posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 12:32 PM
reply to post by benrl
The first amendment has a significant alteration as well that goes outside of simply serving to simplify the ideas behind it.
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 not as stark of a difference as the 2nd Amendment variant but I find the shortening of the 1A to "petition and assembly" to be really very
curious. For one thing, what is the general context of what an assembly is for a high school student? Back when I was a high schooler, that was the
school getting together before a big football game, watching some school or grade wide presentation, and etc. Those words in regards to who can be
petitioned are very important as they are the precise reason why the 1A is, in fact, the 1A.
Original Second Amendment:
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
If you look at the phrasing, you can see how they twisted it. In more modern English, we would've stuck an "and" in there but Madison lived in the
18th Century and was probably the king of run on sentences. The best way to fight back on this one would be teaching one's children the Supreme
Court case of the District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008, as that would be the strongest one. It was the Supreme Court's ruling that the
individual's right to keep and bear arms was implied by the 2A.
The Federalist #46
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate
governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition,
more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
The Federalist #46 is a hell of a read as it implies that the sole purpose of an armed citzenry would be to repel a federal army as the citzenry would
vastly outnumber the military. I think it's because of the implications of Article 1 Section 8. This is fascinating. Although I had to study the
Constitution, I don't recall anything coming up in terms of standing armies in my poli sci class. Between the Federalist #46 and Article 1 Section
8, it would seem that there was intended to be a guard against a federal standing army and the idea was that each state would operate its own well
regulated militia. That isn't what we have today but I'm a novice on this subject. If someone could explain to me how the Department of Defense,
with the exception of the US Navy, is constitutional, I'd really love to hear it.