How To Read The Bill Of Rights:

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Or, maybe better said How To Read The Constitution WITH The Bill Of Rights:

It's a list of "Buts...", or "Excepts...", or "In steads...", or "As long as..."​

How it works:

Congress shall have power;

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and Excises - except on arms - ...

To regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes - except where that trade involves arms - ...

To raise and support Armies... To provide and maintain a Navy ... but no soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house...

To provide for organizing, arming, and etc. the Militia - but not to disarm the militia - ...

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases - except infringing upon the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms - over such district(Washington, DC)...

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution - except where those powers would infringe the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; abridge the freedom of speech or of the press, quarter soldiers in private homes during times of peace; violate the people's right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects with unreasonable searches and seizures; deny the right to speedy and public trials; require excessive bail, or proscribe unusual punishment, deny a right retained by the people though not enumerated, or snatch power not delegated. - ...​

That is the power the Bill of Rights has over the rest of the Constitution. That is how the Bill of Rights fits in the Constitution. Just as the Seventeenth Amendment overrides the method of selecting Senators in the Article I, Section 3, so do the amendments in the Bill of Rights override anything in the Constitution contrary to those amendments.

Never read the Constitution and ignore any of the amendments. They are integral parts of the Constitution. Plug them in wherever they belong, wherever the fit.

Woody

 

[iiibdsiil]

I don't think Fed.gov got the memo...

 

[DrewH]

If understand your intepretation of the constitution, Congress has no power to tax the manufacture and sale of arms in any way, or regulate the import or export of arms in any way?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

DrewH, that's how I see it. Taxing those items is an infringement to the keeping and bearing of them. Those things are a hurdle or even a blockade placed between you and arms by the government.

Woody

 

[Black Adder LXX]

Man it would be cool if our mis-representatives actually *followed* the law...

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Interesting state of mind you live in, CC.

 

[Sage of Seattle]

Once again, very well said Woody. Your clarity of vision and way of expressing sometimes complex concepts and ideas very simply is always an inspiration to me.

 

[Logan5]

The power to tax is the power to destroy.

I don't see a $200 a pack tax on cigarettes, and unlike fully automatic firearms, you cannot direct the consequences at an inanimate target.

Legitimate political campaigns to protect us from ourselves are far, far more rare than self serving attempts to pander to the LCD of idiot who can possibly make it to the polling place under their own power.

I'm not seeing any Carrie Nations, burning up with the fire of the true believer. I'm seeing self serving psychophants who want to maximize their own political power, coincidentally resulting in personal enrichment. I'm totally open to counter arguments, but that's where I'm at at the moment.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Sage,

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

Logan5

I don't rightly think it would be a legitimate political objective to protect us from our "bad habits", especially when it's not in their job description just as it is not in their job description to disarm us to the end of removing any threat we might pose to those in government who engage in misprision. You hit the nail on the head with, "I'm seeing self serving psychophants who want to maximize their own political power, coincidentally resulting in personal enrichment." It's the bread and circuses, it's the man behind the curtain, and the LCD - far outnumbering the aware - can't or won't stand up.

It's amazing - except to the politicians - what placation and fear can buy you. Those of us who can't be placated and will not succumb to fear must be disarmed, for we are the people who stand in the way. That we'll always be here to stand in the way, the protections of the necessary rights were crafted in the Bill of Rights.

Woody

"Revolution is the Right of the People to preserve or restore Freedom. Those vested with power shall neither deprive the People the means, nor compel such recourse." B.E.Wood

 

[DogBonz]

As a student of history

Particularly the revolution, it is crystal clear that the constitution was designed to give the federal government specific powers, but only those outlined. The constitution was a limiting document meant to prevent any portion of the government from taking too much power.

The Bill of Rights was debated before the ratification for a few reasons. Those in favor of a Bill of Rights argued that with out one, that the government, state or federal, could trample citizens rights. Those who argued against a bill of rights did so not because they thought that a government under the new constitution would not be able to trample citizens rights, but that declaring a Bill of Rights would establish that a government had the authority or the right to infringe on these "natural rights" in the first place. They believed that adding a Bill of Rights would be a steeping stone to eradicating all of the "natural rights" that a citizen (or human) had. To see this, one merely has to look at the writings and actions of Madison and Hamilton, the two authors of the constitution before and after the ratification. It is also clear from their personal correspondence that each believed that the other betrayed "the principals of the revolution" in the aftermath of the ratification.

 

[BigG]

Certainly the idea that amendments modify the original language is correct. That is, if there is any conflict between the original writing and the amendment, the later language will prevail.

CC: I'm not sure your placement of the various snips would be agreed to by everybody, but it is arguable, at least.

 

[Nobody's_Hero]

I don't see a $200 a pack tax on cigarettes . . .

At least, not yet.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

CC: I'm not sure your placement of the various snips would be agreed to by everybody, but it is arguable, at least.

It's called taking a stand. I concede nothing. I think the Founding Fathers wanted us to have that stand. Without it, we'd have no justification in law to protect our rights and freedoms; we'd be left with nothing short of insurrection and revolution.

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood