www.Usenet.com
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
Robert S. Baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The Lone Weasel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 29 Nov
2003 18:27:30 GMT Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Peter H. Proctor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 28 Nov 2003 19:46:56 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leif Rakur) wrote:
When the Second Amendment was written, the states already
had their militias. The amendment was about protecting
the people in their right to continue their state militia
systems of security without infringement from the federal
government.
Actually, it was protecting the "Right of the
People" separate from the states. Otherwise, it would have said
"states" as in the 10th amendment.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."
You boys have a real problem with that part of the Second Amendment. How can you just delete the states from the
Second Amendment then insert "individuals" for "the
people"?
RSB: The 'security of a free state' is not referring to
state security, it is referring to the continuing liberty
of the people. How can you ignore that the concept of
freedom applies to individuals?
The two are synonymous according to the Second Amendment. Maybe that's where you're confused.
I know that you do it, I just wonder how you believe it.
RSB: Because the 2dAm guarantees "the right of the
people..." That is the same "We the People..." in the
preamble to the constitution, the people being equivalent
to freemen. Refer to the Bouvier Law Dictionary (Sixth
Edition, 1856) entry for freeman:
People in the collective sense. Glad you agree.
FREEMAN. One who is in the enjoyment of the right to do
whatever he pleases, not forbidden by law. One in the
possession of the civil rights enjoyed by, the people
generally.
RSB: The right of the people guaranteed by the
constitution is possessed and enjoyed individually by
freemen.
You just contradicted yourself.
___________________
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
That text, by contrast with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, extends its reach only to "the people." Contrary to the suggestion of amici curiae that the Framers used this phrase "simply to avoid [an] awkward rhetorical redundancy," Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 12, n. 4, "the people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the People of the United States." The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U. S. Const., Amdt. 1 ("Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble") (emphasis added); Art. I, section 2, cl. I ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States") (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.
UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ, 494 US 259 (1990)
CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
