Graystar
Member
Yes, it pains me to hear it as well. However, in reviewing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights it became so obvious that I simply cannot ignore it any longer. Therefore, I submit for your scrutiny this notion...that the term “the People†is a collective term in every right, privilege, or immunity in which it is used within the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
My distinction between “collective†and “individual†is simple...if an act can be fully completed by an individual, it is individual in nature. If the act cannot be fully completed by an individual, and thus requires several individuals or a majority of individuals to fully complete, then it is collective in nature. This makes the individual vs. collective test fairly simple.
So lets look at “the People†within the Constitution. First up is the Preamble.
Next appearance of “the People†is in the choosing of Members of the House of Representatives.
The last time “the People†appears in the Constitution is in ratification article.
Next, lets look at the Amendments. The term in question appears 5 times within the Bill of Rights. It’s use in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments really could go either way, and so offers no support for either position. The Second Amendment also offers no support to either position. That leaves the First and Fourth Amendments. Lets look at the First.
As for the other rights protected by the First Amendment (religion, speech, press) there is no reference to “the People†within them. And not-so-coincidently, these rights pass the individual vs. collective test for individualism, as these rights can be fully exercised by individuals.
Finally lets look at the Fourth Amendment.
The Amendment says “The right of the people [the collective] to be secure in their persons [individuals]...â€
And there you have it...a clear and unequivocal distinction between the collective and the individual within an amendment. In fact, when the Found Fathers referred to an individual, they always used the word “person,†which appears 22 times within the Constitution and 4 times within the Bill of Rights.
On the strength of this evidence, I can only conclude that the Second, Ninth, and Tenth amendments also follow the pattern, and are collective in nature.
My distinction between “collective†and “individual†is simple...if an act can be fully completed by an individual, it is individual in nature. If the act cannot be fully completed by an individual, and thus requires several individuals or a majority of individuals to fully complete, then it is collective in nature. This makes the individual vs. collective test fairly simple.
So lets look at “the People†within the Constitution. First up is the Preamble.
So lets put it to the test...can a single individual establish a Constitution? Unless you’re living alone on an island, I’d say the answer is “no.†This use of “the People†must be collective in nature.We the People of the United States
...
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Next appearance of “the People†is in the choosing of Members of the House of Representatives.
Once again, the test is simply and straightforward ...can an individual fully exercise this privilege? The answer is no. No single individual can decide who goes to Washington. That determination must be made collectively. Therefore, this reference is also collective in nature.The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,
The last time “the People†appears in the Constitution is in ratification article.
Again, the individuality test is simple...could an individual determine, fully on his own, who was to be a delegate? The answer is no. Once again, “the People†exhibits its collective nature.That the preceeding Constitution be laid before the United States in Congress assembled, and that it is the Opinion of this Convention, that it should afterwards be submitted to a Convention of Delegates, chosen in each State by the People thereof, under the Recommendation of its Legislature, for their Assent and Ratification
Next, lets look at the Amendments. The term in question appears 5 times within the Bill of Rights. It’s use in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments really could go either way, and so offers no support for either position. The Second Amendment also offers no support to either position. That leaves the First and Fourth Amendments. Lets look at the First.
The First Amendment is interesting is that the only time the term “the People†is used is when referring to assembly, which is collective in nature. It is collective because a single person cannot fully exercise this right...as an individual person does not constitute an assembly. This right is only fully realized when two or more people act in concert.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
As for the other rights protected by the First Amendment (religion, speech, press) there is no reference to “the People†within them. And not-so-coincidently, these rights pass the individual vs. collective test for individualism, as these rights can be fully exercised by individuals.
Finally lets look at the Fourth Amendment.
At first sight, the Fourth seems to be the showstopper...we clearly accept the right against unreasonable searches and seizures to be individual, but the term “the people†is being used. It would seem that the Fourth Amendment doesn’t follow the pattern I’ve proposed. However, closer review proves this observation wrong. The observation is wrong because individuals are one of the elements secured.The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The Amendment says “The right of the people [the collective] to be secure in their persons [individuals]...â€
And there you have it...a clear and unequivocal distinction between the collective and the individual within an amendment. In fact, when the Found Fathers referred to an individual, they always used the word “person,†which appears 22 times within the Constitution and 4 times within the Bill of Rights.
On the strength of this evidence, I can only conclude that the Second, Ninth, and Tenth amendments also follow the pattern, and are collective in nature.
Last edited: