Let a regular army, fully equal to the
resources of the country, be formed ; and let it be entirely at the
devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going
too far to say, that the state governments with the people on their
side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number
to which, according to the best computation, a standing army
can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth
part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of
the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield,
in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty
thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting
to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered
by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their
common liberties, and united and conducted by governments
possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted
whether a militia thus circumstanced, could ever be conquered
by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best
acquainted with the late successful resistance of this country
against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility
of it. 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. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the
several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the
public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust
the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid
alone, they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were
the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments
chosen by themselves, who could collect the national
will, and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out
of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them
and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance,
that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily
overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not
insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion,
that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they
would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary
power would be, to rescue theirs from the hands of their
oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition,
that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of
making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the
long train of insidious measures, -which must precede and produce it.
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government.
--James Madison
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. 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. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
M_Jagger quotes selectively from the Federalist #46 by James Madison (which he doesn't reference -- perhaps to make check his source more difficult). Typical of his approach, the selective quote is intended to mislead about Madison's point. A more complete quote from that document gives the proper view:
To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.
--James Madison
All I did was post some words Madison said. I drew no conclusion from it. I was testing you.
You passed the test. Good job.....
Madison was in favor of a standing army.
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government
--James Madison; Tuesday, January 29, 1788.
The Constitution took the power to organize, arm and discipline the militia away from the states and gave it to Congress. Under the proposed Constitution, Congress could establish a half million man militia or it could neglect to organize any militia at all.
If Congress neglect our militia, we can arm them ourselves. Cannot she put them into the hands of her militia-men? He then concluded by observing, that the power of governing the militia was not vested in the states by implication, because, being possessed of it antecedent to the adoption of the government, and not being divested of it by any grant or restriction in the Constitution, they must necessarily be as fully possessed of it as ever they had been. And it could not be said that the states derived any powers from that system, but retained them, though not acknowledged in any part of it.
In 1788, Americans did indeed have the advantage of being armed. But it wasn't because of the Second Amendment, because the Amendment hadn't even be written at the time.
Mick Jagger, also known as....
Jagger
M Jagger
Jagger with Swa
Jagger Rocks
Oh and I found a new name.....
"Flash for Cash"
lol
How many names does he have?
I wonder what Mick Jagger's agenda really is?
How many hours does he spend a week on this. I can find numerous posts, from numerous forums, just from the last 2 weeks.
The preamble to a statute usually contains the motives and inducements to the making of it; but it also has been held to be no part of the statute. (k)
In doubtful cases, recourse may be had to the preamble, to discover the inducements the legislature had to the making of the statute; but where the terms of the enacting clause are clear and positive, the preamble cannot be resorted to. Lord Coke considered the rehearsal or preamble, a key to open the understanding of the statute, and it is properly considered(l) a good mean for collecting the intent and showing the mischiefs which the makers of the act intended to remedy. The civilians say, cessante legis proaemio, cessat et ipsa lex, but English lawyers are aware how seldom, at least in the older statutes, the key will unlock the casket; how rarely the preamble is found to state the real occasion of the law, and the full views of the proposer of it. "It is nothing unusual in acts of Parliament," says Lawrence, J., in the case of the King and Marks, "for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law."
(k) 6 Mod. 62. Wills and Wilkins, 6 Mod. 144
(l) 4 Inst. 330
All I did was post some words Madison said. I drew no conclusion from it. I was testing you.
You passed the test. Good job.....
The Heller Court used whatever rule of construction would produce the outcome it wanted.Phil Lee
The USSC Heller decision references Dwarris A General Treatise on Statutes (see my 8:02 am posting today) for rules of statute interpretation. Quoting from this standard for English law circa 1835, we see another source denigrating the significance of the preamble in statute interpretation.
The Heller Court used whatever rule of construction would produce the outcome it wanted.
Huh?...standard references for rules of interpretation.
Huh?
to support his claim that Justice Scalia is "a notorious right wing judicial activist."In 2005, when Scalia interpreted the First Amendment in the case of McCreary County v. ACLU, he didn't apply the same rule. He didn't even use the same methodology.
The Court today tries to denigrate the importance of
this clause of the Amendment by beginning its analysis
with the Amendment’s operative provision and returning
to the preamble merely "to ensure that our reading of the
operative clause is consistent with the announced purpose."
Ante, at 5. That is not how this Court ordinarily
reads such texts, and it is not how the preamble would
have been viewed at the time the Amendment was
adopted.
Surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment ("keep and bear Arms") and Black's Law Dictionary indicate, "wear, bear, or carry...upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose...of being armed and ready for offensive or defense action in case of a conflict with another person."
Phil Lee
In District of Columbia v. Heller an alternative novel meaning for the Second Amendment was offered by representatives of government defending against a private citizen's claim to a right in Heller.
Rules of legal analysis? What are those?Phil Lee
No prior case establishing precedent in this novel meaning had been previously decided. That led to the need to analyze the meaning of the statute -- the Second Amendment; and the need for use of rules of legal analysis.
In McCreary County Scalia didn't rely on prior decisions to ascertain that the First Amendment means the government can favor religion over non religion. He ascertained that meaning from what he refereed to as "the history and traditions that reflect our society's constant understanding of those words." He totally ignored the words of the Constitution, the rule of construction he cited three years later inHeller and the rules of legal interpretation the founding fathers subscribed to at the time the Second Amendment was made.Phil Lee
there had been many prior decisions in Federal Courts on the Establishment of Religion issue raised in McCreary County.
M_Jagger quotes selectively from the Federalist #46 by James Madison (which he doesn't reference -- perhaps to make check his source more difficult). Typical of his approach, the selective quote is intended to mislead about Madison's point. A more complete quote from that document gives the proper view:
Since Jagger is styling himself as lawyer, he needs to understand one simple thing: the selective quotation that Phil Lee ably pointed out would have killed his argument in front of a court. He took a quote so far out of context as to constitute an intentional misrepresentation. That would have eliminated his credibility and any good will. A court would have to have worked on its own to find any merit for his client's position, as it wouldn't trust a thing that came from him again.
an alternative novel meaning?