Considering the 2nd Amendment in Oregon
Topic: Constitution
Once again in Oregon the debate over gun legislation looms as new laws are put before congress by Senator Burdick. Advocates, both for and against strict gun legislation, issue an unending supply of rhetoric to support their respective causes. But let’s recall the root of our right to bear arms. The second amendment reads:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Most people forget the first half of the sentence, I’ll get to that later. The second half states clearly; “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

First, the very sentence itself assumes that the people already have an inherent natural right to keep and bear arms that precedes the founding document. But let’s look more closely.

To keep, in this context, clearly means to own or posses, and to bear means “to physically carry” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, ? 1996).

To infringe is defined as “to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, ? 1996).

Thus you could rewrite the second half of the sentence: the right of the people to own and physically carry Arms, shall not be encroached upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.

So clearly the right for me to carry a gun around cannot be encroached upon in a way that violates the law. But it also cannot be encroached upon in a way that violates my rights. The conjunction “or” logically determines that in a statement “X or Y,” either X or Y must be true for the statement to be true. Only if both X and Y are false is the statement also false.

Therefore the encroachment on a person X’s right to bear arms can neither violate law, nor can it violate another person Y’s natural and assumed right to keep and bear arms. What this means is that most current gun legislation is unconstitutional. The government really only has the right to restrict gun ownership of specific individual persons on a case by case basis; and still may do so only in accordance with the law.

The most important and most widely ignored portion of the second amendment is the first part: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” here is the essence of the second amendment. The right to bear arms is not to protect the rights of legions of sportsman hunters; it is to protect the right of the people and the states to form militias for their protection and self-defense. Why did the founding fathers feel it necessary to explicitly guaranty this right? As a final check and balance by the people against the potential tyranny of their government.

When one comprehends the true importance of the second amendment, it becomes clear what Thomas Jefferson meant by his remark: “The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”

Response to ops
Topic: Constitution
The reply from me on this post by ops on the Oregon Live Forum was deleted by the moderators.

ops' post in entirety: "Your deciding what is constitutional... doesn't show any documentation only personal opinion. Few of us will agree that there is no constitutional basis for FICA or federal ownership of land.

"The Constitution established a branch of gov't known as the legislative branch. When the legislative branch passes a bill and the President(established by the Constitution as the Chief Executive to head up the Executive Branch) signs said bill it becomes the law of the land-an extension of the Constitution. Should an American citizen disagree with the law this citizen can file suit in federal court to challenge the Constitutionality of this law. I suggest that you challenge the FICA program in federal court if you are convinced it is unconstitutional.

"I would fight to keep federal lands out of the hands of developers just to pay taxpayer obligations. Provide documentation of the unconstitutional nature of the national gov't owning land 'in toto' for its citizens."

My response to his post follows:

ops: "When the legislative branch passes a bill and the President(established by the Constitution as the Chief Executive to head up the Executive Branch) signs said bill it becomes the law of the land-an extension of the Constitution."

Actually, the Fed only has the power to make laws with regard to the enumerated powers it is given in the Constitution. This is established by the tenth amendment; "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Article 5 of the Constitution describes the method of enacting amendments for the purpose of adding to or taking away enumerated powers.

The Constitutional argument in favor of FICA is well known and is based on the "general welfare" clause of Article 1, Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and **general Welfare** of the United States" (emphasis mine).

The Supreme Court did find SS to be Constitutional in Helvering vs. Davis May 24, 1937. Never-the-less Interpretation of this clause is a matter of debate. Suffice it to say that I strongly disagree with the current interpretation held by the Supreme Court. I strongly suggest you read this article regarding that important case:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/attarian7.html

ops: "I suggest that you challenge the FICA program in federal court if you are convinced it is unconstitutional."

I think your suggestion is a bit tongue and cheek, but actually you are right. There really is very little recourse but what you suggest. The problem is in the method. Federal Courts deciding whether a Federal Law is unconstitutional. I hope you see the conflict of interest there. Personally I would rather see the States take this issue up as a states rights issue. While the Federal Government has no Constitutional Right to provide Social Security, under the 10th Amendment the States actually do have that right.

ops: "Provide documentation of the unconstitutional nature of the national gov't owning land 'in toto' for its citizens."

That's easy. The clause concerning Federal ownership of land is also in Article 1, Section 8 and reads as follows; "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings"

The Fed can buy land for those purposes only, according to the constitution. Again, however the Fed found a way around this restriction, by a very loose interpretation of the Fifth Amendment; see the following link:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/14.html

This is the birth of "Eminent Domain" in the US in 1879. The Abuses of this "power" are many and well documented. Just google "Eminent Domain Abuse" and see for yourself.

From Oregon Live
Topic: Constitution
Occasionally I post to the Oregon Live Forum, where my moniker is TrueLiberal. Here are some good discussions of late:

****************************************************

QUOTE from post by T77: "We must always pay the bills for the things we want. Whether it is an invasion of Iraq or a badly needed reform of Social Security we must never irresponsibly take the product and pass on the costs to others. That is not moral and not good government. If we want Social Security reform and the majority of the younger families and workers do want that, we must pay the cost of the new program. If we do not the reform will be even worse than the collapsing bankrupting mess we have now."

My response:

Pay the bills? Your analogy is way off T77. A bill is something I pay for a service I WANT - like cable, electricity, house payments, food etc. I don't want SS, I never asked for SS. Whether the money the government takes from my paycheck *by force* goes into a public slush fund or to a government controlled "private account" doesn't make a lick of difference to me. It is still money (property) taken from me by force. The irresponsibility you speak of is *government* irresponsibility and passing the cost to others is ALL THEY CAN DO!

SS in any form is immoral. Welfare is immoral. And taxing the labor of individuals in the guise of serving them is immoral.

A man I greatly respect once said:

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government."

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

The man who said those things was Thomas Jefferson.

***************************************************

QUOTE from T77: "You signed up for this when you were born in America or voluntarily became an American citizen As did I. I do not want Social Security in its present form either. I wish to have all my FICA withholdings available to me to invest as I freely choose. Not as the State demands.
Nonetheless, as I am an American citizen, I have certain duties, obligations and requirements placed upon me in return for that immeasurably precious gift. One of these is to meet the financial obligations made by past generations of Americans. Whether the commitments they made were wise or foolish they made them in their name and mine (and yours), as well as my descendents and those of my fellow countrymen.

"The present generation of elderly were promised something they counted on. The fact that the promise was unwise does not in any way detract from the fact it was made. As American citizens in an American democracy we are all responsible for the promises our democratically elected government makes and the actions our democratically elected government takes. We do not run out on them. When we find such promises or actions are unwise we can change them but we cannot run from the promises we made.

"We need (in my estimation) to grant American citizens the freedom to invest their own money as they wish. We also need to live up to the promises we made in lieu of such freedom. We can and must do both. We cannot run out on the bill or our promises. That is not mature or responsible American citizenship."

My Response:

Your statement ""You signed up for this when you were born in America..." is extremely short-sited and actually quite frightening. It is the moral equivalent of a slave in the early 1800's saying to another slave the very same thing. I think you know what the field slaves called the other slaves that defended the slaveholders...

I am not against pay SS benefits to those who have paid into the system. I suggest that the Feds sell the millions of acres of Federal land and property (buildings, etc.) into private ownership and use the revenue generated to cut checks to all who are owed.

Kills two birds with one stone doesn't it? Rids the Feds of a social program it has no constitutional right to run and at the same time rids them of property they have no constitutional right to own!

***************************************************

QUOTE from MightyS: "Social Security is a "we" thing, not an "I" thing. We all pay in as T77 said, to meet our obligations to those who came before us. Both of my parents are now dead. I could not imagine voting yes for anything that would alter social security. I know that I could take my contributions to SS and put them in a different type of investment, but, at what cost to me?(not monetarily speaking)

So many people in search of the American Dream believing it is being financially wealthy. In reality, every U.S. Citizen is living it! The true dream is the freedom that we have that few citizens of other countries will ever even glimpse in our life times.

Getting rich isn't a bad goal. It is the path that gets you there which counts."

My response:

I know as Kierx2000 said, I am just screaming into the wind here, but please stop and think. "we" thing? "WE" thing? Are you kidding me? Who is this great "We" you speak of?

I assume you agree then, with everything this "We" does in your name? So When "We" decides your house is in the way of a development that "We" wants to build you are A-OK when "We" condemns your house and takes your property? You won't mind if "We" takes away more and more of your individual liberties under the pretense of taking care of you and working towards the "greater good"? Finally, after "We" had usurped every liberty the founding fathers gave you, if "We" started mass extermination of (insert ethnicity) you would be ok with that? You have a lot more faith in the benevolence of the all-knowing "We" than I do.

Freedom? I wonder if you have the slightest idea of what freedom is, how difficult freedom is to maintain and how easy it is for it to be taken away. I never said a thing about getting rich. I'm not rich, and may never be. There is nothing wrong with wealth though. Unless it is looted wealth.

****************************************************

QUOTE from MightyS: "Something about, "We the people" comes to mind. I do have faith in the "we", because, a group of people doing good things has a great deal of power.

"I wasn't thinking of you in particular about the rich part. It just seems to me that "greed" is run rampant in our country at this point in time. So, the "we" is very very important to maintain the intergrity in which our country was formed.
A group of "we" can be very strong in putting forth evil as you suggested, but, a group of good will always overcome.

By the way, my father served in WWII to help preserve our freedom. I have his flag in my living room." - MightyS

My Response:

MightyS I appreciate the rational discussion we are having, this is a refreshing change from many who respond to my posts. And I am also grateful for your father's service in defense of our country.
However, I think that our country has, for the last 8 or 9 decades, continued along a path that gives ever more power to our government (in blatant disregard to the constitution) under the pretense that the government will provide us with security through a overly strong military and far reaching social welfare programs.

I agree with Benjimin Franklin when he said, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Although a group of people doing good things has a great deal of power, remember also that the path to hell was paved with good intentions and we cannot allow the will of a good-meaning "We" trump the rights of an individual lest we find ourselves in a country like Cuba or China filled with well meaning "brothers" and "comrades" watching our every move lest we do something that is not in the best interest of "We"

Have you ever read "Anthem" by Ayn Rand? You should. It is a short read and very pertinent to our discussion.

The Confusing Constitution
Mood:  bright
Topic: Constitution
"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."

- Thomas Jefferson


Ask someone on the street, "What do we have a constitution for?' and you are likely to get a variety of answers. When I walked the streets of my quaint little piece of suburbia I expected my neighbors would know quite a bit about our founding documents. I was surprised to find the opposite to be true. Answers ranged from, "It freed us from England" to "It gives us our Rights."

A few people I asked at least understood that the constitution outlines how our government functions, and many people I talked to knew quite a lot about the circumstances and history surrounding the birth of our nation (presumably avid History Channel watchers) but still did not have a very clear understanding of the purpose of the Constitution of our country.

One common problem I ran into was that people often confuse the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and The Bill of Rights. These three documents which make up our national foundation serve separate and completely different purposes. The first, The Declaration of Independence isn't even part of The Constitution. Many People, however, continue to invoke various phrases from the Declaration and other works by our founding fathers as proof that this or that action is unconstitutional.

The document that we call the Constitution is made up of three parts. The first is the actual Constitution, The second is made up of the first ten amendments ratified by the constitutional convention, which is commonly known as the Bill of Rights, and the third are all the amendments passed since that time.

The Constitution is a document that enumerates the powers of our government. You can think of it as a numbered list of Things the Government Can Do. If it is on the list, the government can do it, if it is not on the list the government can't. It really is that simple.

The founding fathers knew better than anyone the dangers of an unchecked and powerful centralized government. They feared such a government so much, in fact, that in their first attempt to create a federal government under the Articles of Confederation they gave the federal government (if it could be called that) almost no power at all.

Under the Articles of Confederation the country had no President, and no Supreme court (or any Judiciary Branch to speak of). Amendments to the Articles could only be made with the unanimous consent of the member states. The new nation could raise a navy but only the states would raise armies and only the states were allowed to collect taxes.

Of course the founders of our nation soon realized that such a weak confederation of states could quickly be torn apart by internal strife or external threats. They needed a stronger alliance among the states but they still wanted to ensure that the United States remained a republic and not a centralized Nation State.

So our Founders carefully penned the Constitution to Unite the States in a stronger union yet maintain the republican form and libertarian values on which the union was founded. And just to make sure that future generations did not forget. They attached the Bill of Rights.

Now this is the confusing part. Because while the Constitution was meant to be a list of things the government CAN do. The Bill of Rights seems to be a list of things the government CAN'T do. Why would the founders write a constitution enumerating the powers of government, withholding from government all powers not given it by the constitution, and then turn around and make a list of things that the government can't do anyway. The founders discussed this very issue and the confusion it bring later. One important reason for adding the bill of rights was to make sure these rights were protected in the individual States.

Still there was a concern that the Bill's addition to the Constitution would confuse the enumerated powers to which the Fed is restricted. In part to allay any fears of that confusion, the 10th amendment was added to the Bill of Rights in order to cement the intention that the Constitution be an enumerated list of government powers.

What does that mean? Well, for one it means that even if there were no Bill of Rights, no First or Second Amendments, you would still have "freedom of speech" and the "right to bear arms" simply because the government does not have the constitutional power to take those rights away. So it is helpful to remember that the Bill of Rights is really directed at the States not the Feds.