hugh damright
OK, Let's see;
Collective
adj viewed as a whole, taken as one; combined, common; (
grammar) used in the singular to express a multitude.
noun a collective enterprise, as a farm.
The "Webster's Universal Dictionary and Thesaurus" definition of "collective" doesn't fit your use of the word. It can be used to express a multitude of people or a multitude of rights. It is improper to use it to describe a multitude of people who would have a right as a multitude. Does a mob have rights? Is it permissable to lynch someone simply because a mob wants to? No. Is it permissable for a mob to overthrow a despotic government? Yes, because the individuals in the mob have that right. Each individual in the mob adds power to the mob. The right is there because each individual has the right, but the right does not multiply or become valid or more valid in the mob. Only the power increases as the mob grows. Same thing for a lunching. The inception and growth of the lynch mob gains power with each new person added, but since none of the individuals in the mob have the right to lynch, there is only power for the mob to lynch.
Scenario: A throng is marching down the street carrying arms. You ask what they are up to, and one of them says they are going to remove the governor because he refused to step down after loosing the election. Since you have the right, and the rest of the people in the throng have the right, you join and go with them to remove the errant governor. You add power - one more man with a gun. Another throng is marching down the street carrying arms. You ask what they are up to, and one of them says they are going down to the supermarket to get groceries with their arms because the prices are too high. You don't have the right to hold up the market. No one in the throng has the right to hold up the market. Therefore, all you would do if you joined the throng is to increase its power. All that the mob or the throng or the collective is, is power.
A state is not a collective except in a communist society. In a communist society, you have collectivism, and "Webster's Universal Dictionary and Thesaurus" definition of "collectivism" is:
noun the political or economic theory of collective ownership of the means of production and distribution by the state or people.
This country is a democratic republic with a capitolistic economy. There is nothing collective about our country.
"Free government". No government in this country is free. Each and every government in this country is limited by the constitutions which create them.
hugh damright said:
Quote:
I can keep a military force ... I have that power secured to me in the Tenth Amendment.
No, you do not have a right to keep a military force, that is a collective right. Next you will be telling me that you have a right to print money and to make treaties.
First, I'll requote the whole of what I said since you chose to abridge what I wrote:
"I can keep a military force. Congress can form a military force. Power for Congress to do that has been granted to it in Article I, Section 8. Power has been denied the several states to keep a military force in Article I, Section 10. By virtue of that power not denied me in the Constitution, I have that power secured to me in the Tenth Amendment."
It can't be more plain than that! Verb and verse from the Constitution! I have that power by right, my friend. Our history is replete with small militias amd militaristic units. The most noteable, in my opinion, would be the privateers.
Congress has been granted power to coin money. The states have been forbidden to coin money. Nothing in the Constitution forbids me to coin money. By virtue of the Tenth Amendment, I can coin money. Congress has power to regulate the value of whatever I coin, same as it has the power to regulate the value of foreign coin. In the absence of Congress regulating anything I coin, you and I can decide what value it has between us for barter. I would not counterfit US coin because Congress can provide for punishment of that act. I would have you note the nuance of this clause in the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause (6). It grants power to Congress to provide punishment for counterfiting money. It does not forbid it. Congress can, if it deems it necessary and proper, limit or forbid me to coin money. But, everyone can write a promissary note, can't they. It's called "writing a check!" And yes, I know the difference. A check is not legal tender. It is only an authorization for the banking system to transfer money from my account to whomever's account I specify.
You made the following statement:
"Of course, it would be a lot easier to just read the Constitution and emote all the answers, to think I understood it all, as if it was all so simple and basic."
Well, the Constitution is, and was meant to be, simple and basic. But please tell me, what would be the point to display emotion theatrically? You use that word "emote". I don't think it means what you think it means. But then again, you use a lot of words that don't mean what you think they mean.
More tomorrow.
Woody
"The Second Amendment is absolute. Learn it, live it, love it and be armed in the defense of freedom, our rights, and our sovereignty. If we refuse infringement to our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, as protected by the Second Amendment, we will never be burdened by tyranny, dictatorship, or subjugation - other than to bury those who attempt it. B.E.Wood