Who here is an expert on the Constitution?

I've seen posts where scripture is posted with little commentary. I see no reason why I cannot quote John Jay here in his landmark case, Chisolm v. Georgia, 1793.

Chisolm v. Georgia

There is a third sense, in which the term sovereign is frequently used, and which it is very material to trace and explain, as it furnishes a basis for what I presume to be one of the principal objections against the jurisdiction of this Court over the State of Georgia. In this sense, sovereignty is derived from a feudal source; and like many other parts of that system so degrading to man, still retains its influence over our sentiments and conduct, though the cause, by which that influence was produced, never extended to the American States. The accurate and well informed President Henault, in his excellent chronological abridgment of the History of France, tells us, that, about the end of the second race of Kings, a new kind of possession was acquired, under the name of Fief. The Governors of Cities and Provinces usurped equally the property of land, [2 U.S. 419, 458] and the administration of justice; and established themselves as proprietary Seigniors over those places, in which they had been only civil magistrates or military officers. By this means, there was introduced into the State a new kind of authority, to which was assigned the appellation of sovereignty*. In process of time the feudal system was extended over France, and almost all the other nations of Europe: And every Kingdom became, in fact, a large fief. Into England this system was introduced by the conqueror: and to this era we may, probably, refer the English maxim, that the King or sovereign is the fountain of Justice. But, in the case of the King, the sovereignty had a double operation. While it vested him with jurisdiction over others, it excluded all others from jurisdiction over him. With regard to him, there was no superior power; and, consequently, on feudal principles, no right of jurisdiction. '*The law, says Sir William Blackstone, ascribes to the King the attribute of sovereignty: he is sovereign and independent within his own dominions; and owes no kind of objection to any other potentate upon earth. Hence it is, that no suit or action can be brought against the King, even in civil matters; because no Court can have jurisdiction over him: for all jurisdiction implies superiority of power.' This last position is only a branch of a much more extensive principle, on which a plan of systematic despotism has been lately formed in England, and prosecuted with unwearied assiduity and care. Of this plan the author of the Commentaries was, if not the introducer, at least the great supporter. He has been followed in it by writers later and less known; and his doctrines have, both on the other and this side of the Atlantic,been implicitly and generally received by those, who neither examined their principles nor their consequences, The principle is, that all human law must be prescribed by a superior. This principle I mean not now to examine. Suffice it, at present to say, that another principle, very different in its nature and operations, forms, in my judgment, the basis of sound and genuine jurisprudence; laws derived from the pure source of equality and justice must be founded on the CONSENT of those, whose obedience they require. The sovereign, when traced to his source, must be found in the man.

[...]

Concerning the prerogative of Kings, and concerning the sovereignty of States, much has been said and written; but little has been said and written concerning a subject much more dignified and important, the majesty of the people. The mode of expression, which I would substitute in the place of that generally used, is not only politically, but also (for between true liberty and true taste there is a close alliance) classically more correct. On the mention of Athens, a thousand refined and endearing associations rush at once into the memory of the scholar, the philosopher, and the patriot. When Homer, one of the most correct, as well as the oldest of human authorities, enumerates the other nations of Greece, whose forces acted at the siege of Troy, he arranges them under the names of their different Kings or Princes: But when he comes to the Athenians, he distinguishes them by the peculiar appellation of the PEOPLE* of Athens. The well known address used by Demosthenes, when he harrangued and animated his assembled countrymen, was 'O Men of Athens.' With the strictest propriety, therefore, classical and political, our national scene opens with the most magnificent object, which the nation could present. 'The PEOPLE of the United States' are the first personages introduced. Who were those people? They were the citizens of thirteen States, each of which had a separate Constitution and Government, and all of which were connected together by articles of confederation. To the purposes of public strength and felicity, that confederacy was totally inadequate. A requisition on the several States terminated its Legislative authority: Executive or Judicial authority it had none. In order, therefore, to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, to ensure domestic tranquillity, to provide for common defence, and to secure the blessings of liberty, those people, among whom were the people of Georgia, ordained and established the present Constitution. By that Constitution Legislative power is vested, Executive power is vested, Judicial power is vested.


The question now opens fairly to our view, could the people of those States, among whom were those of Georgia, bind those States, and Georgia among the others, by the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial power so vested? If the principles, on which I have founded myself, are just and true; this question must unavoidably receive an affirmative answer. If those States were the work of those people; those people, and, that I may apply the case closely, the people of Georgia, in particular, [2 U.S. 419, 464] could alter, as they pleased, their former work: To any given degree, they could diminish as well as enlarge it. Any or all of the former State- powers, they could extinguish or transfer. The inference, which necessarily results, is, that the Constitution ordained and established by those people; and, still closely to apply the case, in particular by the people of Georgia, could vest jurisdiction or judicial power over those States and over the State of Georgia in particular.

Something important is being said here, in Chisolm v. Georgia. But do Americans want to be sovereign over themselves? Do they want autonomy?

From the very founding of this country the issue has always been the people and states having power over the Federal Government or the Federal Government having power over the States and People.

Is the Federal Government Soverign or do the States and people actually have more power over Federal Government.

A close look at the early presidents of this country clearly shows that they actually had little to do in thier offices. sign bills once in a while ..receive visitors and conduct foreign policy. Not much really to do for a sitting president.

Historicaly we call this "Limited Government".

This applies also to the other two branchs of government ...Legislative and Judicial.

IN this manner the private conduct of the public was to remain private.

Also in thier private conduct so too was thier private property to remain private.

THe concept left out of this case "Chisolm vs Georgia" is the concept of

Divine Right of Kings


This is a concept carefully omitted from most of what passes for history today. It is what the English Civil war was fought over and the reason over which a King ( Charles I) was beheaded. Is a Kings power decended and extended from God? Is his power absolute..unlimited. Does his crown come from God. Is he unlimited in his power and Authority...just like God.

From this history extends our concept of "Seperation of Church and State." Notice this was not so in dominantly Catholic Countrys. The church and state were one. It is the same in Muslim nations.
With the beheading of Charles I..this question was put to rest. The Kings power and dominion was not absolute. The King was an administrator of just English Laws and could break the law and be held accountable. He was not absolute...nor Divinie. When his head was removed on the block his blood did not run Blue.

IN this case it was the King attempting to levy his own tax...contrary to the dictates of the Magna Carta where taxing power only belonged to the Parliment..not the king.

THe king stated his power was absolute divine in its authority...no one was his peer...he could make or break any law he wanted.

The parliment said ..no..and the war was on.

This is very important to us historically as all human reasoning tends over time to proceed twords divinity...Demigods here on earth with absolute authority. This is not limited government. You can see this clearly when you watch the struggle between the Government and the States or the people. The Government ..Federal ...always tends twords more power and authority ..and must limit the people...to the disappearence of controls over the Federal and eventually twords the disappearence of "Private Property."

What I am saying is that over time ..the best government men can produce by logic and reason...is always tyranny. This is the absolute best that men can do on their own merits...always.

IF you look at the history of all nations...they begin on simple and reasonable principles but soon enough others take over and hijack, change and switch what has been done ...over to principles of tyranny.
This government too...a brief period of Shining Light on the ruler of time is being switched over to this tyranny. Huge central control...loss of the privateness of property...depreciation/inflation of the moneys and other noticable fingerprints leading back to and twords "Divine right of Kings."

THe key here is understanding certain fingerprints of Feudalism and Royalty from a historical perspective. When you understand the Feudal history you can then understand much of mans reason and logic.

This Nation ..the United States of America is not in its nature a Feudal nation...though by default some would try to make us so..in ignorance through public education/television education.

We do not bow or grovel when the Queen passes by. Nor the Prince. It has always irritated me when the news or press gives such coverage to Queen Elizabeth or Prince Charles when they come here to Colonial Williamsburg some 30 Miles north of here. I have little use for royalty..under the guise of a Queen/King, Prince or even a President, or Senator..etc etc. I dont believe in feudalism.

In this light it is highly insulting to see the media foist off on us Hollywood celebritys as some kind of Royalty when they enter into public service or promote some cause or candidate. It is as if by their royal or celebrity status they are more qualified to make or imply political decisions for us than ourselves. We must default over to thier wisdom. Really stupid and insulting. Watch for this fingerprint closely..especially near elections. This also indicates that the media promoting this scam are in on it and up to thier necks in this dung. THe media are not impartial or "Fair and Balanced " in this.

Nevertheless ..watch closely for this fingerprint...Divine Right of Kings. It is coming back slowly and in different and subtle guises. More power and authority to the Federal..and taken from the States and the People. Do not be ignorant of t his fingerprint.

I have already pointed out to you the significance of the 17th Amendment in breaking the power of the individual states. This struggle continues.

Orangetom

Great post orangetom!

This is the tough question; how are we supposed to reconcile this problem?

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Nevertheless ..watch closely for this fingerprint...Divine Right of Kings. It is coming back slowly and in different and subtle guises. More power and authority to the Federal..and taken from the States and the People. Do not be ignorant of t his fingerprint.

I have already pointed out to you the significance of the 17th Amendment in breaking the power of the individual states. This struggle continues.

I love your work Orangetom, but I don't follow you. This court case clearly describes the kingly basis of sovereignty. It also says very plainly that at the time of the revolution, the sovereignty devolved onto the people. Don't you think that devolving is a crucial moment? At that moment, we became sovereign with no authority except that which we give our power to.

The thirteenth and fourteenth are where America really changed, right after the civil war. All Americans became voluntary slaves. That's why the 14th amendment is phrased the way it is: "All person born OR naturalized AND subject to the jurisdiction" ..Notice how that's two conditions you must meet: Born AND subject to. Why would someone born into a sovereign state of being, choose to subject themselves? But that's what it says because the process has to be semi-concealed.

There will be another constitutional convention in the future, and John Jay's words will be known by all Americans in that future. The point is this: Do not ever expect to government to allow or disallow guns. Stop caring about what the government says about guns because the founding documents and court cases say that we as Americans are joint tenants in sovereignty just as he said.

Originally posted by smallpeeps

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Nevertheless ..watch closely for this fingerprint...Divine Right of Kings. It is coming back slowly and in different and subtle guises. More power and authority to the Federal..and taken from the States and the People. Do not be ignorant of t his fingerprint.

I have already pointed out to you the significance of the 17th Amendment in breaking the power of the individual states. This struggle continues.

I love your work Orangetom, but I don't follow you. This court case clearly describes the kingly basis of sovereignty. It also says very plainly that at the time of the revolution, the sovereignty devolved onto the people. Don't you think that devolving is a crucial moment? At that moment, we became sovereign with no authority except that which we give our power to.

The thirteenth and fourteenth are where America really changed, right after the civil war. All Americans became voluntary slaves. That's why the 14th amendment is phrased the way it is: "All person born OR naturalized AND subject to the jurisdiction" ..Notice how that's two conditions you must meet: Born AND subject to. Why would someone born into a sovereign state of being, choose to subject themselves? But that's what it says because the process has to be semi-concealed.

There will be another constitutional convention in the future, and John Jay's words will be known by all Americans in that future. The point is this: Do not ever expect to government to allow or disallow guns. Stop caring about what the government says about guns because the founding documents and court cases say that we as Americans are joint tenants in sovereignty just as he said.

Yes..I agree with you that this case made this clear about soverignty and the soverignty falling on the people with the Constitution.

However..in fairness to the average American today..how many have evere heard of "Divine Right of Kings" or even the concept of soverignty?? How about those Redskins?? LA Lakers?? Did you see what Donald Trump said to Rosie?? This is the kind of drivel which occupys so much of our time to day...we tend not to have any intrest in such things as Soverignty or Divine Right of Kings and such. So why would a school system paid for by politicians or the political party wish to cast light on thieir quest for Soverignty??

Some guy in my crew at work mentioned Donald and Rosie..and the latest scandal..I wanted to reach across the table and slap him. His days are so idle he has time for such usless drivel. THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT ROYALTY!!!!!

When peoole dont know ...a thing..... and dont know that they dont know...what do you think happens to them when they are pre programmed by emotional drivel to step into a voting booth and vote??? Especially for a bunch of placebo issues.

Wondering how you found out about this. It is great that you know..really great..so many do not.

Also yes...about the fourteenth amendment. And yes much of this began to change after the Civil War. THat you know they made slaves of all of us is really something. Most people dont know or have a clue. They altered the juristictions here too. More Federal control. Great that you know this.

Slavery ..this is also what a olde timer told and taught me about the Civil War and what came out of it. They made slaves out of all of us and without the knowlege of most Americans. Same thing with the Monroe Doctrine...they voided this out as a practice without the knowlege of most Americans and most of the Congress. Since then we have been involved in one foreign war after another.

THe method in which todays variation of Divnie right of kings will come back is by default based on the ignorance of most Americans. IN this they want us more like Europeans..or more appropriately Globalists/internationalists.

Curious if you know what it means Smallpeeps to have a Social Security Number in regards to Soverignty. Or what the word Person means verses the word Individual at law??

The issue of Divine right of Kings and the English Civil war was the basis for the American Revolution. Did a people have a right to turn on thier King when it became obvious that the King had broken precident or the Law....in this case the Stamp Act or the Tea Tax. The pattern and authority was made One Hundred plus years earlier in the English Civil War. A people could turn on thier King. This could not have happened in a Catholic Nation where the Church and state were one and Divine Right of Kings was in effect and the people as a whole believed in Divine Right of Kings.

Out of this revolution preceeded by the English Civil war example...came the American ability..to

Freedom of worship..press...assembly.etc..

Keep and bear arms...

No quartering of soldiers in private homes without permission..

Search and Seizure...

Bearing witness against yourself...

THese are extensions of the concept that The King is NOT DIVINE RIGHT.
The government too...they are accountable.

All attempts by governments throughout history have been over time to lose this accountability to the people or thier citizens. You can see this taking place in the historys of all of the "Great Civilizations" before they finally fell.

When your brains are dead or empty ..you no longer know...and dont know what you dont know...

Its down hill from there...and rapidly in the end.

Sorry to seem doom and gloom..but that is my read on history.

The founders had it correct..but after the Civil War..hijackers came in and took over. They really moved fast after the turn of the century ..1900 and made changes unto this very day.

THanks,
Orangetom

So I take it, you believe there is no reconciling this problem?

When you research the different industries that have been attacked over time, youll understand why all he cared to speak of was gossip and celebrity issues.

www.savethemales.ca

Please check out that site- great information!

Originally posted by jaguarmike
www.savethemales.ca

Please check out that site- great information!

Now that's a URL I haven't visited recently. I don't really like the feminist agenda, but I think this guy goes way too far and is a paranoid misogynist.

Originally posted by jaguarmike
So I take it, you believe there is no reconciling this problem?

When you research the different industries that have been attacked over time, youll understand why all he cared to speak of was gossip and celebrity issues.

www.savethemales.ca

Please check out that site- great information!

Thanks for the site. I have found it and bookmarked it for later reading. I have never visited that site so I dont know what all is involved in it.

This particular fellow carrys on more like a woman ..short attention span...always headed for the comfort zone...rather than completing a task.
Knows more about useless drivel than his job. People are counting on him to help with a job and he is not paying attention to what is happening. Social skills are more important to him. Describes his life experiences in terms of a movie he saw and sports gods rather than real life knowlege and experience..all second hand stuff and most of that drivel. Thats why I had to fight the urge to reach across the table and slap him.
Mind you now ..I know that not all women are like this but it is the type of conduct one expects from many women and kids.
When you work in a field where peoples safety is at risk..you dont tend to tolerate such nonsense. This is obviously a guy ..who thinks in terms of pleasure, relaxation, and "Options." ..or appearences rather than the real thing. You try to explain it to them and Zooooommmmmmm...right over their heads.

When you see so many people on hooked on this type of drug...in lieu of reality..you tend to ask yourself what is the fate of this nation??

There is a reconciling of this problem yes..
The system must crash...before people wake up. Good times are the ruin of many in this type of thinking. Only hard times will wake them up.

Obviously, I dont worship at the altar of the gods of Hollywood or sports. No intrest in it.

Thanks,
Orangetom

I'm thinking obviously we all do our part, but would you agree it would work itself out? If so, how long- 40 years, 50 years, 100 years? More? Or is this when the majority of our troubles will start. If I was running this operation, I would indoctrinate the kids earlier in elementary school- fix up the history- and then slowly grow slaves. Last I read, this is already going on in elementary school with fingerprint scanning currently in the south. Gross... but shows you, once you pull all the pieces in, how EVERYTHING is connected somehow. Just my thoughts...

Originally posted by djohnsto77

Originally posted by jaguarmike
www.savethemales.ca

Please check out that site- great information!

Now that's a URL I haven't visited recently. I don't really like the feminist agenda, but I think this guy goes way too far and is a paranoid misogynist.

Not sure if paranoid misogynist is the correct term. I would use "extremely dedicated, hard boiled"

But really, who else has (obviously the big names in this community, I am refering to the general public) the cojones to ruin their careers and start telling the truth about what they see?

posted by orangetom1999
“ . . the issue has always been: Is the Federal Government Sovereign or do the States and people actually have more power over Federal Government. [Edited by Don W]

I think it is essential to keep in mind the first constitution for the United States was the Articles of Confederation. It was in that document that the loose collection of 13 colonies was given its official name, the United States of America. We should not denigrate the Articles. We fought and won the Revolutionary War under that document. It is easily accessible via Google. See the Yale University’s Avalon Project.

There were many weaknesses in the Articles. 1) No power to tax. You cannot have a functioning government that cannot support itself. France had been our major lender and had bankrolled the American Revolution. Thanks in large part to Benjamin Franklin and King Louis XVI. The Continental Congress was deeply indebted to and in debt to France. The states would not pay the necessary assessments to repay the debt when requested by the Congress. America’s finances were in shambles after the Revolutionary War.

I believe America's leaders realized the brand new nation was about to go into bankruptcy. I believe that was the No.1 motive for calling the 1787 Constitutional Convention. As a young nation so dependant on foreign commerce, it could not survive if put on a cash only basis. Even in the 18th century, credit was essential to world trade. Keeping accounts current then was as important as it is today. The financial problems of the United States had to be fixed.

2) Slavery. The Articles provided for majority rule. With the War ended by the 1783 Treaty of Paris, slavery was legal in all states but Pennsylvania. The most vocal resistance to the institution of slavery was found in the northern states, primarily New England. At the same time, the laudable concept of admitting newly settled territories into the Confederation on an equal footing was so well accepted it was carried over into the new Constitution. Vermont and Kentucky were already thinking about statehood.

The Northwest Territory, to be divided later into Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin, which was going to happen in the not too distant future, would not be slave states. It looked to the pro-slavery side as if the anti-slavery forces would soon gain a majority in the unicameral legislature provided for in the Articles.

Any new governing document would have to give positive protection to the slave owning class. Slavery was the major asset in Georgia, South Carolina and Virginia. Virginia was the 2nd most populated state next to Pennsylvania, then number 1. Philadelphia, our first capital, was the 3rd largest city in the English speaking world. Behind London and Manchester. Although slavery had declined in the north - it was simply not economic - bankers who tended to be in Philadelphia, New York and Boston, held notes from the southern tobacco growing states - cotton did not come into play until Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin. The leading citizens in the northern states - bankers and merchants - were very much concerned about the stability of the collateral for their loans and extension of credit, i.e., slaves. It was in their interest to protect their investment. Then as now, money talks, bs walks.

As in contemporary Palestine, the “two state” solution seemed best. 0r at least, the best either side could hope for. The new document, our current Constitution, provided several new assurances to the slave holders. The best or most useful was the bicameral legislature. That most significant change protected slavery and the follow-on Jim Crow racial discrimination all the way to 1954 when it was finally struck down in Brown v. Topeka. Legal racism continued on in America’s south until the1964-65 Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.

You could rightly say slavery dominated American morality from 1789 to 1965. Not a slight accomplishment for (1787) amateurs. It did this first and foremost by creating a Senate where each state was represented equally, disregarding the theory of representational democracy. The protection of slavery was further strengthened in the 1787 document by creating an Electoral College which provided the less populated southern slave states would again be given more power then they had enjoyed under the Articles or were entitled to under any democratic process.

Yet another unmerited gain for the slave states was the counting of slaves as 3/5ths of a person when calculating representation in the House, even though slaves never voted and no one ever thought they would. It was a disgraceful offer to the slaveholders to come into the new union. Keep in mind that when we mention slaveholders, we include the bankers or money lenders in the background who funded the slave driven economy of the south. Without the money lenders, slavery wold not have made it into the 19th century. IMO.

The powers granted in the 1787 document to the new central government, are for the most part enumerated in Article I, Section 8. I think anyone who wants to debate our Constitution ought to have at least a passing familiarity with Article 1, Section 8. The Federal judiciary, as in the Chisolm case, always recognized the two jurisdictions, A) the federal government and B) the various state governments, as supreme in their respective spheres. In fact, each was exclusive in its defined domain. But do not overlook the strong cental government advocates managed to slip in Article VI. Before you put down the US Constitution you must read it, too. Article 6.

Let me skip ahead from this overlong reply to Mr O/T-99, to the post Civil War era, the official name being the War of the Rebellion. The Radical Republicans controlled Congress - yes,“Radical” was their name and not as today, used by critics to imply extremist. Their crowning achievement was the 14th Amendment. The 13th Amendment codified a fait accompli. The 15th Amendment was an after thought to correct an earlier oversight. But it is the 14th Admendment that reigns supreme today and it is the Mark of Excellence of the Radical Republicans!

Our contemporary democratic system cannot be understood without a working familiarity with Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. It is essential to grasp the significance of the creation of “national citizenship” to replace the prior concept of “state citizenship” which had in large part popularized if not propelled us into the Civil War. A discredited concept. Discredited by 650,000 dead men who gave their all to uphold one view over another view, if not discredited philosophically. Regrettably, and for many reasons, the enthusiasm of the Radical Republicans to re-indoctrinate the losers in the Old South languished then was ended in 1876. In short, it is the 14th Amendment that applies the US Constitution and all its amendments against the states. States rights were ended by the 14th Amendment. Or so the writer thought. This is the best (and worst) example I know of wining the war and losing the peace.

“ . . the concept left out of "Chisolm vs Georgia" is the concept of the Divine Right of Kings. This is a concept omitted from most of what passes for history today. It is what the English Civil War was fought over and the reason over which King Charles I was beheaded. Is a King’s power descended from God? Is the [monarch’s] power absolute . . unlimited? Does his crown come from God? From this history extends our concept of "Separation of Church and State."

Mr O/T-99, I found it interesting when researching the Magna Carta of 1215, signed by King John, which ended an uprising by the nobility, that the reigning Pope in Rome quickly absolved King John from his oath and nullified his signing of the document. Serendipitously you might say, this blatant papal interference in what the English regarded as an internal affair, more than any other single issue began the long struggle between England and Rome for supremacy in the British Isles. This struggle was to go on for more than 300 years.

As you point out, Mr O/T-99, the doctrine or theory of a divine right monarch was ended only with the beheading of King Charles. The son of James I, who was successor to the first Queen Elizabeth on her death in 1603, was born in 1600, and became the English monarch in 1625. The (1st) English Civil War began in 1641 and ended with Charles’ surrender to the Scots in 1646. By 1647, after receipt of a payment in gold, the Scots turned Charles over to the English. He escaped but was captured and after being found guilty of high treason in a trial he was beheaded on January 30, 1649. Note: His father, James I, was the same King James of the King James Bible (KJV), also known as the Authorized Version (AV) so much beloved by Protestants. 1609.

Since the crowning of the Frankish Charlemagne in 800 AD, as the Holy Roman Emperor, the Roman Papacy supported and imposed where it could, the notion not only that kings ruled by divine right, but it was them, the Popes, who would determine which person was so favored by God.

Needless to say, this attempt by the Roman popes to rule the world was not smiled on by kings. The Protestant Reformation of the Catholic Church was begun by a Catholic monk, Martin Luther, in Germany, in 1517. That it begun there was in large part made possible by the German kings and princes who constantly resisted the claim of suzerainty by the Roman pontiffs. Where in other places like Spain, the Pope could have issued an edict to have Martin Luther burned and it would have been cheerfully done, the Pope’s writ did not run to Germany. By 1538, Henry VIII had joined Martin Luther and thus ended the official influence of the Catholic Church in England.

End of Part 1


[edit on 12/24/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by orangetom1999
THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT ROYALTY!!!!!

We are in agreement here. But, the OP is asking about the second amendment and what it guarantees him. I'd say it was worded to be unclear on purpose, as was the fourteenth amendment. Masters of English wrote the CotUS such that you have to really look at each word to grasp the pivot.

THat you know they made slaves of all of us is really something. Most people dont know or have a clue. They altered the juristictions here too. More Federal control. Great that you know this.

Indeed and the reason I harp on this is because when the feces hits the fan, people will need to be armed with knowledge which they can verbalize to the authority. What you are saying about the state of conciousness in America is true but those lazy uninterested people will become victims either way.

As I am certain you know, our comfortable, peaceful life is an anomaly. History says that no government wants its citizens armed. The right to own arms for personal defense is not even an issue to ever discuss except as being obvious. I am saying this as a generally non-violent person. The citizens must be enabled to control the authority of any land area. Those persons who live there, are the highest authority of that place.

Unfortunatley like you said, most people are not interested, and so here is where the elites have predicted humanity's nature quite well. The governmental structures and judges exist as flypaper to capture anybody who has a fundamental need for lifelong orwellian parenting.

I am thinking that flypaper is generally made to smell sweet to flies so that flies will land on it? Similarly do Americans bond with the government via Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, etc. This bonding is burned red white and blue in their heads. They are similarly bonded to the process of control, because when you are a slave, your rights are gone, and you have privledges instead.

Now I hear they are outlawing knives in Scotland because of the number of stabbings there? Does anyone think you can stop this by outlawing blades? Of course not. The law is put in place to disarm the populace. The authority will always have guns, as will the criminal. The fieldhands, however...

Slavery ..this is also what a olde timer told and taught me about the Civil War and what came out of it. They made slaves out of all of us and without the knowlege of most Americans.

Exactly. I am always glad to hear when old folks confirm the truth. I love old people.

Curious if you know what it means Smallpeeps to have a Social Security Number in regards to Soverignty. Or what the word Person means verses the word Individual at law??

Yes, and great topic.

SSN = surrendering yourself to the US corporate bodies (federal and state) as a "human resource". Nobody gets any benefits from the gummint without giving themselves up bodily, through forms and threats of perjury. When a birth certificate is registered, the authority assigns an alpha-numeric number, all recorded centrally. Then the government waits for the inevitable next step of bonding with their citizen-child, the request for Social Security Identification/Participation.

You can't get a job without a Social Security Number, ro so people think, so generally all Americans are recorded as officially requesting government support by their teenage years. ...Then they want to look to the CotUS and find where the government gives them the right to overthrow? The right to own arms sufficient to harm the government? It's silly, because they have already named Uncle Sam as their parent, so when he slaps the guns out of their hands, they must obey.

Person = We would think that the word person is pretty simple to define. We immediately conjure a picture of a human being. But not in court! Corporations are called persons all the time in legaleze. Your distinction is well said: the human being is the individual.

The issue of Divine right of Kings and the English Civil war was the basis for the American Revolution. Did a people have a right to turn on thier King when it became obvious that the King had broken precident or the Law.

[...]

The founders had it correct..but after the Civil War..hijackers came in and took over. They really moved fast after the turn of the century ..1900 and made changes unto this very day.

I agree fully with your analysis. Along those lines, I am fairly certain that any quarantine/innoculation for disease will also involve door to door gun collection. If I wanted to get people to give up their guns in America, I'd have an antidote or cure which would only cost them a little steel to possess. That final exchange, of guns for life, would be exceedingly simple.


[edit on 24-12-2006 by smallpeeps]

posted by smallpeeps

I see no reason why I cannot quote John Jay here in his landmark case, Chisolm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, 1793.

They were the citizens of thirteen States . . To the purposes of public strength and felicity, that [Articles of] confederacy was totally inadequate. A requisition on the several States terminated its Legislative authority: Executive or Judicial authority it had none. In order, therefore, to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, to ensure domestic tranquillity, to provide for common defense, and to secure the blessings of liberty, those people . . ordained and established the present Constitution. By that Constitution Legislative power is vested, Executive power is vested, Judicial power is vested . . “ [Edited by Don W]

Chisolm v. Georgia affirms the primacy of the Federal government. It was the first case to deny the claim of “state’s rights” as somehow overpowering the Federal government. The new Constitution (1789) said what it meant, and meant what it said. To some extent, you could also say it was an anti-slavery case.

The Court held that Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution abrogated the States' sovereign immunity and granted federal courts the affirmative power to hear disputes between private citizens and States.

OTOH, it was not until the enactment of the 14th Amendment in 1868, that the concept of a unified government was fully realized. Note: John Jay was our first Chief Justice, appointed by George Washington. John Marshall, perhaps our greatest, was the 4the chief justice. He was appointed by John Adams in 1801, who as a lame duck president, wanted to deny the 1800 election winner, Thomas Jefferson, the opportunity to make the appointment. Marshall was a Federalist. Although Marshall did not invent the legal concept of judicial review giving the judiciary ultimate power over the legislative and executive branches by claiming the power to decide when their acts were unconstitutional it was in the case, Marbury v. Madison that he laid it out. Chief Justice Number 2 was John Rutledge who served 4 months but was not confirmed by the Senate. Oliver Ellsworth was #3 and resigned in 1800 to facilitate Adam's appointment of Marshall. Marshall took office in 1801 and served until 1835. His successor was Roger B. Taney, the first Catholic to be Chief Justice, and who has the dubious distinction of “starting” the Civil War with his terrible decision in the Dred Scott case.



[edit on 12/24/2006 by donwhite]

There are 300 million people is the USA. There are 80-100 million firearm owners in the USA. Now take out 90%, still have a large citizen army.



I, as a good scout will put ya'll on the trail.

www.stephenhalbrook.com...

Articles of Confederation, Article 6, Paragraph 4:
“ . . but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.”
Written in 1775, Approved in 1785

US Constitution, Amendment 2: “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.” Written in 1790, Approved in 1791

An old judge, a very long time ago, said, “The law means what we say it means.” That means each generation will have a point of view all its own. There are so many laws limiting the ownership, possession and use of firearms that I cannot count them. Every one has been upheld by the Supreme Court at one time or another. New York’s Sullivan Act is the most draconian, putting ownership of firearms solely in the hands of the police. It was enacted in 1911. Equally as famous, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, a/k/a the Brady Bill, became law in 1993. Major loopholes were written into the bill but several states have closed those loopholes.

Two recent court decisions come to mind. I believe both are from Texas. Hey, Texas is a big place and is #3 in population. One case involved a DVO - Domestic Violence Order - a new way to try to prevent violence between spouses. A DVO is a temporary restraining order. It is issued on the oath of one or the other spouse, and it usually is in effect for 14 days, until a formal hearing can be held to decide if the DVO is to be set aside or extended or made permanent. Among other things a DVO forbids the person against who it is issued, to have either possession of or access to firearms.

A medical doctor’s wife obtained a DVO against him. A family member learned he had a 9 mm handgun in the house where he was living and reported this to the police. He was arrested and prosecuted for the violation of the DVO. The case became rather complex but in summary, his lawyer plead the Second Amendment as his only defense. The trial court judge accepted the plea, agreed with the accused, and wrote a lengthy opinion upholding that POV.

The Appeals Court however, did not agree, and reversed the trial court, and sent the case back for “further proceedings” consistent with its decision. The doctor appealed to the US Supreme Court, but that court declined to take the case which means it is approving of the appeals court’s decision. So, the law if, if you have a DVO against you, stay away from guns! Hello Jail!

The second case - coincidentally from Texas and this has nothing to do with Texas except as the place where these 2 cases arose - where a gun dealer had ignored an old felony conviction. This was discovered and he was arrested for being in violation of the prohibition of a convicted felon owning or having access to a firearm. His lawyer also plead “Second Amendment’ but with the same bad outcome. The gun dealer not only lost his guns, but lost 2 years in jail.

Conclusion: Any reasonable law respecting firearms will be approved by the Supreme Court, notwithstanding what pro-gun advocates think or say the Second Amendment means.

posted by smallpeeps

But, the OP is asking about the second amendment and what it guarantees him. I'd say it was worded to be unclear on purpose . . “ [Edited by Don W]

I really think pro-gun folks should stop using the term “guarantee” as if the Second Amendment was not subject to interpretation by the courts, like every other word or phrase in the US Con. That concept puts a person in the wrong frame of mind thinking “guarantee” applies. For example, freedom of religion has been held by the Supreme Court not to allow Mormons to have multiple wives, or to engage in polygamy.

More recently, it was held that a Native American could not smoke peyote as part of his religious practice. The SC said everyone is subject to the general laws of the various states, and the First Amendment does not “trump” or cancel those state laws, regardless of you religious convictions. One radio talk show host has been fined many times for uttering inappropriate language over the airways, despite the “freedom of speech” clause of the First Amendment. And so on.

What may have worked in the 1790s is not working in the 2000s. Times change, people change. It is utterly ridiculous to argue we can live today under rules made over 200 years ago without adjusting them to meet our needs today.

“ . . as was the fourteenth amendment [worded to be unclear on purpose]. Masters of English wrote the ConUS such that you have to really look at each word to grasp the point . . “

I disagree that the Con was purposely written to confuse. Keep in mind the people spoke and thought differently in the 1780s and 1790s than we do today. That’s all. Nothing sinister. Just evolution. I do not see anything hard about the 14th Amendment. See following:

14th Amendment. Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

[edit on 12/25/2006 by donwhite]

Posted by SmallPeeps

Similarly do Americans bond with the government via Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, etc. This bonding is burned red white and blue in their heads. [Edited by Don W]

1) Unemployment insurance is to be paid by employers only and not to be deducted or charged to the employee. Each employer has his or her own account. The initial tax rate is 3.2% of wages up to $22,000. 0.5% goes to the Federal government, 2.7% goes to the individual state. A reserve amount for each employer’s account is established based on historical data. As the employer approaches that reserve, the rate of tax is reduced, so that ultimately, an employer who has no claims made will not pay any of the 2.7% but all will continue to pay the Federal 0.5% part.

Eligible workers receive 66.7% of his or her average weekly wages earned in the first 4 of the last 5 quarters, up to his state’s limit, based on the average wage as calculated each year by each state. Benefits are usually paid for 26 weeks, but can be extended in times of high unemployment. Anyone who is a voluntary quit is ineligible. Anyone who refuses a job offering equivalent work is ineligible. Employers may protest any claim, in which case the agency will have a hearing. Sometimes an employee will be penalized, which is a delay in the time before payments begin. For a minor infraction, maybe 2 weeks, for a major infarction, maybe 13 weeks, but for the real killer, if guilty of theft or a refusal to perform a job, the penally may be for the whole 26 weeks. That decision is also appealable.

2) Medicare is not to be confused with Medicaid. Medicare is partly paid for by the beneficiaries. Money collected early is placed in Trust Funds. Medicaid is paid entirely out of the General Fund. Medicare is divided into Part A - hospitalization - and Part B - outpatient services, and recently, Part D - prescription medicines - a hodge-podge of payment schemes.

Part A is primarily for hospital care. It is funded by the 1.45% Medicare tax which is part of the FICA amount. Federal Insurance Contributions Act. This is a “paid up” policy. That is, you make payments all during your working life, and when you retire, you have a paid up policy for the remainder of your life. The tax is matched by employers, making 2.9% of wages paid into the Medicare Part A Trust Fund. Self-employed’s pay all the tax. The Trust Fund is in the black. Beneficiaries must pay an annual deductible, presently $900. In addition, the Part A pays only 80% of the charges. The beneficiary is liable for the remainder.

Medicare Part B. Many outpatient services including doctors fees are paid by Part B. There are annual deductibles the patient is responsible for, and the plan is an 80% pay plan. That is, you are always responsible for 20% of the approved amount. Social security beneficiaries are changed a monthly premium, to be $98 in 2007. This is deducted from the monthly benefit amount in advance so there is no collection problem. This premium is required by law to be 25% of the Part B outlay. The balance is made up from any surplus in Part A - there has been - and the General Fund. That aside, the Medicare Part B Trust Fund is in the black.

3) Social Security. Retirement. Disability. Survivors. Called OASI. Old Age and Survivors Insurance. Part of FICA. This program begin in 1935. The first check was paid in 1936. Normally you must have 40 quarters (10 years) of covered employment to be eligible, but early in the program, a hurry-up plan was employed. Early in the program, there was a minimum payment of $25 per month. Before World War 2, many people earned $10 or $15 a week so a payment of $25 a month for not working was considered generous. If your house was paid for or you lived with family, it was a livable amount.

SS is funded by a tax of 6.2% on the first $80,000 in wages. This amount is matched by employers or the self employed pay the whole amount, 12.4%. Each person has his or her own account and benefits are based on the earnings record of the person.

The SS Act also provides for disability benedicts to workers who were injured or became ill and can no longer work. There is a 6 months waiting period and the person must be medically certified to be totally disabled. Or expected to die within 12 months. The person is subject to reevaluation periodically. The amount payable is bi on prior earnings.

SS also has a Survivors insurance prevision, paying money to the serving parent based on the number of children and earnings record of the deceased parent. This provisos more or less replaced orphan’s homes. It kept families together, an early family values program.

The SS Trust Fund is about $2 trillion ahead of payout. The Federal government pays interest on Trust Fund money. The money is used by the General Fund, but this saves taxpayers from having to borrow and it also helps keep the bond market interest rate lower.

Person = We would think that the word person is pretty simple to define. We immediately conjure a picture of a human being. But not in court! Corporations are called persons all the time in legalese. Your distinction is well said: the human being is the individual. [Edited by Don W]

America is the only country where corporation are accorded the same legal rights as natural persons. The world “limited” is used in other English speaking countries to signify the status, that is, that a company is “limited” or restricted in what if can and cannot do. This status was granted to US corporations in the 1876 Tilden Hayes compromise. It basically means to “leave us alone.” After the abuses of the late 19th century’s Gilded Age, more and more restrictions have been placed on corporations, but we need to clarity the status of corporations to be that of artificial creations and not of natural persons. Although not as big a deal today, it was considered a great victory for capitalists in the 1870s-1900s.

Foot Note: In 1876, Samuel Tilden of NY thought he had won the presidency over Rutherford Hayes of Ohio. Tilden received 4.3 million votes, 51%, and Hayes got 4.03 million votes, 49%. In the end, Hayes got 184 electoral votes to Tilden’s 183. The voting in Louisiana, Florida and South Carolina was pivotal. The Republicans were accused of sending phoney ballots by train to each state to be counted thereby changing the original vote count outcome in favor of Hayes.

An unholy compromise was worked out giving the Republicans the presidency and the favorable status of corporations, in return for which the Democrats got the end of Reconstruction and a free hand in restoring white supremacy in the Old South. The cruel denigrating era of Jim Crow was “baptized” by both Democrats and Republicans. This did not end until the 1954 school case and the 1964-65 Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts of Congress. And its effect linger on until today.


[edit on 12/25/2006 by donwhite]

I want to thank everyone for adding in so many great documents and discussion- it's awesome!

OrangeTom,


I do believe it will be an ugly wake up call for the majority. But my question still remains; what can people do to solve this problem? And I mean non-violently.

posted by orangetom1999

From the very founding of this country the issue has always been the people and states having power over the Federal Government or the Federal Government having power over the States and People. [Edited by Don W]

I cannot speak for you, Mr O/T-99, but I never felt that way. To me, the national government is my servant. It does for me and my fellow citizens what I and my fellow citizens cannot do alone. Together we can make a beautiful country. I love my government, I do not fear it. I do not always have affection for the administrators of our government, but fortunately, in due time, they too will pass away. But not my government. (I care next to nothing for state governments. Like organized religion, they are a blight on humanity.)



[edit on 12/25/2006 by donwhite]

posted by jaguarmike

I had a debate with my friends regarding the 2nd amendment. My view was that we are entitled the same grade of weapon as any potential threat or potential enemy. His argument was that no one is entitled to any weapons under the 2nd . . the only reason we are able to have them is because it would be too hard to take them away and explain how the law was misinterpreted. He believes it applies solely to state militias, such as the National Guard.

So, what does the 2nd amendment really mean? Only State Militias? Is the National Guard the only militia allowed? I'm confused, please clarify. [Edited by Don W]

In a word, it’s anachronistic!

I have recited elsewhere a legal adage offered by an old judge, “The law means what we say it means.” Which is also a truism.

I do not know when the first “informed” estimates about ownership and numbers of firearms in America was made. There has never been a census. Even today, the estimates vary widely. Some states and cities require a form of registration, most do not. I accept the “guesstimates” of 280 million fire arms owned by 80 million Americans. I do that because it “seems” right. Or at least, close. I don’t even know how many new guns are sold each year. Which numbers I suppose are available from gun industry sources. Guns have a very long life expectancy. I doubt there is any firearm data collecting arm of the US Government, other than the CDC.

But this is begging your question: “What does the 2nd Amendment really mean.” I do not believe there was ever a dispute over that until the 1920s-1930s. I remind you of New York’s very strict Sullivan Act, passed in 1911 and still in effect.

When WW1 ended in 1918, there were several 1000s of surplus Thompson .45 cal. submachine guns built under a contract for use in trench warfare. Those guns were offered for sale through the mail. Hey, up through the mid 1950s, you could buy 100 live baby chicks for $3.95 from Del Rio, Texas, delivered to your door by the US Post Office. Tommy gun sales were slow because the price was high, equal to 2 months pay of the average man. The guns used expensive ammunition at a horrendous rate. As the old movies showed us, the Prohibition era running from 1920 to 1933, gave rise to organized criminal gangs. In “Bonnie and Clyde” the gangsters were using not only Tommy guns, but a surplus .30-06 BAR - Browning Automatic Rifle as well. The BAR was the most powerful weapon ever used by America’s criminals. 4X as deadly as the .45 cal. Thompson, but not nearly so photogenic or dramatic.

Going back in history, America actually had militias in the Revolutionary War. (But not by 1861.) As Gen. Washington moved his Continental Army across the US, he would be joined by local militia units. They were knowledgeable of the local terrain and knew who in the neighborhood was a Loyalist and who was a Patriot. The militia men would serve until the Army moved on.

In America east of the Mississippi until the 1830s, outlying communities were often subjected to armed attack by resentful Native Americans. Armed and trained militias were desperately needed in part because the lengthy travel time made it just impossible to depend on the Army posted 50 or 100 miles away. A horse can gallop for 10 minutes but then it must walk or rest for an hour.

Except for a few skirmishes along the Mexican-American border as late as 1916, the whole country was pacified by the late 1890s. The need for a trained and armed local militia was over. I am not aware of any state that even pretends to support and approve of local militias in 2006. The Army National Guard is much more than any of the old militias. While the NG is often described as the modern militia, I am certain the Congress which set up the National Guard did not have that in mind. It was to be a ready reserve in a country that believed most in a small army. In 1940, the US Army numbered barely 120,000 men. Many of the US soldiers who were doomed to the Bataan Death March were National Guardsmen who had been activated barely months before being sent to the Philippines.

I would argue the modern SWAT teams of many local police departments would be closest to a militia. Otherwise, there are no militias today.

If you have read the US Con, you will be favorably impressed by the easy flowing and precise language used in the document. Everywhere but in the 2nd Amendment. That is convoluted. Discombobulated. I cannot explain that. Clearly, the 2nd Amendment is referring to a militia. It says that. Which makes it anachronistic. Outdated. Too old. Historic. Etc.

The references below clearly show the origin of the 2nd Amendment. Obviously it was a carry-over from the Articles of Confederation. The Articles are more definite, less vague, but in the context of the times, the newer and shorter version was well understood. Today, that is not the case. Give it up. The 2nd Amendment does not guarantee anyone the “right” to have a mortar or bazooka at home. And etc.

Articles of Confederation, Article 6, Paragraph 4:
“ . . but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.” Written in 1775, Approved in 1776

US Constitution, Amendment 2: “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.” Written in 1790, Approved in 1791


[edit on 12/26/2006 by donwhite]

When the Constitution was written, the term militia refered to locals with their OWN personal arms forming organize fighting bodies. You'll remember during the Revolutionary War the distinction between the Continental Army and the militias.

Now (for right or wrong) if we wish to "re-interpret" the 2nd Ammendment, then you can include a modern idea of militia meaning the National Guard.

Actually these days, National Guard and Reserves are closer to regular military than militia (ie Eisonhower controlling Alabama Guard. . . the Guard serving in Iraq). I think a more accurate comparison would be:

Army, Marines, Guard, and Reserves = military (ie. Continental Army)
Police, State Troopers, SWAT = equalling militia

But since the 2nd Ammendment, the term militia has never been re-defined. So it is what it is.