High School History Book Rewrites the 2nd Amendment

[Elkins45]

Any question why parents are home schooling? Schools don't teach. They indoctrinate. Worked for Adolph, Stalin, Mao, etc.

Wow, way to paint with a broad brush.

Let me try that: Gun owners murder people. How'd I do? I've been in public education for 24 years and I haven't "indoctrinated" anyone yet.

Here is the history section of a test for an 1889 graduation from the 6th grade in a Kansas school. Keep in mind they also had to be able to compute compound interest and be able to figure out square roots the hard way on this test.

CeeZee, I hope you're not holding that up as an example of how we should be educating people today. While some of the questions measure things of value, I certainly don't want to waste my valuable time memorizing how each of the Presidents died. That's not something that I expect to ever need to know in ANY profession other than perhaps as an author of books about the Presidents. It has certainly never come up during a job interview.

 

[Sam1911]

That is ridiculous. Fortunately, at my high school, all the history and social studies teachers were cool guys and conservative Republicans and they weren't afraid to voice their opinions and bash the female liberal English teachers.

Ahh yes, that seems healthy.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

It's supposed to be that but it has failed to live up to that ideal unfortunately. [With respect to the government being an agency of the people.]

This is a characteristic of ALL governments, hence the way the U.S. Constitution was drafted.

I disagree that it is anything of the sort. [In reference to the U.S. Constitution being a "living document.]

Only in so far as it can be changed... and not by simply declaring that words no longer mean what they say. [In reference to the U.S. Constitution being a "living document.]

That just leads to the constitution meaning absolutely nothing. [In reference to the U.S. Constitution being a "living document.]

You all may disagree with the U.S. Constitution being a "living document" all you wish, but that does not alter the fact that it IS a living document. The very fact that it was intentionally written with the ability to be amended is proof of that, if for no other reason.

Now you're being deliberately obtuse. Govt has become a creature all its own.
They spend money like drunken whores with no repercussions whatsoever. The current Poser-In-Chief has spent hundreds of millions of dollars for vacations for himself and his brats at a time when most Americans can't even make rent.

And my comparison to German Jews is completely valid. They obeyed increasingly oppressive and totalitarian laws because they assumed govt had power to set limits.

Like I said earlier, I can't speak on the subject forthrightly because of the rules of the forum. But I believe in small government. Those idiots in DC can't even manage their own lives and they have no business trying to run mine.

I'm not being deliberately obtuse at all. If the government has become this "creature all its own", then it's because the PEOPLE made it that way. "PEOPLE" as in "collectively".

You and I may believe in "small government", but that doesn't mean everybody else does.

In fact, I daresay that what you think is "small government" and what I think is "small government" are not one and the same. For example, "small government" does not equate to "world power". The very notion of "small government" is, at best, a relative term. By definition, the Federal government has supremacy over the States or there wouldn't BE a Union in the first place. The argument becomes, then, how MUCH supremacy over the states is allowable. You define it your way. Then I'll define it my way, our neighbors will define it there way, the "cities" and "states" will define it their way.

Living document? To be interpreted?

Can anyone show me the word "interpret" in the Constitution? Can you point to the spot where one of the three branches is given that power?

It was not meant to be all-encompassing in the sense of describing how we should deal with every little thing that comes up; that much is true. It didn't need to be. Covering every possibility was not the Constitution's purpose because being involved in everything was not the purpose of the federal government.

Its purpose was to clearly define and thereby place strict limits on federal government power, and it did that very neatly and succinctly. Later, the demand that federal power be limited was reiterated in Amendment Ten:

This simple and direct statement (and others such as the well-abused Commerce and General Welfare clauses) has since been twisted and stretched to accommodate the political whims of Congress, presidents, and the courts. The Constitution's very simple words have been corrupted, and this has allowed the federal government to become an all-powerful, all-intrusive monster. It has been allowed to do what we declared in 1776 that the King of England had done:

We went to war over such things in the past--now we sit idly by and condone them because we like being coddled by federal programs and because of the so-called "interpretive" power of nine robed figures?

I am NOT advocating violence; I am simply employing hyperbole to make the point.

YES, to be "interpreted". Interpreting the law, for example, is a very big job description of a judge, is it not? And do we not have a Supreme Court whose very job is to do just that?

YES, to be "interpreted". You didn't see the First Amendment being changed with the advent of the internet, did you?

YES, to be "interpreted". The first part of the First Amendment says this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". It's been interpreted to mean "The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another ... in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' ... That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

YES, to be "interpreted". Show me where the Second Amendment says it's there as some kind of "doomsday clause" in case the government gets out of control.

YES, to be "interpreted". "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure..." Seems we've been doing a awfully lot of interpreting of what, exactly "we the people" means in the last 200+ years. For such an all-inclusive term, why would we EVER have to "interpret" anything? Men, women, race...get the picture?

YES, to be "interpreted". What, pray tell, constitutes a "naturalized citizen", for example? Though mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, it ain't defined there.

 

[beatledog7]

Chief, that was certainly a very wordy way of saying, essentially:

"No, I cannot show you where the word 'interpret' appears in the Constitution; it doesn't. But because I can show you a bunch of examples where we did it anyway, it should have been there."

Nice try.

Not a single person who's been alive in the last 200 years ever lived under the strict wording of the US Constitution. We have no possible way of even visualizing what our country would be today if we did. Being taught only what the Constitution says would not benefit someone trying to understand US government and society from, well pretty much from the end of 1787 on.

The original words were declared by many to be in need of change at pretty much the same time they were ratified--and we got the Bill of Rights. That was 1791, just two years after the base document was ratified and several more than 200 years ago. So the first part of your statement is accurate; we had already seen the need to amend the Constitution almost 212 years ago.

So we did. And we kept on amending it for decades, 17 more times. It used to be that we didn't make a sweeping change in the basic law of the land unless it was needed in the view of 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate, and 3/4 of the States. Now we allow such changes--or laws and regulations that create equally profound effects--to be made behind closed doors late on a Friday afternoon when we're at happy hour, or in secret chamber by nine robed people whom we have been told are smarter than we are, or by whim at the desk of a psuedo-monarch in an egg-shaped office.

Nobody today lives under the Constitution as written for two reasons: 1) we have been convinced by big-gvernment types that it's a "living document" and they should be allowed to pick and choose which parts they want to apply to American life, and 2) that big federal government has never really stuck to its enumerated powers. It has not allowed Americans to, as you put it, "live[d] under the strict wording of the US Constitution."

Would it have been possible for Americans to thrive "under the strict wording of the US Constitution"? I think so. The Founders thought so. The leadership of the States thought so. They all knew issues would come up that weren't covered in the Constitution, and they believed such issues would be handled at the state and local level, or if really were needed at the federal level, by amendment.

As for trying to understand American government and society by just reading the Constitution, of course that's not possible. But a pretty thorough understanding of American federal government would be if those running it had left it as designed. As the disease of big, bloated government continues to metastasize, it will become more and more difficult to understand it. That is the plan of our Federal masters: make the thing so big, complex, and powerful that we can neither understand it or challenge it, so all we have left is to bow to it.

If you doubt that, look at all they've done to 2A.

 

[beatledog7]

By definition, the Federal government has supremacy over the States or there wouldn't BE a Union in the first place.

And if the Union as we know it were to become several smaller unions based on what the people really want, would that be the end of the world? I invite you to consider:

1) The American Colonies were part of a union known as the British Empire, and they split from it.
2) The Constitution places limits on Federal power and would not exist at all if the States hadn't OK'd it. Why would they have done that if they meant for the Federal government to make them irrelevant?

The argument becomes, then, how MUCH supremacy over the states is allowable. You define it your way. Then I'll define it my way, our neighbors will define it there way, the "cities" and "states" will define it their way.

The problem with that concept is that the Federal government is, in effect, doing the defining for everyone. What little they "let" us decide for ourselves or leave to the States is either something they don't care about or are saving for the right crisis. Smart politics dictates that those in power must appear to not always win. When they don't get what they want, they see it as just a small obstacle that they'll get past in time.

They're still determined, for example, to relieve us of our firearms; they're just biding their time. They tested the anti 2A waters again last week but got little traction. They'll keep doing it every time there's a shooting that they decide to let their media cronies talk about.

 

[Cee Zee]

Can anyone show me the word "interpret" in the Constitution? Can you point to the spot where one of the three branches is given that power?

This is where the common law angle comes in that I spoke about before. The right for courts to interpret laws and to declare them contrary to previous precepts was very much part of common law. It's the reason no one complained when the Supreme Court took for itself the right to determine the constitutionality of laws in Marbury Vs. Madison. English courts had been deciding whether laws dictated by the king violated the social compacts that dated all the way back to the Magna Charta. The king couldn't issue a law that violated one of the many so called common laws that actually almost all came about because of agreements between the king and the people in various documents. Court cases already decided also came into play with the concept of case law being an important part of common law just as it became part of our legal tradition. And we respected the English common law. Again Blackstone had just written very important books on the subject and they had sold like hot cakes throughout the colonies. People knew their Blackstone. That was partially responsible for such things as the cry of "Taxation without representation is tyranny." That came from common law. The British had given people Parliament to represent their interests and Americans felt it was very law to expect them to pay taxes without representation in the British government.

I certainly don't want to waste my valuable time memorizing how each of the Presidents died

I never said any such thing obviously. I was just pointing out that the tests were very hard just to get a grade school diploma back in the one room school days. First you should remember that there were a lot less past presidents when this test was given so the answer would have been much easier to answer. But I see little value in the answers myself except in a few cases where presidents were murdered or they died in office very soon after taking it and the second place finisher in the election became president which is how they did things for a good while. It meant a completely new direction for the country when that happened. But again my point was that modern schools have become more about indoctrination instead of education. I'd rather have students studying actual history (which that question is about) than the distorted, revisionist history they teach in schools today. I've seen "honors" history programs in high schools teaching communist beliefs without any hesitation or fear of retribution by the parents. I had an ongoing argument going in a local newspaper letters to the editor page with a whole class of brain dead robots of the left in an honors history class. It wasn't good enough to argue logic. I only impressed them when I told them their claims of superior knowledge based on being in the "honors history" program was laughable considering I spent 4 years getting my history degree in college. I think they realized I knew what I was talking about then but obviously for the wrong reasons.

They openly teach kids to hate their parents and what they believe in modern schools. That was the whole purpose of closing the one room schools and moving kids miles away from where their parents worked on their farms (in my part of the world anyway). That stinks. They knew exactly what they were doing too. They knew they could get away with murder by moving their kids away from their parents control. Now they basically laugh at parents and their influence. It's the main reason we have so many people home schooling. I nearly did it myself when my son came home and asked me if communism wasn't really a good idea that had just failed because greedy people ruined it. Sure son. And the reason they ruined it is because people will ALWAYS abuse their power if they are given too much of it like they are in communist systems. It's human nature. It's the reason our system has worked better than all others. We have checks and balances. But the courts have usurped too much power and the balance is gone now. Now the president and his cabinet have started to rule by decree instead of getting laws passed through the congress. It's a mess that can be fixed by going back to the actual constitutional role of those branches of government.

 

[beatledog7]

Cee Zee, I see you are a student of history (or a very quick study).

I know about English common law and how British courts were applying it. Odd, isn't it, that the colonials could so despise the King for much of his application of common law and the courts for their unwillingness to reign him in, yet embrace British common law itself?

We could debate this incessantly without changing anybody's mind. For me the key point is that federal government is largely unchecked in its quest for more and more power over us, exemplified by its effort to control more and more aspects of our lives: what we eat, how we get around, how we relieve ourselves, and, to keep it relevant, what sorts of guns we can own.

Isn't it time we started saying no?

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Chief, that was certainly a very wordy way of saying, essentially:

"No, I cannot show you where the word 'interpret' appears in the Constitution; it doesn't. But because I can show you a bunch of examples where we did it anyway, it should have been there."

Nice try.
.
.
.
.
If you doubt that, look at all they've done to 2A.

And yet YOU insist on interpreting the Constitution for yourself, most especially with the RKBA?


You want to know where the word "interpret" is in the constitution? OK, I'll play your game:

Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 2:

"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

Ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Eleventh Amendment:

"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

Seventeenth Amendment:

"This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution."



Construe: verb, interpret (a word or action) in a particular way:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/construe

From another site: to determine the meaning of the words of a written document, statute or legal decision, based upon rules of legal interpretation as well as normal meanings.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/construed


How do you like them apples, hmmm?





Oh, and as for "And if the Union as we know it were to become several smaller unions based on what the people really want, would that be the end of the world?", no it wouldn't be the end of the world. Just the end of the United States of America, by definition. I, for one, am not for that.

 

[beatledog7]

That's not the word. It is similar in meaning, but it's not the word. You are interpreting, not reading. So I like them apples just fine.

And did you miss that in each noted appearance of the word "construed," it is preceded by "shall not be" or a similar negation?

And yet YOU insist on interpreting the Constitution for yourself, most especially with the RKBA?

I try very hard not to fall into interpreting 2A or any other parts of the Constitution. I simply read it. I don't discuss what it means, just what it says.

Even if something I say on here could be termed interpretation of the Constitution, my having committed interpretation would harm nobody. Everyone is free to tell me I'm wrong and go on about their business, unaffected.

Federal officials interpret the Constitution, and we all have to do as they say based on that interpretation.

Can you interpret that?

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

That's not the word. It is similar in meaning, but it's not the word. You are interpreting, not reading. So I like them apples just fine.

And did you miss that in each noted appearance of the word "construed," it is preceded by "shall not be" or a similar negation?



I try very hard not to fall into interpreting 2A or any other parts of the Constitution. I simply read it. I don't discuss what it means, just what it says.

Even if something I say on here could be termed interpretation of the Constitution, my having committed interpretation would harm nobody. Everyone is free to tell me I'm wrong and go on about their business, unaffected.

Federal officials interpret the Constitution, and we all have to do as they say based on that interpretation.

Can you interpret that?

Yes, it IS the word. In fact, it's the very definition of the word. Feel free to look it up...google is a wonderful tool for this.

And you're "misconstruing" the meaning of it's usage. It's not saying that you CAN'T interpret, only that you couldn't interpret it [what was written] counter to whatever stipulations they set forth in each example. Which means that those who wrote the words fully understood that interpretation is the name of the game in law.


As for trying NOT to interpret what the Constitution says...respectfully you, and everyone who reads it, "interprets" it as part of the process of gaining an understanding of the document. Otherwise it might just as well be gibberish.

 

[CopperFouling]

I try very hard not to fall into interpreting 2A or any other parts of the Constitution. I simply read it.

Is it possible to read something without interpreting it? How would you go about doing that? Furthermore, don't many of us Second Amendment supporters argue about the intent of the Framers? That has to involve some act of interpretation.

I don't discuss what it means, just what it says.

Is it possible for words to say something and not mean something? Perhaps in mathematics, where "+" is equivalent to "adding." That's a purely symbolic language with a one-to-one correspondence of symbol to meaning. Language outside of mathematics, however...

At any rate, this is an interesting thread, given where it started.

 

[Cee Zee]

We could debate this incessantly without changing anybody's mind. For me the key point is that federal government is largely unchecked in its quest for more and more power over us, exemplified by its effort to control more and more aspects of our lives: what we eat, how we get around, how we relieve ourselves, and, to keep it relevant, what sorts of guns we can own.

Isn't it time we started saying no?

That's exactly my complaint with the current government. I was fine with applying common law in our courts since so much was already established and it was instrumental in inspiring our Revolution. When George decided to tax the colonies without giving them representation in Parliament he was violating the common law. That's one of the biggest things that ticked people off. They didn't like being taxed of course but they should at least have some say in how much and on what items were to be taxed. George taxed dang near everything at first. It's true that the Brits spent a fortune keeping the French from taking over the colonies especially in the old Northwest Territory. And it did seem fair that Americans should have had to foot some of that bill. But then again lots of rich Brits were making a killing on investments in the colonies so people thought that should be considered. Those people were making big cash without taking a risk of any kind (like fighting the Indians). It was really a matter of being able to argue their case in the governing body of the time. And George denied them that right thus violating common law and instigating a revolution. Plus Americans just weren't used to the idea of paying taxes at all. It was like the net is now. The crown left the colonies untaxed so they could prosper just like the net has been left untaxed. You can bet when the tax status of the internet changes a lot of people are going to scream about it. There again they just wanted a voice in their rule. They felt like slaves instead of citizens. If they wanted taxes from the Americans they needed to give them representation in Parliament.

It really seems a lot like we have no representation these days too IMO. The congress passes laws in the middle of the night on Friday so the news won't be reported for days. They pass laws and tell us that we won't know what's in the law until it's been passed. That's tyranny pure and simple. We have lost our right to review laws before they are passed and much of that has come under the "reign" of the current president/king. Many people call this the Imperial presidency for good reason. Between the secret laws, the spying on citizens, the denial of rights because of political stances (i.e. the IRS scandal) and the president just issuing rules that are in effect laws through his cabinet agencies we have lost our representation pure and simple. Common law is ignored. That is a very dangerous thing to do. But people have been dumbed down by a corrupt school system to the point that they don't even know what common law is much less that the government is ignoring it.

everyone who reads it, "interprets" it as part of the process of gaining an understanding of the document. Otherwise it might just as well be gibberish.

I respectfully disagree. The notion that we all read our own thinking into everything we hear or read is a liberal construct that is contrary to common sense. Words have very definite meanings especially in the English language. Sentence structure is rigid and not really subject to being corrupted by the person hearing or reading the sentence. That's te strength of our language and a big key to the success of this nation and a big reason why English has become the defacto language of commerce in the world. It's precise and doesn't easily lend itself to misinterpretation so when someone says they will buy something it's hard to argue they meant something else when they said it. That's an extreme example obviously but the point is valid.

When a sentence like, "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 diagrammed and read as it is actually written it is very clear what it actually means. There are two independent clauses in the sentence and the second one is absolutely not dependent on the first for a correct interpretation. It could stand on it's own and the meaning is not changed by the first clause. Everyone knew that until progressives decided to muddy the waters. Blackstone himself described the right to self defense in his seminal work that I have mentioned here several times already. The meaning is clear because the language is clear. It's like reading this sentence, "As a well prepared man knows it is possible it could rain today, it is a good idea to take an umbrella with you." The second clause can stand completely on it's own. That's why it's an independent clause. The first part doesn't really affect the meaning of the second. It just mentions one reason why it might be a good idea.

And JudgeHolden10, the English language is very much a language with a mathematical precision. There may be words with multiple definitions but they rarely make a sentence unclear. The precision of a language has become a common topic among linguists and economists alike. English has far more words than most other languages for a reason. It's because words have a more specific meaning in English. Some would argue that either German or Russian is actually more precise but there is that thing about English being the language of worldwide commerce. Certainly a lot of that is due to the remnants of British Empire. After all they did rule both India and China which made the language a common language in much of the world's population. But if you go to countries like Japan or the eastern European countries it is almost assured you can find people who speak English. That isn't true for any other language I know.

Most people aren't taught sentence structure the way they once were. If English is done right it is extremely precise. The common forms of language in use are rarely that specific but Joe Blow on the street isn't writing founding documents for a nation. Let's not forget that Daniel Webster came of age just shortly after the constitution was written. He was born in the early 1780's. People took the accuracy of the language very seriously in those days. They didn't have tv obviously but they did have newspapers. And not many people got the job of writing for those newspapers without knowing the language very well. It was like the movie industry of today in that they wanted people who could express themselves with words fluently like movie producers want good actors today. A bad actor sticks out like a sore thumb today. It was the same with writers in the late 18th century. Language was precise at the time. Very precise. But again, that fact has been buried by the education system today because they don't want people to know that they're being led astray. It's much easier to steal your wealth if they can keep you stupid and distracted. So they feed you propaganda about climate change and racism and ignore the way our system of government has become so corrupted. If you do nothing except play Angry Birds or Grand Theft Auto you won't notice that your rights are being destroyed and your money is being stolen. They print money by the billions and no one notices and worse, no one knows why that's a bad idea. Meanwhile government stooges think they can keep playing this game forever.

 

[Elkins45]

They openly teach kids to hate their parents and what they believe in modern schools.

And all gun owners are murderers. Funny how it's a travesty when someone lumps us in with the mall shooters but it's just "common sense" when we do essentially the same thing to others. "Teach students to hate parents" was never in one of my lesson plans.

 

[Sam1911]

Words have very definite meanings especially in the English language.

Of ALL the languages in the world English is about the LEAST definite there ever as been. Words have multitudes of meanings -- many common at any given time, and several times that number when you stretch your view to include historical uses. Linguists have written tomes on this subject. Heck, look at the OED, which started in 1857 and quite literally is still being written. One simple word alone took 60,000+ words to define, 430 different ways!

So the meaning that one man writes can very easily be different from the meaning another man reads, with the very best intentions.

To say otherwise isn't very NICE.

(Nice? How did I mean "nice?" Look it up...lots of definitions have applied, traditionally, from "awfully bad" to "great" to "a city in France." Go figure!)

 

[MEHavey]

Of ALL the languages in the world English is about the LEAST definite there ever as been.

And yet,.... the Constitution as written is one of the clearest organizational charters ever written.

As stated before, I can read and understand plain English. And when even a modicum of the history and contemporary letters/correspondence between the Founders are read, their meaning/intent is clear.

And as you might expect, I am an originalist. If one wants to change that original intent, change the words, not the meaning.

 

[beatledog7]

Excellent post, Cee Zee.

English is not vague unless the writer fails to make choices that create clarity. Lack of clarity can be unintentional or intentional. I can say Mr. Smith is a nice man without telling the reader anything useful about Mr. Smith. I do no better by saying he's a bad man. The receiver of that message might or might not have insight into my intended message, but because I selected words that are imprecise, he cannot know for sure.

But I can use English to make my meaning clear if I have the requisite skills. I can say. "Today I saw Mr. Smith help an elderly woman carry her groceries to the bus and then decline her offer of money for his action." You can read that and decide for yourself whether Mr. Smith is a "nice" man. He might or might not be. But my intention was not to make an assessment of his overall "niceness." All I did was relate what he did, and that is completely clear.

Yet, we can read and know how to comply with direction without "interpreting" that direction. Messages can be understood through knowledge of the words in use and of the way they are arranged (i.e., knowing the rules of the language).

Consider the simple octagonal sign imprinted with the single word "STOP." Do we need someone to tell us what that sign means, to interpret it for us, to split hairs about how we should respond to it? No. We read it, we get it, we know we are required to comply with its very clear message. We don't always comply fully, but we know that if we choose to proceed without stopping, we are at risk of being cited for our failure to comply with that very simple and clear directive.

Amendment Two is equally clear in its central message (thank you, Cee Zee, for reminding members that in English the meaning/message of an independent clause is not altered by an associated dependent clause): "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That is no less clear than the aforementioned STOP sign. What part of "shall not" is unclear? And where's the sanction against those who violate it?

The drafters could have chosen different words to follow "shall not." If they had meant to leave the door open for RKBA to be "managed" in some way they could have made that clear through wording such as subject to taxation or subject to reasonable restriction, but they didn't. They wanted to keep it simple and chose the broad, all-encompassing words shall not be infringed because it covered all the bases, preventing government involvement of any kind.

For decades, the political/societal trend in America has been to allow more and more federal infringement, not just in RKBA but in just about every aspect of our lives. There was never an intention that the Constitution would provide the answers to all our eventual questions or the solutions to all our potential problems. There was, instead, a blanket statement telling all future generations what to do when the Constitution doesn't offer the answer. It's right there, in plain English, in Amendment 10:

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.

So, it is completely clear that when there is no specified power in the Constitution to manage an issue, the federal government is not supposed to play any role in managing that issue. But look at all the ways that's been violated.

 

[Sam1911]

So, it is completely clear that when there is no specified power in the Constitution to manage an issue, the federal government is not supposed to play any role in managing that issue. But look at all the ways that's been violated.

And yet, if such had not been done, we literally cannot realistically fathom what the country would look like today.

In the end, it was done, is done, and will be done. The time to be up in arms about that appears to have been sometime around 1803, though probably earlier. Now we (mostly because of one issue we all hold particularly dear) are saying we want to stuff the genie back in the bottle. I wonder if we really would if we could.

 

[beatledog7]

And yet, if such had not been done, we literally cannot realistically fathom what the country would look like today.

Truly, we cannot say what the country would look like.

It could be that we'd have a lot more freedom, a lot less federal government, and much stronger state and local governments. It could be that we'd be paying higher state and local taxes but much lower federal taxes, and that those tax dollars would be used in ways that we specify locally. It could be that states would be free to make decisions without the threat of federal funds being withheld, and that we could choose whether our car has airbags and whether our toilet will get it done with a single flush and what kind of light bulbs we want to use. It could be that the RKBA debate would be purely a local/state issue with no federal involvement at all...no GCA, no NFA, no AWB.

It could even be that within the current geographic boundaries of the US there would be three or four smaller "countries" that have made their own choices regarding what kind of central government they will have and how much power it will be given. Maybe those countries would have treaties in place that allow for some key aspects of "American" life (unfettered travel among the states, states not taxing each other, etc.) to continue pretty much as we currently know them but make it possible for a citizen of any of those countries to choose how much federal rule he or she wants by moving to the country that provides the desired amount.

The possibilities are endless, but discussing them here won't change anything. All we can is try to get that genie back into bottle or at least find a way to throttle the genie back.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Of ALL the languages in the world English is about the LEAST definite there ever as been. Words have multitudes of meanings -- many common at any given time, and several times that number when you stretch your view to include historical uses. Linguists have written tomes on this subject. Heck, look at the OED, which started in 1857 and quite literally is still being written. One simple word alone took 60,000+ words to define, 430 different ways!

So the meaning that one man writes can very easily be different from the meaning another man reads, with the very best intentions.

To say otherwise isn't very NICE.

(Nice? How did I mean "nice?" Look it up...lots of definitions have applied, traditionally, from "awfully bad" to "great" to "a city in France." Go figure!)

Well put.

As I've pointed out to others on other internet forums, English is the most bastardized language on the face of the planet. I ran across a T-Shirt at a fancon this summer that read "English doesn't borrow from other languages. English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over and goes through their pockets for loose grammer."


And if English is so clear and precise, then why all the misconceptions on internet forums with people getting their dander up? Because there's more to any language than the written form. We use virtually NONE of the remaining senses we're genetically predisposed to use when communication when we limit ourselves to the written word.

In the Navy, a great deal of effort is expended on communications skills because what you say and how you say it is important. It's literally a dialect all its own, specifically engineered to be that way, and deviating from it can mean disaster. Want a clear example? No submariner watches a naval movie without smiling whenever a torpedo is launched to the order "FIRE ONE!". Torpedoes are "shot", not "fired".

I'm a nuclear engineer, so trust me when I say I'm VERY much aware that how something is written, right down to the punctuation level, is VERY important. Being retired Navy, I also understand what "source documents" are and how/why it's important to refer back to them when encountering situations "outside the box", as it were.

Even the best written procedures don't always cover all situations...indeed, few do. Especially when things change over time. And when you encounter something NOT covered, how to proceed must be based upon the understanding of what's already been written in order to move forward safely and efficiently.

"Yet, we can read and know how to comply with direction without "interpreting" that direction. Messages can be understood through knowledge of the words in use and of the way they are arranged (i.e., knowing the rules of the language)."

Certainly we can. However, having no knowledge of the reasoning behind the "message" means that we are prone to making poor decisions on what to do when we encounter situations not specifically covered.

There is a time and a place for blind compliance...but such times and places do not encompass the totality of our existence. I most certainly did not train to "blind compliance" while operating a naval nuclear propulsion plant, and I hope that you would not have expected that of me. I had to know not only what was going to happen whenever I did something, I had to know WHY.


The engineers of the U.S. Constitution were marvelous craftsmen. And I truly believe that Thomas Jefferson was a master at writing and probably very intentionally took the actual job of drafting the Constitution for that very purpose. I strongly suspect that he tweaked things here and there quite deliberately, knowing that the future would bring many great social changes given the many hotly debated topics being covered at the time of the Constitutional Convention. Slavery was one of them, remember.

 

[beatledog7]

Chief, I truly appreciate your ability to debate this rationally.

And I truly believe that Thomas Jefferson was a master at writing and probably very intentionally took the actual job of drafting the Constitution for that very purpose. I strongly suspect that he tweaked things here and there quite deliberately, knowing that the future would bring many great social changes given the many hotly debated topics being covered at the time of the Constitutional Convention. Slavery was one of them, remember.

Jefferson was not a primary drafter. Were you thinking of the Declaration? Yes, the Founders knew that slavery was going to have be dealt with down the road. They also knew that no agreement could ever be reached on slavery in the late 18th century, so they elected to leave it alone. They did leave the door open for fixing it, of course, by including Article 5. And that was eventually done, through the process specified by Article 5, not by some kind of legislative/executive/judicial sleight of hand.

However, having no knowledge of the reasoning behind the "message" means that we are prone to making poor decisions on what to do when we encounter situations not specifically covered.

Exactly, which is why the Constitution denies federal government that power and gives it to other entities. States are in a better position to make such decisions because they are close to the ground where those decisions will be applied, and they can create a decision that makes sense to them. For example, there is no way a decision on interstate highway speed limits that's right for urban areas of New York is also right for the wide open spaces of Montana. That's why states set speed limits and why allowing the federal government to hold them hostage to 55mph was constitutionally wrong.

And we do have knowledge of the reasoning behind the words of the Constitution. Lots of it. Much of it tells us exactly why federal powers were strictly limited.

Even the best written procedures don't always cover all situations...indeed, few do. Especially when things change over time. And when you encounter something NOT covered, how to proceed must be based upon the understanding of what's already been written in order to move forward safely and efficiently.

In the case of the Constitution, what to do in these cases is precisely specified in "what's already been written" in Article 5 and Amendment 10.

Your example of how the submarine force (I am also a submariner) relies on very exacting use of words and sentences is a spot on example of how English can be very precise and why it doesn't have to be always in need of interpretation. That negates assertions that the Constitution is necessarily vague simply because it's in English.

There is a time and a place for blind compliance...but such times and places do not encompass the totality of our existence. I most certainly did not train to "blind compliance" while operating a naval nuclear propulsion plant, and I hope that you would not have expected that of me. I had to know not only what was going to happen whenever I did something, I had to know WHY.

Yes, I would have expected the Engineering department to follow procedures as long as those procedures didn't require something that under the circumstances would have been dangerous. Then I would have expected them to deviate in a way that made sense in context. The Constitution provides its own context by intentionally telling the "operators" what to do when the issues and circumstances lie outside the authority of the Constitution to intervene.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Chief, I truly appreciate your ability to debate this rationally.

It's a knack! Though I'm thinking we've drifted a ways from the OP. (Whoops...)

Jefferson was not a primary drafter. Were you thinking of the Declaration? Yes, the Founders knew that slavery was going to have be dealt with down the road. They also knew that no agreement could ever be reached on slavery in the late 18th century, so they elected to leave it alone. They did leave the door open for fixing it, of course, by including Article 5. And that was eventually done, through the process specified by Article 5, not by some kind of legislative/executive/judicial sleight of hand.

*facepalm* My bad...you are correct. In fact, Jefferson wasn't on the final committee at all. Governor Morris actually wrote the final copy. James Madison is considered to be the primary author.

Exactly, which is why the Constitution denies federal government that power and gives it to other entities. States are in a better position to make such decisions because they are close to the ground where those decisions will be applied, and they can create a decision that makes sense to them. For example, there is no way a decision on interstate highway speed limits that's right for urban areas of New York is also right for the wide open spaces of Montana. That's why states set speed limits and why allowing the federal government to hold them hostage to 55mph was constitutionally wrong.

And we do have knowledge of the reasoning behind the words of the Constitution. Lots of it. Much of it tells us exactly why federal powers were strictly limited.

History...it's a marvelous thing! I wish I was more into it way back when I was in school.


In the case of the Constitution, what to do in these cases is precisely specified in "what's already been written" in Article 5 and Amendment 10.

Though I agree with you in part here, I don't entirely. Falling back on amendments (Article V), as I've pointed out before, isn't always the best of options. And though I agree with the spirit of the Tenth Amendment in principle, this amendment doesn't necessarily apply to matters which affect the nation as a whole.


Your example of how the submarine force (I am also a submariner) relies on very exacting use of words and sentences is a spot on example of how English can be very precise and why it doesn't have to be always in need of interpretation. That negates assertions that the Constitution is necessarily vague simply because it's in English.



YEAH! That's what I'm talkin' 'bout! GO SUBMARINERS!

But the Constitution wasn't written to the linguistic exactitude required of a modern combat vessel. Society is not static...it is ever-changing and though the foundation upon which societies are based (the rules and laws) actually vary very little, how they are applied DOES change somewhat. I gave some examples previously about technology and the First Amendment.


Yes, I would have expected the Engineering department to follow procedures as long as those procedures didn't require something that under the circumstances would have been dangerous. Then I would have expected them to deviate in a way that made sense in context. The Constitution provides its own context by intentionally telling the "operators" what to do when the issues and circumstances lie outside the authority of the Constitution to intervene.

And this "deviation" is subject to "interpretation" of the meaning and intend behind the wording of the Constitution, is it not?

I cheated in my response and inserted my replies in blue within the quote...I'm running late for work and can't take the time to do my usual quote stuff.

 

[beatledog7]

And this "deviation" is subject to "interpretation" of the meaning and intend behind the wording of the Constitution, is it not?

While I agree that in dire circumstances some temporary deviations must be allowed to occur, and that the Founders knew this from their own studies of history, I do not think that when deviations must occur they should be allowed to continue once the crisis that necessitated them has passed. Something we are forced to do to stave off a crisis should not in and of itself drive any new way of looking at the Constitution.

Nor should it allow us to make new laws that violate the Constitution just to insulate ourselves from the crisis recurring. The document includes legitimate processes for giving the federal government new powers. If a potential recurrence of the crisis is seen as dire by a vast majority of the people, and they are convinced that the only way to shield against it is by granting new federal powers, then exercising that process to create a federal shield against it should be easy.

The problem with allowing for crisis-driven deviations is that when the crisis has passed those new powers we "interpreted" into being don't lapse. They remain. Maybe Reagan said it best, and I'll paraphrase: The closest thing to immortality is a government program.

 

[CopperFouling]

When a sentence like, "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 diagrammed and read as it is actually written it is very clear what it actually means. There are two independent clauses in the sentence and the second one is absolutely not dependent on the first for a correct interpretation. It could stand on it's own and the meaning is not changed by the first clause.

I don't mean to be pedantic here, but there are in fact not two independent clauses. This means that we either have 1.) a dependent clause started by a subordinating conjunction or relative pronoun or 2.) a collection of words without a subject-verb pair.

Let's read the second part of the sentence as "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." That is an independent clause, with "right" functioning as the subject and "shall be infringed" functioning as the verb (before anyone gets upset about the lack of "not," it is not there because it is always an adverb).

That leaves us with "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." There is no verb in there. "Being," in case you are curious, is a participle. Hence, what we have is not a clause, much less an independent one.

As to this...

(thank you, Cee Zee, for reminding members that in English the meaning/message of an independent clause is not altered by an associated dependent clause)

...I would like to know why we need to be reminded of this, since it's untrue. The Second Amendment lacks a dependent clause. It does not, as I demonstrated above, even have two clauses.

But, for the sake of argument, let's consider the proposition that "in English the meaning/message of an independent clause is not altered by an associated dependent clause." Consider saying this to one of your family members tonight: "If I win the lottery (dependent clause), I will quit my job tomorrow (independent clause)." I think you will receive a different reaction if you do not include the dependent clause, saying instead that "I will quit my job tomorrow." Indeed, the meaning of the second clause in the first sentence is entirely conditional on the first clause. It's called the subjunctive. For more on that, feel you may refer to Bryan Garner's Modern American Usage (it's on 780) or a usage guide of comparable authority.

We can take this a step further, though, because I believe your contention is that an independent clause cannot be modified by other parts of the sentence. Let's consider the following example: "Businessmen embezzling from their companies should be jailed." The participial phrase there does indeed modify the subject of the clause, changing the meaning entirely. If we were to forgo the "embezzling from their companies," we would have an entirely different sentence.

I will assume that your mention of "reminding" us was simply friendly and not condescending.

Onward. Let's consider another proposition.

But I can use English to make my meaning clear if I have the requisite skills. I can say. "Today I saw Mr. Smith help an elderly woman carry her groceries to the bus and then decline her offer of money for his action." You can read that and decide for yourself whether Mr. Smith is a "nice" man. He might or might not be. But my intention was not to make an assessment of his overall "niceness." All I did was relate what he did, and that is completely clear.

Indeed, the meaning of that sentence is clear. Here's where it gets murky: "But my intention was not to make an assessment of his overall 'niceness.' All I did was relate what he did, and that is completely clear." How are we supposed to know what your intention was in relating said sentence? Maybe it was for entertainment. Or maybe you were providing an assessment of his character. We don't know, but unless you are the sort of person who walks around making random comments to others, it's safe to assume that you have a reason for telling us. (Seems like we might have to do a interpretation of why you communicated this to us...) That is to say, the rhetorical context matters.

And when you move away from describing simple actions to more abstract concepts like "freedom," what you're communicating becomes more complex. ("Freedom," by the way, has fifteen different definitions, not including phrases.) Readers are forced to choose between multiple meanings, depending on context; sometimes, multiple meanings could grammatically and contextually make sense. (See my previous post on "regulation.")

Almost the last thought.

And JudgeHolden10, the English language is very much a language with a mathematical precision. There may be words with multiple definitions but they rarely make a sentence unclear.

The proposition that "English language is very much a language with a mathematical precision" is patently untrue. As in my previous example with addition, mathematics is a pure symbolic language. There is no other way to "interpret" a "+" than as addition. (Similar to the stop sign mentioned by another poster, who was entirely correct in that instance.)

Let's get more abstract here. In order to determine the meaning of a word, one looks to a dictionary, where one finds...more words. (Mathematics, by the way, does not have that problem because of its one-to-one correspondence of symbol to meaning.) Keep looking up those definitions of definitions. Where do you end? At some word that ultimately needs no definition? From where would that come, exactly? After all, dictionaries are written by humans; they don't exist as revealed truth from some alternate universe or English deity. And even words are created by humans. Shakespeare himself added something like 1,500 words to English.

To be fair, this is a problem that has puzzled other writers. George Orwell, at the end of "Politics and the English Language," (a delightful read if you have the time; I suspect you will enjoy it), contemplates this very problem. Here is his solution: "What is above all needed is to let the meaning choose the word, and not the other way around. In prose, the worst thing one can do with words is surrender to them. When you think of a concrete object, you think wordlessly, and then, if you want to describe the thing you have been visualizing you probably hunt about until you find the exact words that seem to fit it. When you think of something abstract you are more inclined to use words from the start, and unless you make a conscious effort to prevent it, the existing dialect will come rushing in and do the job for you, at the expense of blurring or even changing your meaning. Probably it is better to put off using words as long as possible and get one's meaning as clear as one can through pictures and sensations [italics mine]." Even a perceptive thinker like Orwell devises an impossible solution to an intractable problem: use only pictures and sensations to think...and communicate them how, exactly? Once the act of attempting to communicate an abstraction commences, the possibility of interpretation arises.

Last thought, since I've done some reading in this area.

The precision of a language has become a common topic among linguists and economists alike. English has far more words than most other languages for a reason.

What linguist or economist do you know who claims English is more precise than other languages? And on what evidence would they base that claim? It's going to be difficult or impossible to quantify that. And the way in which English grows and accumulates words is evidence of the incredible flexibility of the language, not its precision.

there is that thing about English being the language of worldwide commerce. Certainly a lot of that is due to the remnants of British Empire. After all they did rule both India and China which made the language a common language in much of the world's population. But if you go to countries like Japan or the eastern European countries it is almost assured you can find people who speak English. That isn't true for any other language I know.

You actually nailed two great reasons for the predominance of English across the globe. "Commerce" is the first. The ascendance of the United States in the twentieth century to an economic superpower is much of the reason English is spoken in other countries. China, for example, trades a lot with the U.S.; there are millions of Chinese people learning to speak English because it's lucrative. If Portugal were the country that became an economic superpower after World War II, those Chinese people would be learning Portuguese. The other reason ("remnants of the British empire") is also a contributing factor. It's not the amazing precision of our language.

I love English. I find it fascinating, so I am not denigrating the language or the Founders or any one particular understanding of their writing.

To return to our original topic, I don't care about persuading anyone as to a correct "reading" of the Second Amendment. I just want people to acknowledge the complexity of documents that we sometimes assume, with ironclad certainty, that we understand.

Methinks I am going to have to bow out of this one. I sense that we're starting to move in circles away from our original topic. Thanks for the polite but firm responses, everyone.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

I agree with a true "deviation". However, "interpretation" doesn't have to mean "deviation". It can simply mean "this clause also covers this circumstance", as an example.

 

[beatledog7]

Thank you, Judge, for that post.

I still will argue that dependent clauses and participle phrases do not necessarily change the meaning of an independent clause to which they are attached. What they might also do is simply attach conditions under which the action described in the independent clause will be carried out, determine the timing with which it will be carried out, or similarly modify the independent clause. Modifications by dependent clause do not in and of themselves change meaning; they do elaborate on the effect that the independent clause will have on the maker of the clause.

I could say, "Since today is my birthday, I am cutting class." Here, the dependent clause does not in any way alter the meaning of the independent clause; it merely describes a cause and effect relationship. I have decided to cut class whether I note the cause of my decision or not.

Let's examine your other example sentence:

"Businessmen embezzling from their companies should be jailed."

(I rather hope you meant this to be true only for those convicted, but that's beside the immediate point.)

Deleting the participle changes the intent of the sentence: "Businessmen [embezzling from their companies] should be jailed." Clearly, we aren't suggesting jail time for those who did not embezzle.

However, the original could have been phrased in many ways to eliminate the participle and still declare the original's intent. For example: "If businessmen have embezzled from their companies, they should be jailed." (an independent clause) Or: "Businessmen who have embezzled from their companies should be jailed." (an adjectival phrase). In both examples, the base meaning is the same: embezzlement from one's own company is cause for jail time.

My point: making the modification from all businessmen to those who embezzle changes the meaning; the mechanism by which the modification is made does not.

I teach freshman English, and sometimes I am so bogged down reminding my students to make their subjects and verbs agree and select the right pronoun that I forget the finer points. Thanks for the reminder that I need to do some refresher study.

And I am out as well.