"2A wasn't written for us"...and I have to agree

[jpk1md]

Folks, some of these distinctions are not obvious but they are important.

People have "Rights".

Gov't is not granted/given "Rights" it is granted/given the "Authority" to perform some service/task by "The People" for "The People".

Both Gov't and "The People" can have "Power".

Just because "The People" or Gov't have the "Power" to do something doesn't mean that they have the 'Rights" or "Authority" to do so.

Conversely just because "The People" or Gov't has the 'Right"/"Authority" to do something doesn't mean that they have the "Power" to do so.

 

[Ieyasu]

Ieyasu: Go back and read the "rant".
I think you'll find that what you object to is an infinitesimal part of the whole.

Well, I read it.

You might think what I'm objecting to is merely semantics, however many folks use the bogus "govt doesn't have rights" argument, as their primary argument, when trying to counter the states' right interpretation of the 2A. Do you know how stupid and foolish they look when that claim is destroyed by a knowledgeable anti? It sure as heck doesn't do our side any good.

Look at this thread. Some amazingly continue to claim the government doesn't have rights, yet they can't back those claims with any sources contemporaneous (or reasonably so) to the Founding. They may believe that, but who cares? Within the constitutional framework that the Founders established , and which we're discussing the 2A, those folks are simply wrong and will sound like idiots (or more diplomatically, have their entire argument discounted) in the face of decent opposition.

 

[Sage of Seattle]

Ieyasu,

What if the statement "government has no rights" was clarified by changing it to "government has no inherent rights"?

 

[CrawdaddyJim]

You can argue in circles until the sun novas. It is what makes lawyers so wealthy. But if you check inside your id. Your heart/gut will tell you what is the truth.

 

[Ieyasu]

Sage of Seattle,

What if the statement "government has no rights" was clarified by changing it to "government has no inherent rights"?

That assumption appears to be incorrect as well. For example see this passage from St. George Tucker (quoted previously):

It is likewise a maxim of political law, that sovereign states cannot be deprived of any of their RIGHTS by implication; nor in any manner whatever by their own voluntary consent, or by submission to a conqueror.

Now don't get me wrong. I agree with many of the posters here that state the federal government was granted specific and limited powers to exercise its rights.

 

[Ieyasu]

Sage,

Keeping this 2A related, I'd like to add that an example of an inherent state's right, would be the right of a state to use (and maintain) its militia.

 

[Chad]

Ieyasu: You're right, of course.
Debating Second Amendment or other Constitutional issues without an understanding of the fundamental concepts is useless.

It highlights my assertion that we aren't ready for or capable of the fight to regain our rights.

How we get there is my concern and my focus.

If discussions of semantics are part of that process, so be it...as long as they get somewhere in the end.

I know that what you are discussing isn't semantics but more conceptual, and I agree with your ideas.
It's a much harder point to convey, but it needs to be understood.

The task of educating and explaining falls on us all.
It's too easy to get sidetracked when discussing an issue, dealing with other important things but losing sight of the subject at hand.

I'm not a thread 'purist'; drift is as natural as evolution.

But this is serious stuff, and if we can't focus we will lose.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Ieyasu

The government doesn't have any rights because We the People didn't - nor can we - grant any to the government, either at the state or Union level. Can you show me anywhere in the Constitution where you believe the people did "grant" a right to the government?

The answer lies in the Declaration of Independence in its second paragraph. It's good reading. I highly recommend it. Of note is the declaration's recognition that our rights are unalienable. That means we cannot divest ourselves of them, nor can any institution rightfully take them from us or infringe upon them.

Woody

 

[Ieyasu]

Chad,

Sorry 'bout that. I don't think it's severe thread drift, since I was addressing a point from the article. I could take issue with one or two other points from the article, as well, but I'd rather deal with one issue at a time.

woodcdi,

The government doesn't have any rights because We the People didn't - nor can we - grant any to the government, either at the state or Union level.

Once again, just your opinion, not based on a single citation. I provided several that contradict your personal belief/assertion.

Can you show me anywhere in the Constitution where you believe the people did "grant" a right to the government?

I don't need to. As stated, and backed-up by legal commentary from that period, the Constitution delegated specific powers to exercise implied/inferred rights, just as the Constitution didn't "grant" any rights to the people.

The answer lies in the Declaration of Independence in its second paragraph. It's good reading. I highly recommend it.

The fact that the people can abolish their government does not contradict the fact that states (the generic term) have rights.

Of note is the declaration's recognition that our rights are unalienable. That means we cannot divest ourselves of them, nor can any institution rightfully take them from us or infringe upon them.

Yeah, that's true, but it's irrelevant to this discussion. People have rights, so do states. Get over it.

 

[maasenstodt]

Once again, just your opinion, not based on a single citation. I provided several that contradict your personal belief/assertion.

I'd agree that we're discussing opinions.

I don't think positive insights concerning natural rights and politics came to an end with the arrival of the 19th, 20th, or 21st centuries. I do not, therefore, think that the Constitution is a perfect creation, nor do I think that those surrounding its creation have any special knowledge of the basis of governmental power.

There is a distinction to be drawn between debate over the principles that drove the Constitution's creation and debate over the nature of rights more broadly. When we are commenting, I think we might do well to keep that in mind.

People have rights, so do states. Get over it.

That may be (though I'd disagree), but it isn't because a bunch of 18th century jurists say so. And as for the last quoted sentence, that doesn't seem very "high road" to me.

 

[Chad]

Sorry 'bout that. I don't think it's severe thread drift, since I was addressing a point from the article. I could take issue with one or two other points from the article, as well, but I'd rather deal with one issue at a time.

Not a problem.
In hindsight I should have left out the drift comment anyway.

There's a couple points in the article I take issue with as well. It's almost unavoidable in serious subjects I suppose.

You are more conversant with where this discussion has gone than I.

Have at it...I'm happy to learn things I don't yet know.

 

[Ieyasu]

There is a distinction to be drawn between debate over the principles that drove the Constitution's creation and debate over the nature of rights more broadly. When we are commenting, I think we might do well to keep that in mind.

That's right and context is everything.

The argument that states don't have rights and therefore the 2A couldn't have been intended to protect a states' right to a militia is always done within the context of original intent. Therefore what those contemporaneous to the Founding wrote is relevant. And therefore whether or not one believes, "that those surrounding its creation have any special knowledge of the basis of governmental power," or what we think concerning the "debate over the nature of rights more broadly," is thread-drift. And, once again, one's own personal opinions about what one thinks which entities should have rights, etc., is completely irrelevant to what I initially took issue with.