If you look at the copy of the Bill of Rights that was originally sent to the states, you'll see that the word "People" is capitalized, which in regard to the Constitution means it refers to the government, not every single citizen.
This is hogwash. Many nouns were capitalized for emphasis. "State" means "state". "The People" means "The people". If that's not enough for you, then tell me what the hell the 10th Amendment means if "people" is a synonym for "states"?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
A Supreme Court decision found that "arms" must be useful to the operation of a militia, i.e., for a military purpose. I'd say explosives of many types would qualify. The sawed-off shotgun concerned in the case would not.
Looking further back, Jefferson said, "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Also, "Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state." Of course, Jefferson would be shut up in Gitmo if he were to say today, "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Samuel Adams said, "Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can." He also claimed that the "militia is comprised of free citizens."
Finally, in the Federalist papers, Madison asserted, "Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
I think the intent of the founders is BRUTALLY CLEAR.
Robert Bork would almost certainly be considered not conservative enough by today's Republicans because he took the 2nd Amendment literally and believed it only applied to "well-regulated militias" and did not give everybody the right to pack heat.
Assuming this was a correct interpretation, the fact remains that the Constitution does not give Congress the power to regulate weapons.
It's sad that a strict interpretation of the Constitution is considered right-wing. What it is, is uniquely American: a nation of laws, not men. If the Constitution is found to have a flaw, then there is a purposely time-consuming and exhaustive process to amend it. Men, on the other hand, would prefer to whittle away at our freedom in the dark confines of U.S. code for their own benefit.
Hey, neither does the President. Despite the clause that explicitly prohibits using ethnicity as a determining factor, he's claimed that Mexicans are being rounded up from ice cream parlors as we speak.
No, what this issue shows is that people are hypocrites. They'll demonize people for having different moral standards, while their own invisible line is just drawn a hair further back. Maybe 20 years from now, we'll be looking at all the people who were against bestiality as hate-mongers.
So, it sounds like a win-win situation, with the exception of the arid environment ecosystem which would be totally destroyed.
And the peoples' lives and homes that would be destroyed. And the thousands that would die from insect-borne illness afterward. Sounds like a great emergency for the government to seize more power, though!
It doesn't matter when you wake up, as long as you wake up. We can't go back in time, so are you advocating the position that they should keep their traps shut and hope for the best?
Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: - umm, no, Jesus, the Constitution says nothing about a space program or GPS, would those be done away with?
Won't know until they are audited. I'd say GPS at least would stay because it has military uses, and since it's used for 911 it's "general welfare" in the way Madison intended.
Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010: Too specific
It's a pretty obvious target.
Reduce Earmarks: That'll wreck the rural states, where the conservatives are from, good work guys
Apparently Queen Elizabeth II knows how to use one. The President gave her a second one. She had to delete all his speeches off of it first, to load more Kanye West I'm sure.
Again, the Windows NT 3.x, 4.x, XP, 2000, 2003, Vista, 2008, and 7 security model is not based on 16-bit Windows. When users run as regular users and not administrators, it works well. Any security model is useless when fully-privileged accounts are used for regular operations.
Whereas Unix was designed from day one to be a multi-user multitasking environment.
No, that was Multics. Unix was for single users: hence the name.
Remember that is to be contrasted with the 6 years of Windows development where security was job 3.
It was job "null" because the first versions of Windows were not networked. Windows NT 3.1 was, which is why it came with a new security model.
I find it pretty hilarious that the responses to this topic basically prove him right. People didn't read the article, nor the speech, they just responded with their own political bent, conspiracy theories or a knee jerk reaction that all the distraction is good.
From the article:
He bemoaned the fact that "some of the craziest claims can quickly claim traction," in the clamor of certain blogs and talk radio outlets.
OK... let's see what he's said about the Cambridge police: "I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played," yet he claimed the police "acted stupidly." Let's also look at how he saw the Arizona immigration law: "Now, suddenly, if you don't have your papers, and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're going to get harassed -- that's something that could potentially happen". Well, the immigration law specifically PROHIBITS stopping anyone based on skin color. I don't think the Arizona law is the way to go either-- but that's because border enforcement is the Federal government's right according to the Constitution, so we need to use legal means of getting them to stop shirking their responsibility.
In short, I think the President should have that knee-jerking problem looked at by a doctor-- I hear he has a great health plan.
Slashdot Mirror
The 9th Amendment backs up the right to privacy.
This is hogwash. Many nouns were capitalized for emphasis. "State" means "state". "The People" means "The people". If that's not enough for you, then tell me what the hell the 10th Amendment means if "people" is a synonym for "states"?
Looking further back, Jefferson said, "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Also, "Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state." Of course, Jefferson would be shut up in Gitmo if he were to say today, "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Samuel Adams said, "Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can." He also claimed that the "militia is comprised of free citizens."
Finally, in the Federalist papers, Madison asserted, "Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
I think the intent of the founders is BRUTALLY CLEAR.
Assuming this was a correct interpretation, the fact remains that the Constitution does not give Congress the power to regulate weapons.
It's sad that a strict interpretation of the Constitution is considered right-wing. What it is, is uniquely American: a nation of laws, not men. If the Constitution is found to have a flaw, then there is a purposely time-consuming and exhaustive process to amend it. Men, on the other hand, would prefer to whittle away at our freedom in the dark confines of U.S. code for their own benefit.
Sounds like Pennsylvania. We're full of Germans too.
I'm glad that Eurasia has certified that we are safe from the prying eyes of Oceania.
Hey, neither does the President. Despite the clause that explicitly prohibits using ethnicity as a determining factor, he's claimed that Mexicans are being rounded up from ice cream parlors as we speak.
Considering how weaselly Congress is these days, I'd prefer that they get less ferreted.
Why does the federal government hate white Pennsylvanians?
Inconceivable!
So... you like bestiality, then?
No, what this issue shows is that people are hypocrites. They'll demonize people for having different moral standards, while their own invisible line is just drawn a hair further back. Maybe 20 years from now, we'll be looking at all the people who were against bestiality as hate-mongers.
And the peoples' lives and homes that would be destroyed. And the thousands that would die from insect-borne illness afterward. Sounds like a great emergency for the government to seize more power, though!
We don't eat food here in the first world?
DuPont? Pssht. Give it to a bunch of rednecks... the duct tape baby will take care of it.
Won't know until they are audited. I'd say GPS at least would stay because it has military uses, and since it's used for 911 it's "general welfare" in the way Madison intended.
It's a pretty obvious target.
[citation needed]
Straw Man much?
Apparently Queen Elizabeth II knows how to use one. The President gave her a second one. She had to delete all his speeches off of it first, to load more Kanye West I'm sure.
By the way, we spend far more on entitlements than defense. And defense is actually a constitutional duty of the government.
We failed in Iraq? Thanks, Mr. Information Minister!
No, that was Multics. Unix was for single users: hence the name.
It was job "null" because the first versions of Windows were not networked. Windows NT 3.1 was, which is why it came with a new security model.
Electricity prices haven't skyrocketed yet, but that's probably Congress's fault for not pushing that Cap'n'trade bill through faster. I can't wait!
From the article:
OK... let's see what he's said about the Cambridge police: "I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played," yet he claimed the police "acted stupidly." Let's also look at how he saw the Arizona immigration law: "Now, suddenly, if you don't have your papers, and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're going to get harassed -- that's something that could potentially happen". Well, the immigration law specifically PROHIBITS stopping anyone based on skin color. I don't think the Arizona law is the way to go either-- but that's because border enforcement is the Federal government's right according to the Constitution, so we need to use legal means of getting them to stop shirking their responsibility.
In short, I think the President should have that knee-jerking problem looked at by a doctor-- I hear he has a great health plan.
He also mentioned iPads. Those aren't game consoles. He's a hypocrite.
It's Lower Merion.