Liberty & Union?

[milhistbuff1]

Ole,
Let me take you up on your suggestion in post #218 by starting with the first amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Whenever a nation forbids or precludes any of the above, you essentially destroy any attempts at maintaining your own heritage and culture. Britain and France have banned or otherwise impeded the various clauses of the first amendment at different points, some of them even between 1776 and 1861. The laws precluding catholic civil rights in Ireland and banning clan garb in Scotland and the French Hangings under Robespierre.
respectfully
matt

[unionblue]

Friends,

A site once given before, but that might have some bearing on the original intent of this thread.

Liberty and Union, Now and Forever, by Timothy Sandefur:

http://www.geocities.com/sande106/LibertyandUnion.htm

I would appreciate any comments on the article.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[ole]

"

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

"It's frequently difficult to cut things down to the bare bones like this did, Matt.

In its original sense, the amendment demonstrated a fairly all-encompassing statement of freedoms that we still hold sacrosanct. But we seem to have stretched the definition of establishment, speech, peaceably, and redress of grievances.
As much as the ACLU irritates me, it seems to be the only entity out there watching out for these prohibitions.

We have seen many attempts from many sources to modify the original intent of this. Of course, it has been argued, that this is a different time and that the framers couldn't possibly have anticipated **** (****) [OK. let's try dirty things] or flag-burning, or Nazis, or whining that the word "Christmas" is offensive to some.

But the whining and arguments testify that we are trying to stick to the amendment.
Ole

[ole]

Shall we move to the second? Or let the first fester a bit?

"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."

Is any amendment more controversial than this one? It has moved from what I gather to be its original intent to one of a right to self-defense. It has a few hundred years of tradition behind it, as well.

Comments on this one?
Ole

[elektratig]

On the original meaning of the Second Amendment, I highly recommend Randy Barnett’s paper entitled “Was the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Conditioned on Service in an Organized Militia?”. Barnett, a Professor at the Boston University School of Law, is a leading advocate of “original understanding” interpretation. The paper is available for free at

http://randybarnett.com/pdf/righttob...onditional.pdf

Jumping forward in time, there is also substantial evidence showing that one of the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment was to make the Bill of Rights – including the Second Amendment – binding on the States. The first section of the Fourteenth Amendment defined federal citizenship (effectively overruling Dred Scott) and went on to provide that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States . . ..” In his book, No State Shall Abridge: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights (Duke Univ. Press 1986), Michael Kent Curtis has amassed overwhelming evidence showing that, in 1866, this language was intended and was generally understood to mean, at a bare minimum, that the Bill of Rights would apply to and limit the States, notwithstanding Barron v. Baltimore (1833). With respect to the Second Amendment, Congressmen specifically complained that southern states had denied blacks the right to bear arms.

Professor Curtis’s book is not light reading, but it is available at Amazon and elsewhere:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/082...lance&n=283155

The most interesting reading on the current debate within the judiciary about the Second Amendment is the recent dissent by Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit in a case in which that court again limited the reach of the right to bear arms. The Court’s original decision in that case, entitled Silveira v. Lockyer, is here:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...h/0115098p.pdf

Judge Kozinski’s withering dissent is here:

http://notabug.com/kozinski/silveira_v_lockyer