well, we already do take motives into account. It's the defining difference between First Degree and Second Degree Murder. It also makes the difference between reckless and intentional manslaughter. Some crimes simply go away completely when there is no intent to commit the crime. So, this argument must fail.

Now, as for society exerting a chilling effect upon behavior and speech, that is not a governmental operation. That is a society exerting its mores and values upon people by sanctioning behavior. If you don't like that you can't say "Fuck that homo, he's gross!" anymore without stares and disapproving reactions, then WELCOME to the world that the gays were in for expressing the notion "I'm not gross because I'm homosexual".

But of course, you are completely unopposed to a chilling effect on people expressing their sexual orientation... just not on your expression about it being gross.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Almost-Retired]

You got it, precisely. And that is what the government is scared shit less of.

Thomas Jefferson also commented on it, I believe in a letter to Hamilton, where the now famous quote "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants,"

and most quotes stop at the comma but Jefferson continued "and God help us if we go twenty years without it."

He was well aware of the avarice that would float to the surface in his fellow man. I think he could foresee that it would be a problem, but he would be aghast at the level he could easily observe in today's houses of government, beit the feds or any state (pick one).

Now the crazies can get free ink by just being crazy, and that free ink might even get them elected if they are good enough at lying. We've seen it at all levels over the past 60 years I've paid attention. What we need are to have a few of the more flagrant examples to 'walk the plank' or 'stretch a rope', or even face a firing squad, publicly so that all who would follow in their footsteps can see where the path they are on will take them.

--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
  soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

Re:Interpret it correctly

[digsbo]

There are already many independent militias in the USA which practice maneuvers and have an organized body. The government, especially the ATF, tends scrutinize them closely, even though they are legal and constitutionally protected, because modern government (really everything since Lincoln) wants to maintain a monopoly on the use of force, despite this being the very thing the framers of the Constitution wanted to avoid.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Psychedelephant]

I fully support your right to bear a musket, a dueling pistol, a flintlock, a foil, epee or saber, or any of the other arms the founding fathers were familiar with. I find it a dubious proposition that they'd support the unfettered right to bear, say, Uzis, bazookas, hand grenades, stinger missiles, etc.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Woldscum]

For starters it doesn't mention how the militia should be regulated, what constitutes Arms or where they have the right to keep and bear them.

Lifted from Dictionary.com. Note #4. to put in good order. Meaning training.

****A well TRAINED militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.****

reg-u-late

1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.:
2. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.:
3. to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation:
4. to put in good order:

Re:Interpret it correctly

[PenguiN42]

That's the context of it. Or perhaps you think those hack framers just fucked up the wording?

They did. It's a dangling participle for crying out loud.

Though I largely agree with the interpretation you put forward, the second amendment would get an F in any english composition class I've ever been a part of.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

That comment becomes funnier the more I think about it. True comic gold right there.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

No, by his (very correct) logic, people _are_ allowed to own nuclear weapons.

Maybe, since technical progress has now brought us newer, more dangerous weapons, some of them should be off-limits. If so, it's a simple matter of amending the constitution -- and I think there'd be no trouble passing an amendment permitting congress to regulate nukes (in practice, banning them for private citizens, perhaps allowing a theoretical license for corporations engaged in PNEs with appropriate oversight). Isn't that why we have the ability to amend the Constitution in the first place?

On second thought, I guess there would be trouble -- since passing such an amendment implies that it was needed, it would represent a tacit statement that congress does not have the power to regulate any arms not covered, and would be a powerful argument for judicial overturn of the NFA. Since practically all politicians (Republocrat or Demican, "pro-gun" or anti-gun) want to keep the NFA, they would try to block it with the excuse that it wasn't needed and they had more important things to do.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[SlowMovingTarget]

As leader of the Executive branch, it was Bush's job to tug on the rope and wake Congress up. The problem was, Congress didn't tug back by making appropriate laws to cover handling of terrorists. Congress still hasn't made laws that apply. So now you get this circus of trying terrorists picked up on the battlefield in U.S. criminal courts. Criminal law doesn't adequately handle either the conduct of the military or enemies of the United States. More to the point, criminal law shouldn't handle these things (chain of custody for evidence collected on the battlefield ?!?). There needs to be new law that grants or restricts authority. Military prisons and military tribunals were the closest fit under existing laws and authority.

The Bush administration played its expected role in this tension of powers as defined in the Constitution. The Legislative branch did not. Perhaps we ought to fire them for not doing their jobs.

As for 4th amendment rights, if you make phone calls to known terrorists I damn well hope our government is listening in.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[primerib]

You have an unrealistic view of the world if you can't see why a single sentence from over 200 years ago must be interpreted within the context of our modern society. The founding fathers planned for that, which is why the Judicial Branch exists within the checks and balances of the government. The Judicial Branch's job is to interpret laws and the constitution in the context of a given situation.

Additionally, you skirted around one of the biggest examples of ambiguity in the entire constitution: What does "Arms" mean?

The second amendment was important because it gave American merchants in the 1700's and 1800's the explicit right to equip their ships with cannons and, if they could afford it, escort their merchant ships with fast, heavily armed ships equatable to military warships. Remember, getting jacked on the high seas was such a threat back then that the US had to go to war with the Barbary States because of rampant piracy out of Tripoli. Thusly, we have no doubt that the original definition allowed for artillery and emplaced guns. We've just opened the door to a legitimate conversation about whether I should be allowed to install mortars, AT guns and AA guns in the backyard of my suburban home.

Beyond that, "Arms" is short for "armaments" and, by definition, that includes ICBMs, chemical weapons, and nukes. These are doomsday weapons that were never covered by the original intentions of the founding fathers.
And there in lies the reason for interpretation: If we take the 2nd amendment word for word and apply it to the modern day without any sort of interpretation about the original intent of it, we should all be able to have have our own personal nuke stockpiles.

Now you might say I'm being ridiculous and that my logic is outside common sense. I would agree. But if "Arms" doesnt cover all armaments, where do we draw the line?
Tanks? Well, the original use did cover war vehicles...
Just firearms? Only if we take the modern definition of the word.

You cite the 2nd amendment and say "I should be unrestricted in my ability to own and carry a handgun", but the guy down the street cites the 2nd amendment and says "I should be unrestricted in my ability to own and carry chemical weapons". If that's not a compelling argument for interpretation, then I don't know what is.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[dangitman]

"Well-regulated" at the time meant "well-adjusted" or "in accurate operating condition", not "under the rule of a government official". Like a voltage regulator, not a beaurocrat. A clock was "well-regulated" to keep accurate time. A double-barreled shotgun was "well regulated" if the shot patterns from both barrels hit the same spot.

If we take that meaning, then it implies that members of the Tea Party, right-wing whackos, left-wing anarchists, etc, should not have the right to bear arms? A lot of gun owners aren't particularly well-adjusted or calibrated.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[snadrus]

Exactly! That's intentional. It's dividing up rights. No restrictions = no restrictions for place. All other regulation falls to the States, like how to regulate militia. As for what constitutes arms, is that a debate?

Re:Interpret it correctly

[snadrus]

AI interprets human language with certain base definitions that map undeniably to physical entities or transformations. This is how everything learns language and what lawyer-speak misses.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[frank_adrian314159]

place those words in their historical context

OK, so you can have a muzzle-loader.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[carpevita]

What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do people not understand?!?!?!

"Infringed". If taken literally, that would mean that the people could keep and bear RPGs, tanks, mustard gas, sarin, cruise missiles, radiological weapons, nukes, EMPs, weaponized anthrax, etc. The framers could not have imagined the immense destruction that a single individual could wreak with modern weaponry. Most people seem to agree that the right to keep and bear arms can be infringed just a little. The question of where to draw that line is a perfectly valid one.

I'd argue that the keeping and bearing of arms can sometimes contribute to erosion of freedoms, due to the level of surveillance and control needed to prevent the crazies from misusing said arms. When people feel unsafe, they tend to grant their government wide latitude to abridge their freedoms in order to protect them. Those of you over, say, 35 or so will remember a time when you didn't have to undergo a pat-down on your way to your locker. Administrators didn't spy on kids, kids didn't get expelled for taking Tylenol, kids didn't get charged with child pornography for taking nudie pictures of themselves. I think those things are indirect results of the heightened atmosphere of fear and increased surveillance that were the popular response to school shootings.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

or cannon, or incendiary devices, or pollutants and poisons, or catapults... what's your point?

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

Where did the founding fathers mention Glocks?

The founding fathers didn't say you'd be limited to any sort of weapon

Just repeating that for you since you obviously didn't read the post you were replying to. You're welcome. And no, you weren't just trolling; you really are that stupid.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[FishOuttaWater]

Ahhaha, you almost had me there with that excellent troll, sir. I applaud you! On the off chance that I misunderstood your intentions, perhaps you can explain what is dishonest about attempting to understand what the original authors meant based on documents of the time? What do you think would be a more honest approach?

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Punto]

it's a broken sentence. It starts talking about the militia, and then it changes the subject to the right to bear arms. "a well regulated militia" what? It's missing a verb there. It implies that the right to bear arms is connected to the militia, but this is a law, it needs to be clear.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[ScrewMaster]

How the fuck is that vague? What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do people not understand?!?!?!

No kidding. The Founders were about as vague as a kiloton of TNT. They knew exactly what they wanted to say, and said it well. The Constitution was not meant to be "interpreted". It was meant to be applied.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[fyngyrz]

By your logic, people should be allowed to own nuclear weapons!

No. The constitution says that the people have the right to keep and bear nuclear weapons. So we should ask: Should people have that right? Probably not. This is what article five (amendment) is for; to adapt the constitution when social and technological changes exceed the scope it was designed to address.

The fact that it hasn't been so amended (and bio-weapons forbidden to both the people and the government as well as nuclear) is a reflection of the failure of the legislature to do their duty, and a failure of the people to hold the legislature to their oaths.

Laws that are made, contrary to the authorization(s) of the constitution, are unauthorized laws. They (the government) would like you to think they're perfectly good laws unless the supreme court strikes them down... but they aren't. They're no good right out of the gate, because there is no authorization for the feds to make them.

The constitution says arms, and that's what it means. If we don't want it to be that general, we need to amend it via the only authorized path, article five. Until we do, what it means is perfectly clear, and there is no authorized power that allows the government to change that meaning.

What they are doing now is using unauthorized power to coerce the population by threat of force, violence, imprisonment.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Darinbob]

It's also possible that the US founding fathers comprised a lot of whackos as well. I'm pretty sure of it. Yet many of us grant them an almost sacred status as if their very words were divinely inspired. Courts struggle to figure out what the founders "intended" for instance, as if it is important after all this time. If the thoughts of Jefferson are automatically considered more important than all the writings by people since his time, then he's being granted something akin to sacred status.

Face it, the founding fathers had a lot of whacko ideas, and many ideas that we consider abhorrent. Most did not want women to vote, most wanted only land owners to vote, roughly half wanted the right to own slaves and most of the other half were willing to compromise on this issue. So how are they so completely wrong on some ideas, while their other ideas we treat as sacrosanct?

Face it, the nut jobs of the 18th century created the constitution, and the nut jobs ever since then have been allowed to amend and revise it. The nut jobs that live today and the nut jobs in the future are allowed to modify and change the constitution as well. But we can't lose sight that all of these people are merely people, with foibles and prejudices and illogical thinking and shortsightedness and vices. The constitution is a great document, but it shouldn't be treated as a religious document.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I would like to build a nuclear bomb. Then I'll be a militia of one.

Also, doesn't Al-Qaeda qualify as a militia under the second amendent? They are, after all, just organizing a voluntary militia along the lines they believe God intended....

Re:Interpret it correctly

[ScrewMaster]

For starters it doesn't mention how the militia should be regulated, what constitutes Arms or where they have the right to keep and bear them.

I'm sure that the Founders, every last one of them, would be surprised, nay, appalled, that you don't understand something so obvious, so basic to their mindset. To their way of thinking, there was no need to be so specific and they would be disappointed in many of their descendants for failing to grasp that. Look, in Revolutionary times the militia was We The People, not some professional standing army, and they kept those arms in their homes. The concept of gun control would be anathema to anyone who survived the Revolutionary War: firearms were and are a fundamental means of assuring personal freedom, and one which they would not give up lightly. They felt strongly enough about that to enshrine it in the Second Amendment.

Attempting to "reinvent" the Constitution by ignoring the environment in which it was written, and further denying that we haven't really progressed all that much since it was written, is ultimately self-defeating. Look around you: our government is overreaching itself, more and more, day by day ... only a humanoid ostrich would state categorically that we'll never find ourselves in need of protection from that government. Regardless, the Founders knew exactly what they were doing, and if we, as a society, feel that some portions of the Supreme Law of our Land are no longer desireable or applicable, then let us Amend it according to the process contained within itself. This continual chipping away at it, illegal law by illegal law, does not serve us well.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Darinbob]

That sentence has several clauses. You can't take one clause out of context and declare it inviolate. The entire amendment has to be seen and debated as a whole. This means different interpretations are possible; declaring flat out that only one interpretation is valid is verging on treating the document as a religious one.

Clearly these rights can be infringed, and they were infringed from the beginning. Jailed convicts were not allowed to bear arms, so it's clear that in some situations that rights can be removed or abridged. Slaves were not allowed to own arms (or even granted right of assembly or free speech), even by some of the very people who signed the constitution, so clearly they did not intend a vast universal truth.

If people have been debating this issue since the formation of the republic, then clearly the "what part don't you understand" argument isn't very persuasive.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[rhendershot]

You cite the 2nd amendment and say "I should be unrestricted in my ability to own and carry a handgun", but the guy down the street cites the 2nd amendment and says "I should be unrestricted in my ability to own and carry chemical weapons". If that's not a compelling argument for interpretation, then I don't know what is.

Or perhaps at that time it was thought that people should be unrestricted. Perhaps the general attitude was that with everything considered, a normal society (regulated militia) could require the assistance or intervention from an Civic Populace (The People).

At the least I'd say your case for impelling interpretation remains weak.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Chosen Reject]

It's pretty hard to see with the small font and all, but I found it.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

Should only well regulated militias be allowed to bear arms?

No. Read the amendment. It doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep..." It says "the right of the people".

Re:Interpret it correctly

[ScrewMaster]

Some people lack critical thinking skills, some people lack conviction, and some people believe that rights should be limited. Doesn't make any of 'em right.

Yes, and some people don't care if rights are being limited (or eliminated) as long as it's rights they they, personally, don't happen to care about. Now, the danger in that kind of thinking is that, sooner or later, the government will infringe on something that is important to them. For example, I don't smoke ... never have, never will. Cigarette smoke makes me ill. But at the same time, I was always against the punitive taxation and other anti-smoking social-engineering tactics employed by government. Why? Well, because I understand that if government is allowed to step on one group ("for their own good", of course), even one that I don't like or that is unpopular ... well, sooner or later they'll come after me for something I like to do.

The best solution is to push back, hard, whenever some government busybody wants to grab some power that he doesn't need but wants just because he can get it. Sometimes there are good reasons for an extension of government authority ... most times there isn't. In either case, they should be forced to justify themselves to us, and not just with pretty words or repeated use of "terrorism" or "child pornography." Another example: the seat belt law in my State. When it was first signed into law some years ago, it was noted by various political media that the State reserved the right to make this a primary violation (initially you could only be ticketed for not wearing your seatbelt if you were pulled over for some unrelated reason.) When asked about that, our then-Governor said words to the effect of "oh, don't worry, we'd never do that." Well, if that's the case why is it in the law at all? Now, of course, it's a primary offense, and apparently makes for a whole lot of additional ticket revenue.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

Regarding the RKBA, it is automatically wrong for someone to take away a means of self-defense that is practical in those situations where the state can't protect you.

It is also intended to give the plebs the ability to defend themselves against the state.
One could go so far as to say that is its primary intention.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[ScrewMaster]

Where did the founding fathers mention Glocks? I'd like to know. They didn't mention health care, and they didn't mention Glocks. Fucking activist judges are just creating rights out of nothing.

The basic design of the Constitution is to protect citizen's rights without enumerating and thus limiting them while simultaneously being very specific about what the government can and cannot do. To the Founder's, a firearm was a firearm ... no need to be specific because by not being specific they didn't limit us to any particular class of weapon. Indeed, the idea really was to keep We the People at some level of parity with government, so that government would have to respect its citizens. They gave us all the tools to keep our government under our control: education, freedom of the press, weapons ... it's not their fault that we've lost the handles.

Personally, I would "interpret" the Second Amendment as meaning, "Whatever weapons Government can use against us, we can have to use against Government." Now, if that bothers you, start lobbying for a Constitutional Amendment that will enumerate the classes of weapons that private citizens can own.

Good luck with that.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[fyngyrz]

but what is well regulated?

Well regulated, at the time, The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Congress went so far as to further define it, WRT the militia, as showing up with X amount of shot, dry powder, etc. (see below.) It isn't in the least bit unclear if you simply study a little. Seek contemporaneous use. Not the interpretation of someone terrified of weapons.

Here's congresses implementation of "well regulated", ca 1792:

...a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

If fact, the only portion of the second amendment that is unclear is the fragment "free state." No one knows if they meant a political entity that embodied freedom as a core concept, as in "the constitution is a document of the state", or if they were referring to the state of freedom as applies to citizens, as seems quite likely as individual conditions are what everything else in the bill of rights is talking about.

what constitutes arms

Also very clear. See This post. Arguments that it is unclear are specious, or simply based upon ignorance of the objective facts.

If logical fallacies and misdirection is all you have. then you don't really know what you are talking about.

This part of the 2nd amendment is a prefatory phrase. It explains; it in no way directs. The second phrase contains the instructions, and they in turn are in no way unclear. There are no ifs, ands, buts or exceptions, except in the arguments of the uninformed or the pernicious.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[fyngyrz]

OK, so you can have a muzzle-loader.

You're not thinking clearly. See this post.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[fyngyrz]

So if the fact of regular citizens owning guns no longer has a bearing on the militia

No. In the context of the 2nd, the "regular citizens" are the militia. The militia, as the term is used there, is not an organization like the national guard is today, it means "able-bodied male of an age able to fight." Any argument that presumes that the 2nd refers to a force of the government is incorrect. The militia - armed and fighting men - are necessary to secure either a free political state or the state of individual freedom (arguable.) Either way, this clause contains zero instructions; it is explicatory. The clause that contains the instructions is crystal clear, and contains no waffling about any kind of conditions.

Individual citizens still (perhaps more than ever) need to protect our access, and ensure our ability to maintain, a free state. Either way you'd like to define it.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[fyngyrz]

Note the wording here refers very specifically to a State - and not a Nation. Given that the Constitution defines and limits the powers of Federal Government, one should not get so hung up on the militia part that one ignores the State and People.

This is actually the only part of the 2nd that is unclear. Your interpretation is one possibility; another is that it is referring to the state of freedom as applied to the individuals; this interpretation is supported in that this is how the rest of the bill of rights is written, as addressing the conditions of the citizens.

Neither interpretation changes the instructions to the government in the second phrase in the least. There are no conditions.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[enjerth]

Yep, it doesn't specify how the militia should be regulated. So obviously that isn't about regulating the militia. See, that part is just a reasoned explanation why the following is important, it is necessary to the security of a free State.

Arms as in armaments, weapons. Keeping as in not having them taken away. Bearing as in carrying them.

Clear?

Re:Interpret it correctly

[fyngyrz]

The problem with that line of thinking is that no where else in bill of rights is there any sort of explanation attached.

There are explanations elsewhere in the document, though; the preamble, for one. In any case, he explanation is not the instructions. The instructions are perfectly clear.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Ungrounded Lightning]

"What? Every American is entitled to a pair of preserved bear arms hanging on the wall. How could that possibly be misconstrued?"

Only if they don't hang those frilly little fringes on them.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[fyngyrz]

except that there are plenty of laws abridging the right to free speech. some are not trivial like the "fire in a crowded theater" laws.

Not trivial? Perhaps. Unauthorized, though. Also completely unnecessary. There are already reasonable and authorized laws against trampling people, hurting them, etc.; and shouting fire in a crowded school, full of our "precious children" is ok, we call it a "fire drill." The whole "thou shall not shout fire in a crowded theater" argument is stupid. Fire drills are good. The problems, when and if there are any, lie elsewhere, and we already have laws for those problems.

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" is 100%, sterling clear. Any such federal law is unauthorized use of power. Period. If you'd like to argue 14th amendment incorporation, then the states can't do it, either. But the theater thing... that's just our legislature and courts, running wild.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[enjerth]

That's right. Whether or not you like the idea of your billionaire neighbor (you don't have one) owning a nuke, someone does in fact own them. Whether it's under a corporation name (US GOV) or a private name, it's still in the hands of mere mortal men. Who is to say that the government is and always will be the benevolent one?

Nuclear arms are terrifying, but I don't take any comfort knowing that they're just in the hands of government.

If the corrupt leaders of this world have them, why not Bill Gates? I don't honestly think he would ever think of using a tactical nuke on Apple. Do you?

Back in the day, privately-owned military ships were often a large part of a navy. Do you think that's so much unlike being able to own and operate a tank or a fighter/bomber? Do you think that the founding father's didn't expect that the wealthy could own great war machines?

Re:Interpret it correctly

[fyngyrz]

Taken literally, that means that the states can make such laws, cities can make such laws, hell, even the President or Court or any other government agency could make such a law if they are permitted to make such laws.

See the 14th amendment, and research 14th amendment state incorporation of the bill of rights. Doesn't look to me that the states can make any such law. It's this line that generally is considered to cause the transfer of restrictions:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Most of the vagueness surrounds the part about well regulated militias.

No vagueness at all, especially after "District of Columbia v. Heller".

The majority ruled that the "militia" clause was prefatory (an introduction) and the "rights" clause operative.

Should only well regulated militias be allowed to bear arms?

Heller again: "the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia."

Who regulates the militias?

You misunderstand the term of art "well-regulated", which relates to correct operation (like a clock keeping good time). It has nothing to do with ruling them, everything to do with them being well-functioning fighters.

But it's also immaterial, as are the rest of your questions, because of the previous point.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[inviolet]

Derrida said that since every word is defined only by other words it doesn't matter how far back you go, you can never get to a solid anchor; change the underlying assumptions that the reader of a text holds and you change the meaning of the text, even though the words are still the same.

Perhaps you should choose your philosophical leaders more carefully, because I don't think Derrida ever considered the word 'blue'. The hindmost words are defined ostensibly -- by going outside and pointing at something, by reference to sensory data.

The framers may even have had an ostensive definition for 'arms': they could've pointed at a variety of muskets, bows, crossbows, and cannons, and then said "This is the definition we intend".

Re:Interpret it correctly

[fyngyrz]

You have an unrealistic view of the world if you can't see why a single sentence from over 200 years ago must be interpreted within the context of our modern society. The founding fathers planned for that, which is why the Judicial Branch exists within the checks and balances of the government. The Judicial Branch's job is to interpret laws and the constitution in the context of a given situation.

Absolutely, completely wrong. That's why article five (amendment) exists. The judicial branch has ONE power WRT cases arising under the constitution, and that is decide pro or con, violation or not, under the terms of the document. NOWHERE are they given the power to revise the document itself. Go read article three. It's very short and to the point. In fact, lemme go get the relevant portions for you:

Article III - The Judicial Branch Note

...
Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Then, the 11th amendment simply adds:

Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits.

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

None of what you said. None of it. The supreme court is not the "revision and rewrite department for the constitution." They get to sit in judgment, meaning, they get to say "guilty" or "not guilty", and if the former, they get to say "the following consequences obtain", if in fact, by law, they do.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Ungrounded Lightning]

"Well-regulated" at the time meant "well-adjusted" or "in accurate operating condition", ...

If we take that meaning, then it implies that members of the Tea Party, right-wing whackos, left-wing anarchists, etc, should not have the right to bear arms? A lot of gun owners aren't particularly well-adjusted or calibrated.

Nope.

Because, in District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court confirmed that the "militia" clause was prefatory and the "right" clause was operative.

But even if it did matter, the militia clause 'refers to a well-trained citizen militia, which "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense", as being necessary to the security of a free polity;' Are they physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense? They're probably a lot better armed, and capable with their arms, than the bulk of those on the other side of the political fence. And they certainly seem more interested in 'defending a free polity'.

Remember: The country was founded by nuts and other oddballs with guns. Jefferson, for instance, was obviously bipolar. Hamilton was rumored to be gay. There's lots of stuff to be said about Tom Paine, Ben Franklin, and others, too.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Jane Q. Public]

I don't know, Mr./Mrs. AC, who taught you about the Constitution, but your understanding of it is a bit off. It needs to be read in the context in which it was written:

The Founders considered a standing army (which is a "well-regulated militia") to be the single biggest threat to freedom. And the reason was simple: they knew history, and in their day (just as in many small countries in the 20th century), standing armies had a nasty habit of taking over governments.

But there was another militia: the general militia. This was not well-regulated. In fact, the general militia was specifically described in historical documents as every able-bodied male over a certain age.

In any case, as much as the Founders did not like armies, they also knew that they might need one to defend the country from foreign invasion. And that worried them. What to do? Well, they said, let's make sure that there will always be a force that can oppose the standing army if necessary: the general militia. That is to say, everybody else.

So: "A well regulated militia" (standing army) "being necessary to the security of a free State" (to repel invaders), "the right of the people" (the general militia) "to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (In case the army gets out of hand.)

So the reason we have a right to keep and bear arms (and mind you this specifically meant military arms, not BB guns or hunting rifles) is to protect ourselves from our own government and its army, if necessary.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Bigjeff5]

what constitutes Arms or where they have the right to keep and bear them.

Any definition for arms other than "any weapon" would be infringing the right. That's what "Arms" are - weapons. Shall not be infringed means exactly that - don't touch this shit.

As for where, the same applies within the same limits that all the rights have - they can be kept anywhere they do not infringe another citizen's rights. Any adjustment to that is infringing on the right to bear Arms.

Obviously, the government has infringed on that right pretty heavily over the years, and so far we tolerate it. It's not much different than the infringements upon free speech, or the right to freely assemble that we tolerate.

It's up to the people to decide how big a deal this kind of thing is, but you should be aware that government by its very nature always seeks more control, not less, and will therefore always infringe your rights more, not less, until the people push back.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[jmorris42]

> By your logic, people should be allowed to own nuclear weapons!

It isn't a question of logic, it is question of English comprehension. The 2nd Amendment is perfectly clear that thee and me may keep and bear arms and the usage of the time meant private citizens could and did own cannon and fully armed naval vessels, i.e. the most potent arms available at the time. The maximum potency of arms have increased greatly but the Constitution is unchanged. But I am willing to propose a compromise:

We should both agree to promote the idea of a Constitutional Amendment adjusting the 2nd Amendment to provide that crew served weapons may only be possessed by licensed militia companies with a secured Armory and that Weapons of Mass Destruction of the sort whose use is generally prohibited in combat by Treaty to the US Armed forces may only be maintained in stockpiles in secured US military facilities for deterrence (MAD) purposes. In return for us Libertarians compromising your side must be willing to include an explicit proclamation that full automatic weapons small than 30 caliber are personal arms and no Federal Law may impede the peaceful possession of such, may only regulate the bearing (open or concealed) to prohibit them from a very select list of high security locations to include Congress, Federal Courts, military and intelligence facilities and a few I probably aren't thinking of now. As one attempt to try and prevent abuse, add a clause that says any site that prohibits Citizens from bearing arms must provide armed guards and be subject to full liability when a whack job goes off on the disarmed.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[ChipMonk]

The first half of the Second Amendment establishes the reason; the second half establishes the means. Without the right to keep and bear arms, a militia of any grade, well-regulated or otherwise, is impossible.

If you think that's bogus, I suggest a compare/contrast between Switzerland and the Soviet Union. The former: small, armed, free, and not even Hitler dared invade. The latter: huge, oppressed, paranoid, back-stabbing; only the weather kept Hitler out of Moscow.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Bigjeff5]

As for what constitutes arms, is that a debate?

Actually, yeah, it is.

Back in the day, at the writing of the Constitution "Arms" included cannons, rockets, and warships in addition to guns and knives. Basically, the Constitution originally protected the private ownership of the 18th century's versions of Weapons of Mass Destruction, yet today it is illegal to own a tank or jet with live ammunition, and owning a nuke is out of the question. Such things are expressly permitted in the constitution, yet they are made illegal.

So there is some debate there, though most people today would agree that owning a fully functional tank is overkill, I don't think the founders would agree with that sentiment.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Where did the founding fathers mention Glocks? Where did the founding fathers say that health care was part of the duties of Congress?

Where did the founding fathers say you'd be limited to any sort of weapon?

Thanks for repeating that, I wasn't sure you got it.

The founding fathers did NOT address the sort of weapon they were referring to. Thus, they could ONLY have been concerned with un-rifled flintlocks. If they'd intended their right to be updated with technology, they'd have put that in there or addressed the sort of weapons the right would touch.

They didn't, so there's no right beyond what they specifically referred to. Muskets.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Bullshit. Where does it say all that in the Constitution? It doesn't. I'm a STRICT STRICT constructionist. And you're doing way too much interpreting for me.

Now tell me, where does it say Glock in the Constitution. I'll tell you - ZERO. Just like it says ZERO times that Welfare is part of Congress' duties, so all you health care fags can suck it. And don't tell me to go look up Welfare in a dictionary to find the word health. That's just activism.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

By your logic, people should be allowed to own nuclear weapons!

Sounds good to me!
Where can I get me some nukes?

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, this argument doesn't cast the document in an any better light than arguing the comma serves some dramatic purpose. To boil this sentence down, this argument claims it reads "We need a military, and everyone else should get guns." If this really was the intended purpose, why would a bunch of guys who are quite good at eloquent writing no just say "We need a military. Additionally, everyone should get guns." It still really does come down to the comma, in the end. Either they made some dramatic pause, or the writers crammed together two fairly different ideas (and if you watch that video the ideas are actually completely opposite) without any useful context or proper grammar in between them. Neither situation is very pleasing from an interpretive point of view (ideally interpretation wouldn't even be necessary).

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, for starters you can, in fact, own a nuclear weapon. There are no laws on the federal books that outlaw the private ownership of a nuclear weapon. However, the materials required to manufacture such a weapon are heavily regulated.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[VirginMary]

Ok, that's certainly a valid possible interpretation.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a good idea, but yes they should until we modify the constitution to have reasonable weapons limits.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[VirginMary]

1) I don't like the idea of people with more money than I have, having vastly more military power.
2) I want as few people as possible to have access to nuclear weapons. Ideally zero, in fact.
3) Democratically elected governments are, in my opinion, far less likely to use weapons of mass destruction than individuals.

While I understand that in a country, (USA), where it is legal for corporations to bribe politicians, a.k.a. campaign contributions, that there is a fair level of discontent and distrust in the political system. I'd contend that to a large extend the majority in a democracy always has the government it deserves and politicians almost always pander to some extent to what they perceive to be the will of their constituency. My own country declared that it does not intend to own nuclear weapons and I for one am grateful for that even though I do trust my own government more than the US government. Of course my country is currently more secular and currently seems less likely to do something crazy. Sadly, like everywhere, I think that that could change again over time. I am afraid that we will see the emergence of equally dangerous weapons of mass destruction that over time will be far easier to gain access to than nuclear weapons. In a way I think our only chance to escape extinction as a species in the long term is to disperse into space and maybe into the Oort cloud. I just hope we will make it the next 100 years or so which is what I'd estimate it will take us before it becomes technologically and economically feasible to gainfully exploit resources elsewhere in our solar system. I'd give us about a 10% chance of succeeding. Maybe even then we'd be at constant threat from self-replicating machines that some moron and/or fanatic has loosed upon mankind.

P.S. I don't like Bill Gates very much but I think that he is a fairly sane individual and I think that he would be fairly unlikely to use a nuclear weapon!

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a huge stretch. And so what would the problem be with that?

If we all owned nukes, each individual one of us... and you pissed off your neighbor, what would he do? Would he nuke you, nuking himself in the process? That makes no sense.

Would a crazy person set off a nuke? Sure why not? Crazy people go on shooting sprees and blow up buildings all the time.

The point I'm trying to make is that you're an idiot.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[VirginMary]

"My side"? As far as I am concerned, *I* am *my* side!

In return for us Libertarians compromising your side must be willing to include an explicit proclamation that full automatic weapons small than 30 caliber...

To that I say: Fuck that! I don't know about "my side" but I think it is crazy to give individuals access to arms! It certainly makes me feel far less safe to know that my moron neighbour, who just lost his girlfriend, and is drunk, may hate the music that I am playing a little too loud ,and may own a gun... I am originally from Germany and when I first moved to the US the per capita ratio of people killed with small arms was more well more than 100x in "favour" of the US. I realise that there are other factors that contribute to this shocking difference, like the higher social inequality in the US coupled with a worse social security net etc. But still, I do think that wide availability of small arms to individuals is one major contributing factor. Switzerland, btw. has had a higher gun-related murder rate than Germany but still much less than the US. Maybe that is due to Switzerland having far less economically marginalised and desperate individuals and that most gun-related murders are committed with hand guns and not rifles which are unwieldy and hard to conceal?

Btw., some numbers are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

Out of pure curiosity, are you (or any of the other previous posters) arguing that private citizens of the US ought to be able to own nuclear arms? Or do you just feel that the government let us down by not making such a reasonable limitation into a constitutional amendment and getting it ratified first? Because I'm pretty sure that private ownership of nuclear arms is perhaps a bit further than I can go in support of the 2nd Amendment. Even if banning private ownership of nukes is unconstitutional, I'm glad we don't let the McVeighs and Shahzads have access to something with that much collateral damage potential. It's one thing to be able to protect yourself and your family with a firearm, it's another to potentially take out a few hundred thousand innocents because you're mad at the IRS. If making that kind of distinction makes me weak on the 2nd Amendment, I guess I'll have to live with it. I'd be willing to push for a new amendment explicitly banning private ownership of nuclear arms, but I'm not really interested in dropping enforcement of the existing laws in the meantime, 2nd Amendment or not.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[jmorris42]

A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.

  -- Sigmund Freud - General Introduction to Psychoanalysis

Re:Interpret it correctly

[vertinox]

It does not and will not include nukes (etc.) because it is the state's prerogative to protect you in those contexts... hence, nukes are not included in the RKBA. In other words, it is not automatically wrong for somebody to say you can't have a nuke.

From my understanding, the spirit of the amendment was to have wording that would allow the state and local militias to overthrow any foreign or domestic threat (their own central government included) or at least prevent the government from disarming the people in such a way that it could prevent any forceful removal.

At the time, it was a concern that the state militias would be disbanded and a centralized military would simply enforce power over the states, striping them of their rights.

In that regard, I would assume the founders would have thought states owning nuclear weapons ok, but not individuals.

Considering what happened during the civil war and modern day chain of command with national guards, it would be highly unlikely this would ever be allowed.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[tgrigsby]

The question has been asked a few times in this thread, but I haven't seen it answered yet. I think that while your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, as it was originally intended, is correct, it does not speak for the current times and needs itself to be amended.

We do not have state militias capable of defending against an invading army. I'm not saying the common citizenry couldn't be roused quickly to offer a respectable defense, but the weapons used nowadays by armies are not accessible by the common man, nor should they be. Perhaps you disagree with that last statement, but then I would ask you, do you actually think that the general public should have unfettered access to the kinds of weapons needed to fend off any army? I would argue that the technology has changed to the extent that giving everyone any weapons they can afford creates a situation where come people will be driving tanks to work and gangs will have rocket launchers.

The original framers were good, reasonable men, but they weren't fortune tellers. I think you're fighting for the wrong thing.

By your logic, people should be allowed to own nuclear weapons!

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it infringement to require registration? It isn't for voting. Is it infringement to prevent ownership by certain people? Slaves were denied the right to own arms at the time the document was authored. Is it OK to deny the right to keep and bear arms to the insane, or those convicted of violent crimes? We let the insane and those convicted of crimes speak.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[IndustrialComplex]

Oh, and if you say "well, the Founders didn't know about nukes, so the reference to "arms" in the Bill of Rights doesn't include nuclear arms," all I have to do is point out to you that the Founders didn't know anything about M-16s and other automatic weapons, either.

Don't invent things people didn't say in some attempt to debate them.

The solution is in the Constitution, and the capability to amend it.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[gsiarny]

You're right than the Second Amendment needs to be read in context, but the claim that a standing army was or was thought of as a well-regulated militia doesn't fit that context.

There is a clear distinction between a militia and a standing army in late-17th through late-18th political discussion both in Britain and in its colonies. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of pamphlets from this hundred-year span which debate the wisdom of the creation and maintenance of a standing army in times of peace. This debate was almost uniformly cast as choice between (1) reliance upon a militia for peacetime security and (2) peacetime maintenance of a standing army alongside the militia. To claim that a standing army was referred to or thought of as any sort of militia, and, in particular, that the phrase "a well regulated militia" refers to a standing army, is inconsistent with this longstanding tradition of 18th-century political debate.

See, for example, the discussion at http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.htm, which makes clear that contemporaries involved in the debate on the Second Amendment distinguished sharply between a militia and a standing army. To quote the Virginia Convention: "That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit..."

Re:Interpret it correctly

[gsiarny]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State - this means that in order for a country to exist it needs an army to defend itself, yes?

I'm afraid not. A militia and an army were very different notions in 18th-century Britain and the colonies. A militia was composed of the mass of the adult male population which received semiprofessional training once or twice a year. They were rarely "well-regulated," which meant well-organized or well-trained in the arts of war. An army was a professional force of soldiers, paid, maintained, and trained by the state.

See the 1789 debate on the Second Amendment where there were clear distinctions made between standing armies paid and directed by the state and militias composed of the mass of the people. http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.htm

If you read the other writings of the founders from that time period, you will understand that the point of the 2nd amendment is to ensure that the people retain at least some ability to defend themselves from the militia of the oppressive government.

In the hundred years of debate from the 1680s to 1800 about the necessity of a standing army in peacetime, it was the army that was the agent of government tyranny, not the militia.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[IndustrialComplex]

Where else in the Constitution did they deal with statements of facts? Is there any other place with such a clause? If not, then why would they add an unnecessary statement of fact to this part and no other? Wouldn't that tend to indicate that it was intended as a constraint rather than a statement of fact?

It's a good question, but it doesn't change it from a statement of fact. As it stands, it is a statement of fact. If it were to be a limitation, it wouldn't be written like that.

You also should understand that every single limitation in the Constitution to that point was written as a limitation on the behavior of government. To read it as a limitation would require you to first NOT read it as written, and then interpret in a manner that runs counter to the rest of the document. No other portion of the document requires such mental gymnastics, except when you attempt to construe the wording to deny freedom.

We don't read the First Amendment's explicit mention of 'the press' to imply that there is a limit on people who are not of the press.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[AK Marc]

It's a good question, but it doesn't change it from a statement of fact. As it stands, it is a statement of fact. If it were to be a limitation, it wouldn't be written like that.

So says you. Apparently, many people disagree, and "it's that way because I say so" doesn't work.

You also should understand that every single limitation in the Constitution to that point was written as a limitation on the behavior of government. To read it as a limitation would require you to first NOT read it as written, and then interpret in a manner that runs counter to the rest of the document. No other portion of the document requires such mental gymnastics, except when you attempt to construe the wording to deny freedom.

I disagree. The age limits on members of Congress are limitations on the people who may serve, not on the government. And they list powers as well, explicit powers. So I don't see how explicitly listing powers is somehow a limit on powers. And reading it in your way is a direct contradiction to the rest of the Constitution as well, so that's an empty argument.

We don't read the First Amendment's explicit mention of 'the press' to imply that there is a limit on people who are not of the press.

At the time, "the press" was any person wishing to publish. We know that because many of the people who wrote it were self-published. It's like today, where anyone with a blog or a mytweetbook page would be considered published and a member of the press.

Instead, it sounds like you know what you want it to say, and see it that way. It's the only place in the Constitution where "shall not be infringed" was used. So I agree it's unusual, but it needs no mental gymnastics to take it to mean that it is indicating that the militia is somehow related to arms. They are in the same sentence. There's no gymnastics necessary.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[masmullin]

no its not a relief! because of the misspelling US citizens must keep their arms clothed at all times.

similarly the "right to a free press" was actually a misprinting of "right to a free dress." you see the p is really just an upside down d, and the author of the amendment was slightly dyslexic.

Man, the US of A would be such a better place to live if you had free sleeveless dresses... unfortunately thats not the case, and the US is stuck with what amendments it has.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[masmullin]

You can pry my thermonuclear intercontinental warhead from my COLD DEAD HANDS

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Jedi Alec]

It's not the weapons themselves that should be feared, but the drooling morons allowed to wield them.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Jedi Alec]

For instance, does the right to free speech in the First Amendment give me the right to tell the whole world that [username] committed some unspeakable act? Actually, no, it doesn't - because that would be slander (or libel), assuming that 1. it was false, 2. I knew it was false and didn't bother to check into it, 3. the claim was just credible enough that it might be believed by some number of people, and 4. their belief of that false statement cause [username] harm.

Sorry, but that's a non-argument. Just because the constitution guarantuees you can say whatever you bloody well please does not mean that another citizen can't hold you accountable for your speech, and if he can demonstrate in civil court that your speech has in fact unjustly caused damage to him or her, then it is only right that you repair that damage.

With power comes responsibility and all that.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Kijori]

Perhaps you should choose your philosophical leaders more carefully, because I don't think Derrida ever considered the word 'blue'. The hindmost words are defined ostensibly -- by going outside and pointing at something, by reference to sensory data.

But isn't that rather the point? The word itself cannot embody anything fixed - the moment you aren't pointing at the exact colour you want to refer to the word is defined only by other words, which is to say not really defined at all. Taking the word "blue" as an example, blue is defined (as Derrida claimed all words are defined) by its difference to other words - that is to say we know that something is blue because it isn't red, green, magenta or any of the other colour definitions; in effect there is a gap and blue fills that gap.

Now let's say you go outside and point to the sky, saying "blue". Have you defined the word blue? Well, no - you've provided an example of blue. Does the fact that the sky is blue make anything else either more or less blue? And what if I disagree? What if I think the sky is not blue at all, but red? To what authority could we appeal to settle the question, since if we don't agree on what is blue we presumably don't agree on what is green or pink or yellow or any other colour and so any definition is bound to be contentious.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm... Also part of reason the Germans didn't invade was a cost benefit thing. Losing soldiers just to get Alpenhorn, Fondue, and terrible wine just isn't worth it.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

The context: The founders and the people of the colonies had just fought a war with Britain for freedom, and they clearly understood, better than any of us today apparently, that governments have a tendency to become self serving and oppressive

That's zeitgeist, not context. The context is this: since we need a militia (see zeitgeist), the people comprising this militia need to be able to keep their arms somewhere, preferably at home so a central militia depot doesn't get taken in one fell swoop, disempowering said militia.

In other words, you have a right to keep a gun for militia use only, not personal use (including 'self defence' like shooting trespassers/burglars, the postman when the evil gubment sends tax collection notices etc.) and definitely not because the amendment has in the meanwhile been perverted to mean some capitalist institutions have the inalienable right to make heaps of money off arms sales at home and trafficking to conflicts elsewhere in the world.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[ffreeloader]

Baloney. Hunting and self defense were major issues when the Constitution was written. Anyone not living in a major city in that time hunted to feed themselves, and defended themselves from Indian attack on a fairly regular basis. To say that the writers of the Constitution would have ignored every day life is just ridiculous.

The other part of the right to keep and bear arms is political in nature. It's to make sure that the citizens can arise and overthrow a corrupt government or a government that has become oppressive. Read the writings of Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and the Federalist Papers. It's very clear what they intended when you read their own words.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

"There is room for legitimate disagreement over the definition of 'arms'. To wit: does it include machine guns? Flamethrowers? SAMs? Nukes? Why or why not?"

Yeah! I want the right to bear and bare nukes! If Franks can have nukes then weaners like me want them too! Oh, and I'll want time to practice. And targets. And can I get $3,000,000,000 a year in aid if I promise not to use my nukes? I like that part. Especially since I don't have to keep my word as has been repeatedly shown by North Korea and others.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

It is actually taken out of context by most pro-gun activists. If you read what you have quoted you may consider that the intent of that statement is for the people to have the right to bear arms in the militia (i.e. the feds cannot stop the states from forming mitilias or as they are called today, the national guard).

Re:Interpret it correctly

[zeropointburn]

In Nebraska, you need a basic permit to own any gun. You can get it at 16, sometimes younger, and it's just a gun safety course. Once you have that you can buy shotguns and most rifles. Your name is typically recorded, but there is no waiting period and shells are easy to buy. Individuals can conduct transactions privately, but are advised to report the sale and register serial numbers properly. Handguns and 'assault' rifles require an application with the local police. If you are not a felon it will almost certainly be approved, but it can take a few weeks. Guns in this category require a federal firearms form at purchase, which is sent to the ATF, state patrol, and local police. Private individuals can conduct these sales, but the reporting is a requirement and will get you in serious trouble if you don't report the sale. If you have a special need (IE, you have a private investigator's license or work security for a corporation with a corporate firearms license or are a police officer), you can request a concealed-carry permit which will probably be denied at least once. Automatic weapons are strictly forbidden. Explosive projectile ordinance is strictly forbidden. Other explosives are tightly regulated and inspected, but they are easy to get if you have a license. Rocket motors are subject to standard industry self-regulation. RC fixed-wing aircraft are unrestricted, but RC helicopters have unclear restrictions on mounting cameras and on maximum payload. Neither craft may mount a weapon of any kind.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[zeropointburn]

In an ideal world with perfect government, the police would arrive within seconds of an intruder arriving at your house. It would be nice to have that kind of safety, but the sacrifice of freedoms necessary to make that possible are too terrible to consider. Yet, we consider it often.
  In the real world, it could be 5, 10, or even 15 minutes for a unit to respond to an intruder. That's if you are lucky enough to get the call out in time. Sometimes yelling something like "Bob, get the shotgun!" can be enough to scare someone off. Other times the sound of a shell loading will do the trick. But sometimes people just are not rational, and the only way to protect yourself and your family is with violence. It is an open debate about the merits of gun ownership vs. the drawbacks, but there are plenty of examples where gun ownership saved lives. Whether or not they outweigh the examples where gun ownership cost lives, I would still own a gun and keep it close at hand if I lived anywhere more populated. My children will learn gun safety about the same time that they learn to ride a bike (or climb cabinets and closets). We've already covered fire, knives, electricity, falling, cars, strangers, wild animals, strong currents, pretty much everything they might need to worry about. Guns are up next.

Thanks for the reply. Most of my AC replies are pointless trolls; it's nice to have one with substance.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[WillDraven]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State - this means that in order for a country to exist it needs an army to defend itself, yes?

I've always thought the emphasis in this phrase was intended to rest upon "well-regulated" and "free" in the sense that if the citizens are to retain their freedom, they should be able to bear arms such that if the militia ever goes beyond their deserved boundaries, such as the freedom of the citizenry was restricted by its actions, the citizens would be able to defend themselves from military tyranny.

The governments militia (Army, Police, FBI, DEA, ATF, etc.) would be much less likely to infringe upon citizens rights to make decisions for themselves, and more hesitant to kick somebodies front door in before dragging them off in chains for differences of moral or religious perspective (cultivating recreational substances, taboo sexual practices, believing in the supremacy of alternative economic systems) if there was a good chance those citizens had access to similar weaponry and defenses.

The disparity in force between the citizens and the government is so great nowadays that the government may place undue restrictions on non-violent and non-disruptive activities, even when the majority of the citizens disagree with said restriction, without much concern over armed resistance to the removal of previously enjoyed freedoms.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[IndustrialComplex]

So says you. Apparently, many people disagree, and "it's that way because I say so" doesn't work.

Except that's not the case. It's like you pointed to a cat and said 'What's that?'. And I said, it's a cat. That's not me going 'because I say so', it's a declarative statement.

The thing that gets me pissed is because people are looking at the statement going "I want to ban firearms, how can I interpret this statement in order to justify my position". That's what pisses me off, when authoritarians try that with any other part of the Constitution, people get rightfully pissed, but for some reason, because the Democrat Party has picked up gun control as a part of their platform, people try to wrap their mind around how they can justify that position even though they normally are fairly decent people who are interested in protecting civil liberties.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[kitgerrits]

Indeed, it does not even mention firearms.
Are you sure those are even implied?

Indeed, its freedom only applies to presses.
We'll be sending the bill for that laser printer. :-)

Re:Interpret it correctly

[AK Marc]

Except that's not the case. It's like you pointed to a cat and said 'What's that?'. And I said, it's a cat. That's not me going 'because I say so', it's a declarative statement.

But there are millions of people that state it's a dog. We agree it's furry, has claws and teeth, but when I ask how you know it's a cat and not a dog, your answer is "because I said so." You are arguing through declaratives. Perhaps it's so obvious to you that you don't understand the disagreement, or perhaps your mind is so closed you refuse to see there is any possibility of honest confusion. Whatever the case, you are arguing through assertion. Even if it's obvious to you it's a cat, others disagree and you've said nothing to indicate it's a cat over a dog, other than repeating over and over that it's a cat and people that think it's a dog are obviously biased and exercising mental gymnastics. Again, nothing that's explaining the differences between a cat and a dog and why this must be a cat.

The thing that gets me pissed is because people are looking at the statement going "I want to ban firearms, how can I interpret this statement in order to justify my position".

And there are those that look at it and say "I want to own firearms, how can I interpret this to mean I have an unlimited personal freedom to own all firearms, including fully automatic assault weapons and explosives with a military application." And you seem to be one of those people that has made up your mind before you even read it, because you can't explain it better than "'cause I said so" and discounting the possibility that there could be any confusion at all about it.

That's what pisses me off, when authoritarians try that with any other part of the Constitution, people get rightfully pissed, but for some reason, because the Democrat Party has picked up gun control as a part of their platform, people try to wrap their mind around how they can justify that position even though they normally are fairly decent people who are interested in protecting civil liberties.

Are you really that naive? *Everyone* does it, and they do it with everything. If people read everything without bias, then we'd not have a Supreme Court that has most of its decisions properly guessed by legal experts (including which justices vote on which side). Instead, the highest legal institution in the country, the one dedicated to hearing cases of these matters, and those holding this post are so biased that they just vote their personal opinion, then invent a legal position to support their personal opinion. It doesn't matter if they are Democratic or Republican. They all do exactly what you say, make up their mind first, then twist what they read to fit it.

Now, how can you convince someone else that you aren't doing the same thing? Just calling it a cat over and over doesn't convince them. In fact, it goes to show the opposite.

You attribute no meaning at all to the opening clause, but every court ever (including the three states with the exact same wording) hold that it does have meaning. Even if it is just a modifier of arms, as things like switchblades and sawed-off shotguns have been held to not be militia type weapons, and thus not protected. So your assertion that it holds no meaning is directly contradicted by every court decision in multiple jurisdictions in both state and federal courts on separate instances of that wording. As such, it appears to me that you are obviously biased in the same manner (if opposite) of those you condemn.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

Quote:
"Regarding the RKBA, it is automatically wrong for someone to take away a means of self-defense that is practical in those situations where the state can't protect you."
End Quote

The courts have determined that the police (i.e., the state) have no responsibility to protect people as individuals, but only society as a whole. The police cannot (in a free society, anyway) take action against someone because they SUSPECT they may do something (covered under the 4th and 5th Amendments), but only after they HAVE done something (hence, all the women who have suffered violence at the hands of men against whom they had "restraining orders" to "protect" them). The usual police scenario is to get involved after the fact to pick up the pieces.

Or, as the saying goes, "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

Nothing I have said is meant to disparage the police. They have necessary civil restraints on them (for obvious reasons), and as the saying goes, "some of my best friends are (fill in the blank)." However, anyone who would count on the "state" to protect them is acting foolishly. Personal protection is a personal responsibility. That makes sense, too. WHY would you want to give up that right and responsibility to the "state?" That is an attitude of "the government will take care of me," and sets a very dangerous precedent ("a government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have").

The primary purpose of government (at least in the U.S.A.) is to defend liberty and our rights, and our borders. I will take care of my own personal defense, thank you.

-Gregory K. Sloat

Re:Interpret it correctly

[sjames]

It IS important to understand the language it's written in, there has been drift. Well regulated simply means practiced or trained. As in good at shooting. Militia simply means every able bodied citizen with a gun. It is also clear that the first part is simply the rationale for the second part.

So no, there is nothing vague there at all. It's a perfectly clear imperative.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[sjames]

Like most things, the meaning and intent is perfectly clear to anyone who actually wants to know what it says. Only those who hope it doesn't forbid what they want to do find it the least bit ambiguous.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Eli Gottlieb]

When you consider the idea of a national muster in the style of Israel or Switzerland, the framework becomes painfully obvious.

When you consider the idea of a national muster in the style of Israel or Switzerland, you have to remember that the right to keep arms entails the responsibility to be trained in soldiering and the responsibility to be so as part of a legal, defensive military force. We have the first requirement in some places in the United States, but we have the second nowhere in the United States.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Kijori]

Like most things, the meaning and intent is perfectly clear to anyone who actually wants to know what it says. Only those who hope it doesn't forbid what they want to do find it the least bit ambiguous.

If that were true then I wouldn't have been able to reel off a whole list of points that were not clear to me from reading the quotation.

The point isn't really whether each person finds the meaning clear, it's whether the phrases have only one possible interpretation - and that clearly isn't the case. If you don't believe me try answering all my questions and then playing "devil's advocate" - I think you'll find that you can't arrive at an interpretation that allows no doubt.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the regulations are infringements, the wording contradicts itself.

The document is based on dialectic logic, meant to institutionalize an ongoing state of liminality, as in the Delphi Method of consensus building.

If you're interested in the pre-ordained purpose behind so many civics exercises, it will be worthwhile for you to break this down.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

Consider that a digital clock is driven by polar opposites, painstakingly pitted against eachother, by design.

It is an adversarial system with an arbiter.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[sjames]

If you're willing to question the definition of 'is', then any perfectly simple English sentence (including a one word sentence) can be reduced to a tangle of gibberish, but I argue that that is more a case of willful confusion rather than any inherent lack of clarity.

No communication is so completely unambiguous that it is literally impossible to willfully contort it to meaninglessness. I simply stated that if the reader lacks that particular will, the Constitution is perfectly clear.

I presume you agree completely with me since you say you were reel off in your first post :-)

Believe me, given some time I'm sure I could re-interpret the Constitution into being a bedtime story about a flatulent elephant living in Detroit. All I have to do is re-define the English language.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Right, the definition of arms has not changed one bit. It's muskets. Flintlocks. That's it.

Your automatic weapons are not covered. Point out where Glock is mentioned by any founding father. There you go.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Profane MuthaFucka]

I'm a drooling moron, but that's not a weapon, it's my cock. I wonder what Freud wrote about that?

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Kijori]

If you're willing to question the definition of 'is', then any perfectly simple English sentence (including a one word sentence) can be reduced to a tangle of gibberish, but I argue that that is more a case of willful confusion rather than any inherent lack of clarity.

While that's certainly true, it isn't what I did. I'm not talking about "meaningfully contorting" anything, I'm suggesting that you cannot interpret this article unambiguously; there isn't enough information. In a manner of speaking, any interpretation will be a contortion, meaningful or not, because you have to bring in more information than is available in order to make sense of the article.

If you don't believe me I repeat my challenge to try to answer the questions I posed definitively.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

"There is room for legitimate disagreement over the definition of 'arms'."
-- You want to change what the Founders "meant" because you think you know better.

"a means of self-defense that is practical in those situations where the state can't protect you."
-- The purpose of the Second Amendment is not to grant you the right to protect yourself, it's "necessary to the security of a free State." Not just any State that must, of course, protect itself from external aggression (even a monarchy must do that,) but a "free" State. This Amendment is to protect the State, a charge to YOU to protect IT and its freedom, not just yourself. Taken in the larger context of the Bill of Rights as a compromise of the original States to be granted certain protections and freedoms for themselves and their people from the newly federalized government they joined, it is impossible for a "well-regulated" individual to misinterpret the meaning.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

If they had specifically meant "muskets and nothing but muskets", they would have said that. They chose to use the general term "arms", which proves beyond ALL POSSIBLE DOUBT that they meant literally any possible kind of weapon. As I said before, you're not trolling, you really are advocating your stupid position in earnest, but you also know perfectly well that you're lying in order to do it.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[alexo]

3) Democratically elected governments are, in my opinion, far less likely to use weapons of mass destruction than individuals.

How many individuals have dropped nuclear bombs on cities?

Re:Interpret it correctly

[VirginMary]

How many individuals have dropped nuclear bombs on cities?

Depends on how you want to count! First, how many individuals had access to nuclear bombs? W/o access this is a mute point! But, the way I like to look at things, it is always individuals, whether they're the POTUS or a bomber captain, or the guy who releases the bomb etc. IMNSHO, I believe that we are all responsible for our individual choices. As you might be able to guess, I don't believe in blindly following orders no matter who gives them! I think we'd be living in a slightly better world if we held individuals accountable for their actions at all times. In my country, I am a recognised conscientious objector, which to me simply means that I will not blindly murder people wearing different uniforms just because some government tells me to do that. For the record: I do not think that all wars are unjust but I choose to decide for myself which ones are and which ones aren't!

Re:Interpret it correctly

[dougmc]

So, a city can make or enforce a law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ?

No, it can't. And that prohibition didn't come from the 1st or 14th amendment, not exactly -- it came from an interpretation of the Constitution (including those amendments) that eventually was made by the Supreme Court itself.

Ultimately, the Constitution is subject to interpretation, as all laws are, and when the Supreme Court does this interpretation, it's interpretations basically become law just like they were part of the Constitution.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[fyngyrz]

Cities are subject to state law -- as are all other entities within a state.

The supreme court has ZERO authorized power to "interpret" the constitution. Go read article III. They assigned themselves this power, in an unauthorized grab. All they are authorized to do is say guilty or not guilty WRT constitutional lawbreaking. Not make new law, or pretend "shall not" means "shall" because it is convenient for them.

They're out of control. Plain and simple.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Following your logic, if they'd meant that Congress should not provide health care, they'd have said that too. That the founders intended Congress to provide health care is an absurdity, thus your logic is refuted.

There is no Glock in the Constitution, THUS owning a Glock is not a right. Firearm, to the founders, could only have meant musket or gunpowder cannon.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

Yes. The Constitution is not a contract written by the Devil or Rod Serling.

No, it's a document interpreted by lawyers. That's worse :)

Re:Interpret it correctly

[dougmc]

Cities are subject to state law -- as are all other entities within a state.

But that's not what the amendment says. It says what the states can not do. Quit trying to interpret the Constitution!

And what about Washington D.C. -- it's not a state, not in a state. Or Puerto Rico?

Ultimately, the Constitution has grown to mean more than the sum of it's words. You may not approve of this, but many of the rights we collectively enjoy have come from this.

They're out of control. Plain and simple.

If you say so. I guess you could sue them -- good luck!

I guess you could overthrow the government -- that might work better. After all, a Supreme Court interpretation of the second amendment is what permits individuals to bear arms (or, more accurately, it prevents the government from totally taking the right away. Not that the government universally would, but certain states and cities certainly have tried.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

Following your logic, if they'd meant that Congress should not provide health care, they'd have said that too.

Following my logic doesn't lead there at all, you're just attacking a strawman.

The Constitution says arms. Glocks are arms. Therefore the Constitution says Glocks.

You wish you didn't agree with me 100%, but you do.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, you're operating on the principle that "X is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, therefore X is not a right". The existence of the Ninth Amendment makes it literally impossible to agree with that principle, therefore any advocacy of it can never be anything other than a lie.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Profane MuthaFucka]

That kind of thinking leads to bullshit. The Constitution says Congress has the right to provide for the general Welfare. Healthcare is Welfare. Just look in the damn dictionary if you don't believe me.

You can see that this sort of logic leads to absurdities. Therefore, we must stick to the original plan. If it doesn't say healthcare or glocks, then no healthcare and no fucking glocks!

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Profane MuthaFucka]

You're a goddamned communist, arguing for health care. I bet you're going to say that Healthcare isn't specifically mentioned, but it could be a right anyway.

I hate all you libruls. You're going to spend all our money so we can't afford a 600 ship Navy. You killed Reagan's 600 ship Navy dream. By Jesus Christ my lord, you won't kill Mrs. Palin's dreams. I won't let you.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

It does say Glocks.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

You're screaming to yourself that you're having a great time trolling me, but you can't even manage to convince yourself of that. You're crying like the little bitch you know yourself to be, knowing that your efforts to disguise your stupidity as trolling will forever ring hollow.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[fyngyrz]

It is my opinion that armed revolt would destroy the country. I don't consider it a viable option (nor do I think that the average citizen has any idea what is going on, or cares... hence, there will be no revolt, regardless of what anyone thinks.) That does not mean that I shouldn't speak my mind -- I've put forty years into studying this (yeah, I'm old) and I'm pretty sure of most of my positions. I can defend them against educated, critical attacks. The government, however, cannot defend many of its positions without using coercion and violating the restrictions set upon by its authorizing document; likewise, its officials cannot do the things they do without violating their oaths.

The inversion of the commerce clause; the rubber stamping of ex post facto laws; the direct and profound violation of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th and 10th amendments; the usurpation of article three power by the judiciary; these things cannot be hidden successfully under a claim of "it's a living document", etc. "Shall not infringe" still means what it meant when it was written; "shall make no law" still means the same thing; "among the several states" still doesn't mean "within the several states"; "ex post facto" still means what it did in 1798 when Justice Chase laid it out... those who would make excuses for the violations of these specifics are a poison to the country's body as far as I'm concerned.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Who gives a shit what you think.

We're taking your illegal unconstitutional glock away from you. You KNOW that's true. You KNOW I'll be laughing at you. Enjoy your musket, you terrorist wannabe.

Re:Interpret it correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

Who gives a shit what you think.

You do. You obsess on it constantly. You're crying, right now, because you desperately want my approval.

We're taking your illegal unconstitutional glock away from you.

Illegal unconstitutional Glocks do not exist. You might as well threaten to take away my unicorn. You KNOW that's true.

You're linking a FoxNew site...?

[Nethemas the Great]

You must be joking? Why are we now linking to a Fox new site?

Regardless, if this book was intended for children then it absolutely makes sense to have a warning label. If you cannot understand why then I would suggest that you brush up on your history. I'm not even referring exclusively to slave era history. Have a look at the filth that was published during McCarthyism's reign. Simply because the Constitution happens to be nested within the same book does not mean that ideals of justice, liberty, etc. are being claimed to be relics from a bygone era. It means that the dehumanization of non-European peoples, subservience of women, etc. are notions to be found within the documents contained in this book. They are cautioning the parent of this and advising them that they should discuss this with their children.

Re:Warning Labels OK for Evolution, not for Slaver

[wholestrawpenny]

The difference is that the Constitution is one of the principle defining documents of this country (there is obvious proof it exists), and a biology textbook is usually what the author(s) believe to be true in a particular field of research. I don't see how they compare.

Maybe it's just me but...

[Alsee]

The warning label seems oddly appropriate to me.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

And I'll take this opportunity to really piss some people off by mentioning the fact that the Electoral College was part of the same slavery compromise. Between the 3/5ths counting of slaves in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College there was a carefully counted balance reached for pro-slavery power and for pro-slavery votes.

-

Re:Maybe it's just me but...

[mschuyler]

Yes, yes. America is bad (tm); the rest of the world is good. Look at it this way. If that original 'compromise' had not been made, the USA would never have existed and, a few years later, the most devestating war that had ever been fought in human history would not have resulted in the deaths of vast numbers of Caucasian soldiers, more than all the rest of America's wars combined, not to mention the complete devastation of the countryside and a complete disruption of the economy.

Slavery was brought to the colonies by British subjects in 1619 and institutionalized by the British system for 160 years. When the US became a country those pushing for a continuation of slavery had been British subjects. So America inherited the blame. The British did not entirely ban slavery until 1840, when the last "apprentices" were freed. This was a scant generation before this ountry did the same thing.

We've lost sight of the fact that until 1865 the "United States" was a plural noun. By 'today's standards' Washington, Jefferson, and Adams are dangerous right wingers threatening the stability of the socialist state. But there is a tenth amendment. Though the feds would prefer you forget that it exists, there is a tenth amendment (and a second). Why not go read them? In fact, read all 27.

Re:Maybe it's just me but...

[JesseMcDonald]

Between the 3/5ths counting of slaves in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College there was a carefully counted balance reached for pro-slavery power and for pro-slavery votes.

Yes, a balance which gave the pro-slavery faction less power and votes than they would have had were slaves counted as full persons. (Slaves don't get to vote, remember? Their "votes" would have been controlled by the pro-slavery free population in their respective states.)

One could wish that they had simply banned slavery outright, but then there would have been no possibility of consensus. There are good arguments either way. Slavery was on its way out, anyway—before long slave labor wouldn't even be suitable for agriculture, due to certain technological advancements, much less the new manufacturing industry which was slowly taking over. These new jobs required educated, motivated, and above all voluntary workers. Brute force wouldn't cut it.

Re:Maybe it's just me but...

[Dhalka226]

Though the feds would prefer you forget that it exists, there is a tenth amendment (and a second). Why not go read them? In fact, read all 27.

For starers, I want to say I agree with what I think your premise is. I don't appreciate the trampling of rights that has occurred and continues to occur.

However, even if that's the case the worst that can be said is that the United States suffered a kind of mini-coup. It's worth noting that the Constitution itself was a mini-coup. Its ratification is roughly akin to if Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden* appeared a press conference tomorrow and said: "I have here the Obamatution. If we receive at least a two-thirds majority of myself [as president], Mr. Biden [as president of the Senate and vice president], Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid [as Speaker and majority leader], and Mr. McConnell and Mr. Boehner [as minority leaders] this document is ratified and supercedes the Constitution. And oh yeah, Pelosi, Reid, Biden and myself have already voted 'yea.'"

Okay, okay, I did say roughly akin, but the point is that the creators of a new governmental framework ratified it according to whatever criteria they so desired and wrote into their document, rather than the process that the old document had in effect for governmental changes. It was a bloodless coup.

We live in a world now where the Constitution they set up has been carefully worked around such that the government can do almost anything it pleases except the handful of things we still find too sacred about our structure to permit. (And even that is subject to change.) I don't approve. I don't like it. But I'm left somewhat... uncaring. Unsurprised. We've seen it happen before, such that I'm not even sure if it's right or wrong. A lot of good can come of it; a lot of evil can come of it. Last time we did alright. This time? Well, we'll see I suppose.

The Founders would probably be pissed at what happened, but they would be more pissed that nobody's out grabbing their guns to do something about it. They urged eternal vigilance; if we wanted to be strictly loyal to their interpretations we should have given it. Maybe we didn't want to, and all these debates are really about are which set of anti-constitutional policies are the ones we should tolerate and we just steep those arguments in an appeal to patriotism.

* I use them because they're currently in power and it's fashionable to hate on them, not to indicate any particular personal dislike of them or their policies.

Disclaimer

[Drakkenmensch]

Slashdot is a product of its time and may not reflect the opinions of the modders who read your posts ten seconds from the moment they were written.

Re:Disclaimer

[Anonymous Coward]

dfg iljsd;g jids gjsio jbnibr jhgod

A quote from Monsieur Simpson

[amanicdroid]

HAHAHA! It's funny cuz it's true!

Commonsense tag.

[siglercm]

If one thinks it odd that this article is tagged "commonsense", remember that one of the documents in this collection is that historic pamphlet of the American Revolution.

Thank you, diligent taggers </sarcasm>.

Clearly this is just a a ploy...

[Shadow Wrought]

They're obviously just trying to get into the Texas school book market.

This was on Digg yesterday and already debunked...

[2obvious4u]

This particular publisher puts this warning on all their books, according to the comments on digg. Sorry I don't have better sources, but apparently this publisher is a small publisher that publishes a lot of historical works. This is there standard legal disclaimer. So basically this is an over reaction.

Re:Warning Labels OK for Evolution, not for Slaver

[Entropius]

Most biology textbooks contain what the authors noted was the overwhelming consensus of biologists.

Nobody puts anything controversial (*actually* controversial -- things that are overwhelmingly accepted scientific consensus but that still piss off the Baptists do not qualify), without clearly labelling it as such, in a mainstream elementary biology book.

ObSlip&Slide down the slope

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to jump on the slippery slope:

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeee...................thud

Weird Publisher

[Paradox !-)]

If you actually check out the link for the publisher they're mostly reprinting old "positive thinking" stuff. I smell publicity stunt. Then again, it could just be a debunked, false issue.

If It Were Written Today . . .

[NicknamesAreStupid]

. . . it would be copyrighted. It would have a warning, "All Rights Reserved." Think about it.

Retort

[2names]

Try this:

A well regulated bakery being necessary to the tastiness of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear pastries, shall not be infringed.

Ok, please explain the previous sentence to me. Make me understand how pastries could ever be legally banned if the sentence in italics above was an amendment to the Constitution.

Re:Retort

[darth_borehd]

[quote] Try this: A well regulated bakery being necessary to the tastiness of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear pastries, shall not be infringed. Ok, please explain the previous sentence to me. Make me understand how pastries could ever be legally banned if the sentence in italics above was an amendment to the Constitution. [/quote] *A well regulated bakery* --- If the bakery is not regulated, then they have no right to pastries.

Re:Retort

[SETIGuy]

I prefer sweet pastries. "bear pastries" just sound nasty.

It isn't vague.

[crhylove]

The right to keep and bare arms was specifically there to protect we the people from the government. If the government has nukes, we should have nukes to protect ourselves from them.

I know, 220 million people having nukes doesn't seem like that good of an idea, which is why I maintain that nobody INCLUDING the government should have nukes....

Re:It isn't vague.

[masmullin]

Where exactly does it say you have the right to bare arms. You have the right to BEAR arms.

You may own a pair (or more if you need them) of arms formerly attached to a bear. It can be any bear... Sarah Palin's favourite is Polar bear arms, but you can use whatever makes you feel safe.

However, you do not have the right to show the entire surface skin of your arms; bare arms are not a guarenteed freedom , nor are you allowed to have bare bear arms, you must cover these things.

Re:This was on Digg yesterday and already debunked

[mschuyler]

No, it's not a 'standard disclaimer.' If you RTFA the legal beagles say this gives the company no particular advantage. This is a small publisher, probably publish on demand, that sells exclusively through amazon. Their only contact is a P.O. box.

Maybe not so bad... put on other books

[Anonymous Coward]

Might actually be a good thing to put some intelligent warnings on other books, like things about the paranormal, pseudo sciences, etc. I know I could have used a short lesson on critical thinking in my teens. I read this crap rabidly and hoped it was all real. I didn't learn critical thinking until much later.

Stupid Fox News

[archmcd]

Conservative sensationalism at its finest! This is a boiler-plate disclaimer that the publisher automatically attaches to its publications, probably to appease their legal staff. At no point in the article does Fox News actually cite a legitimate source of protest, other than Amazon.com customer reviews. "Under fire" !? Only by Fox News and the far-right zombies that blindly peddle Fox News' stories and swallow them as fact. This is poorly written drivel based on the insignificant ramblings of Internet nobodies like us. I hope the /. crowd has enough sense to read this article carefully and take note of its illegitimacy and its role as right-wing propaganda.

It IS unconstitutional.

[crhylove]

In fact the very founding of the nation was over tax laws, so pretending like the Teabaggers are crazy on this is really unfair and inaccurate.

Income tax is absolutely at the root of what has gone wrong in our democracy. That and unmitigated corporate monopolization. But then I guess "Joe's Coffee"has every bit the chance of success as "Starbucks" where you live.

Re:It IS unconstitutional.

[conspirator57]

i'd far rather see a progressive sales tax than an income tax of any sort. (food staples, diapers, etc. = no tax, food luxuries = some tax, ..., yachts, etc. = huge tax) both because of the civil liberties implications and because of the unproductive economic drain of all that redundant effort to calculate tax. businesses are set up to collect sales tax. most can accommodate variances in what gets taxed at what rate. also, sales taxes encourage savings which had we been doing, the current depression would have been more bearable and shorter. who knows, since it was caused by rampant debt, were we a culture of savers it might not have happened at all.

Re:It IS unconstitutional.

[CheshireCatCO]

In fact the very founding of the nation was over tax laws, so pretending like the Teabaggers are crazy on this is really unfair and inaccurate.

Er, it was about taxation without representation. Please don't re-write history to ignore that part of it. The FFs were upset that they were being taxed with no say as to how they were taxed. The Tea Party folks, by contrast aren't upset about the representation and are upset about the fact that this is a democracy and the fact that they didn't get their way in the past two elections*. The taxes they get are appointed via our representatives, voted in by them.

So, basically, they're 180 degrees out of phase with the Founding Fathers.

* Witness the fact that taxes are at their lowest in a long while right now, yet their outrage is apparently at an all-time high. Perspective, among other things, is lacking.

Re:It IS unconstitutional.

[Bigjeff5]

That's the most sane tax plan I've heard in a long while, and it's so stupid simple the average person wouldn't have to worry about it.

I love it.

Re:Warning Labels OK for Evolution, not for Slaver

[cparker15]

Where have all the mod points gone?

hope they put warning lables on bibles

[Nyder]

Well, bibles need those warning labels also, i would think.

Or just need to put it under fantasy/science fiction.

Corporatocracy

[rsborg]

So which parts of the constitution do you find is "out of date"?

I'd say given the shift towards corporatocracy, the major "loopholes" are that

1. Corporations are considered persons (who conveniently can be created by money and never die)
2. Personal rights are now mostly infringed by corporations (whether government/police are involved by proxy) instead of government itself

The intent of the original constitution has been perverted by money (and the homonculi that it spawns - corporations).

Hell, yeah

[Abuzar]

And I'll tell you another book that needs to have a warning, it's the Bible.
They should make it 18+ only and with lots of warning ahead of time, would save plenty of dollars on psychotherapy.

How strange...

[deepthoughtless]

......that so many Slashdotters should cry foul at the suggestion of actually discussing the Constitution and it's meaning with your children. Isn't that kind of a good thing?

pendantry

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice try at what? Making the point that the original constitution contained elements that are untenable by today's standards? Perhaps he wasn't *perfectly* accurate, but his basic point still stands...some people could be considered 3/5 of a person and they didn't have full rights. Or do you consider slavery okay if ALL races are enslaved equally?

What's the phrase...nice try though.

Slavery

[Anonymous Coward]

And I don't think you could get away with defining non free persons to be worth 3/5ths as much as free people today.

Even though we repealed that part with the 14th Amendment.

No (was Re:Yes)

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong.

It did not include indentured servants, quite explicitly. The intention and reality of the 3/5 compromise was applied overwhelmingly to blacks.

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Permission

[Kenoli]

... might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work

Before allowing them to read the Constitution? Really?

I didn't RTFA

[jellomizer]

but... The summary says... "for putting warning labels on copies of historical US documents, including the Constitution. "

Doesn't that mean this document will have a lot of historical documents written in it. There is a lot of language that is not PC today, the label probably isn't even meant for the constitution, but for slavery laws, gender bias, and race bias.... A lot of the nasty things that we are not to proud of in our history.

Even the Constitution has part in it that we no longer handle slaves are counted a 1/3 for districting.... Crazy stuff like that. I say it is a fair warning.

Re: herpa ferp

[Luke has no name]

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.
Amendment 19 - Women's Suffrage. Ratified 8/18/1920.

No, it's really not out of date.

Supremacy clause is not a blank check

[Anonymous Coward]

The Supremacy Clause applies to: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ..." Any federal law that is made NOT in pursuance of the Constitution is therefore also not covered by the Supremacy Clause. For example, current prohibition laws against drugs are NOT authorized by the Constitution (unlike alcohol prohibition was for a brief time back in the 1920s) and therefore the drug war is based on laws made outside of the constitutionally-delegated authority of the Congress. Therefore federal drug laws are not protected by the Supremacy clause. So if a state decided to assert 9th/10th Amendment rights with respect to the federal drug war, it would be completely within its rights to do so. Also bear in mind that the federal government was CREATED BY the states, in furtherance of the principles of the Declaration of Independence, which is the moral basis for American government and which the Constitution theoretically is designed to implement in law. As the declaration states, we are all endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable Rights, the purpose of government being to secure those Rights, and when any government becomes destructive of those Rights, it is the DUTY of the people to alter or abolish it.

Re:Supremacy clause is not a blank check

[Myopic]

Oh, okay thanks, it's all super clear now.

It couldn't be clearer

[Rix]

I don't think any administration has ever attempted to prevent a state from operating a well regulated militia.

WMDs - arms clearly covers them

[fyngyrz]

So at the very least, small arms should be legal

No. "small" isn't mentioned, either. At the time, "arms" consisted of the following (and more, and were being developed into new forms every day):

All manner of pistols, rifles, muskets, cannons, explosive and solid cannonballs, cannonballs filled with shards, frigates with multiple decks of cannon, wagons with explosives and multiple guns rigged to fire in unison, chain shot, flaming missiles soaked with pitch and other inflammable, easily spread and extremely hard to extinguish compounds, swords, knives, bayonets, fighting canes, brass knuckles, battering rams, catapults, siege towers, caltrops, mines, pits, biologically contaminated materials, glass bottles, garrotes, whips, chains, both fused and mechanically triggered explosives, striking weapons like sticks and poles and pikes and quarterstaffs and maces and war-hammers, spears, bows, axes, arrows and crossbows... I could go on for pages.

Knowing this, and knowing that arms development and refinement went on all the time, what did they put in the constitution? They put "arms." No more, no less. So it's pretty darned clear they meant: "Tools you use to project violence."

I will grant you that they didn't anticipate nuclear weapons specifically, but they were aware of bio-weaponry (it had even been considered on this continent, see General Jeffery Amherst's letters ca. ~1763), and the havoc that a plague represented; they were aware of firestorms (ref. the destruction of a large part of London, ca 1666), they built their dwellings and storehouses almost exclusively out of wood, and so directly had experience with, and recognized the danger of, mass destruction... and yet they still said "arms."

So. If we don't want ownership of nukes to be legal, we need to amend the constitution. Rather than let the government run wild and make laws it is not authorized to make. because once we decide that's ok, there is no law they cannot make.

Why is it ?

[kiljoy001]

Why is it on slashdot, we get more and better arguments about the founding documents of the United States of America, but the politicians, the people we trust to run our goverment appear not to know didily squat about it. The lack of understanding of our so call Representatives is so appalling. Why can they just simply outlaw lobbies to government ? Why does the government consistently eschew its responsibility to it constituents? It as if we wish for leaders, but what we get instead or people of poor quality and small of mind. Congress should be ashamed of it's poor quality.

Hand written bills?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps we should start requiring all new bills to be hand written in calligraphy. That would force some conciseness.

Oooo poking the sacred cow with a pointy stick.

[dogzdik]

Hmmmmmmmmm the prelude is an interesting thought, if only in degrees of consciousness raising; of rather than going "Ummm ahhhh and reading it - of actually doing a bit of information gathering and comparing the times and situations.

.

And at least participating with others and thinking about things is a lot better than dropping the book in front of the kid and saying "Here read this".

Didn't El Neil...

[LandGator]

Didn't L. Neil Smith have a tee shirt in THE PROBABILITY BROACH with the Constitution overstamped with VOID WHERE PROHIBITED ?
26 years later, the more things change...

http://www.bagagent.com

[Anonymous Coward]

Please continue with the wine attractive Chanel bags we have. Although we have been in self-harm themselves shopping ban a matter of fact, our fingers magically trying to click Add to Cart button,Chanel Black Handbags,although some people continue to beat us to it. Designer Handbags.Other savvy shoppers on the Internet faster than our fingers, and continue to click on us to a glorious Vintage Chanel bags. Us with a lot of our readers, would like to invite you to continue to add to collect information about you under the guidance of, Shopbop Chanel. Even if we can not retro Chanel bag, at least we can oogle them.Chanel Bags Online Store.

Re:

[clint999]

And ear marks to pay for adding turtle crossings to roads in Badlands, South Dakota.

Re: "Bare Arms"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that really gets the Australians in a tizzy! Have them want to see our bare arms and half want to cover them up.

If ever an "Informative" mod were deserved,

[Anonymous Coward]

this is it. Thank you for taking the time to post this and making it so lucid. I've saved a copy to my hard drive for reference.

Warning...

[Anonymous Coward]

Liberals and other special interest groups find themselves to be overly constrained by that scrap of paper known as the Constition, blah blah is how it should really read.

WTF is all I can say.