Design a more Perfect form of Government

[Nitack]

As an example, the entire issue of the right to keep and bear arms (only recently resolved) would have been quickly and easily understood if the intent of the forefathers had been more obvious.

 

Am I being naive here?

 

Wasn't it quite clear to them what they wrote and meant by the right to keep and bear arms? It is only 200 years later that we needed a translation from past English to current English.

[Zythryn]

Wasn't it quite clear to them what they wrote and meant by the right to keep and bear arms? It is only 200 years later that we needed a translation from past English to current English.

 

No, actually it wasn't. However it hasn't been that much of an issue until guns/weapons reached the level of power they have in the last 4-5 decades.

 

Is it the right of individuals, or of each states 'well regulated militia'?

I am also curious if the founders considered explosives or cannons 'arms'?

If so, shouldn't I have a right to keep a nuclear weapon in my house?

 

I am sure the writers were very clear to their own meaning. Unfortunately technology, society and to some extent, our language has changed. Leading to questions about how the founders writings should be interpreted.

[Nitack]

No, actually it wasn't. However it hasn't been that much of an issue until guns/weapons reached the level of power they have in the last 4-5 decades.

 

Is it the right of individuals, or of each states 'well regulated militia'?

I am also curious if the founders considered explosives or cannons 'arms'?

If so, shouldn't I have a right to keep a nuclear weapon in my house?

 

I am sure the writers were very clear to their own meaning. Unfortunately technology, society and to some extent, our language has changed. Leading to questions about how the founders writings should be interpreted.

 

I think the founders were very clear if you understand the times they wrote them in. What is not clear is how that concept translates into today's society.

 

Remember, the right of individuals were granted the right to bear arms because at the time there was no concept of a national guard. Militias were basically an organizing of every able bodied man who could carry a gun. Guns did not have the same meaning to society then as they do now. Our economy was mostly agrarian and every farmer (along with most everyone else) kept a riffle for hunting as supplemental to food sources. Guns at that time in our history were mostly a tool, and much more rarely a weapon.

 

I have digressed a bit though. In order for a militia to perform its duty each individual had to have access to a firearm, hence it is guaranteed. Their meaning in context was very clear. What is/was not clear was how that relates to our current time when militias are a thing of past. We now have a national guard that serves the same purpose and there are specific weapons owned and kept by the government for their use. So now the question is much more ambiguous.

[Zythryn]

I think that is a very reasonable interpretation of the original intent.

However, wouldn't some of the current day ambiguity be lessened if the original statement were more clear?

Also, as I understand it, the reasoning was that the people should have the capibility to overthrow the government. Today that would mean a lot more than guns, but tanks, fighters, etc.

[Nitack]

I think that is a very reasonable interpretation of the original intent.

However, wouldn't some of the current day ambiguity be lessened if the original statement were more clear?

Also, as I understand it, the reasoning was that the people should have the capibility to overthrow the government. Today that would mean a lot more than guns, but tanks, fighters, etc.

 

HA, yes you are absolutely right. A country born from revolution against an oppressive government saw the need for individual citizens to retain the right to commit the same act in the future. Although they never envisioned the technology of war we have today.

 

As for making the original statement more clear, that goes right back to my original response to you. It was perfectly clear to them at the time and given the parameters of their understanding of society. After all, in 1776 who would have thought that there would ever not be citizen militias ;)

 

SOOOOOOOOOOO.... Does our more perfect government include the right to own a firearm? Are there constraints on that right? Are their limits to what a reasonable person should be allowed to own?

This will, or will not, be our first right established in our bill of rights depending on the consensus.

[Nitack]

Reply to this...

 

What branches or divisions (very basic structure for now, we will hash out the details later) should our government include?

[Nitack]

So your stating that it is not possible to construct such a document using plain language?

 

I have to agree with Donk on this Kayra. The problem with plain language is that it can mean different things to different people. "All men are created equal"... Are we talking about the race of man, the gender of men, or only who was considered a "full person" at the time of writing rather than 3/5 of a person? Perhaps we can write it in legalese and then write a companion document that explains intent?

[jackson33]

I can see and understand that.

 

Since "Nothing in law and the Constitution is base for all law is or can be simply worded", then...

 

There should then be no need in the constitution for anything more then a description of the spirit or intent of the founders. Clearly and properly worded, people can then rely on the judges and the judicial system to determine the validity of any law put in place by government. The complexities arising from different situations will continue to grow over time, that is inevitable.

 

As an example, the entire issue of the right to keep and bear arms (only recently resolved) would have been quickly and easily understood if the intent of the forefathers had been more obvious.

 

Am I being naive here?

 

The right to bear arms; as interpreted by the recent SC ruling, included the rights to protect home and family or based on other implied rights with in the Constitution, the Amendments, Federalist Papers and all the documents available from those founders. The same was true on Roe/Wade or abortion, where rights of a person eventually led to a ruling. The founders knew society would change, but so long as respectful of law and the original guidance the system would continue.

 

Much of the 'Bill of Rights' was taken from the English 'Magna Carta 1215', which rights were originally listed in the Virginia 'Rights of Citizens'. If you still think our Constitution is complex to understanding, please do read that Magna Carta.

 

Remember, until 1903 Militias were the defenders of States. During the 1898 Spanish American War it was determined these independent militia's could not do that job, eventually leading to 'National Guards' made of inactive but members of a National Army, but from that state. Gun rights only became an issue, when some cities tried to limits ownership and in the DC case outlaw altogether. States and or Cities still can limit, but not legally outlaw. Whats was interesting to me, is that the US House of Representative's are charged with the District's government and the decision a slap at them. They are still not acting as was intended or stepped in to enforce the court ruling.

[Nitack]

Whats was interesting to me, is that the US House of Representative's are charged with the District's government and the decision a slap at them. They are still not acting as was intended or stepped in to enforce the court ruling.

 

The District is a really sad sad case of denying civil liberties to every person that lives there. The fact that they do not have representation (Rep. Holmes has no voting ability), let alone equal representation (two senators and a rep), is a tragedy. We tax them, yet give them no voice in the governing of their country or even city.

 

I wonder if that would still be the case if the majority of people living in the city were affluent whites rather than poor blacks...

[jackson33]

The District is a really sad sad case of denying civil liberties to every person that lives there. The fact that they do not have representation (Rep. Holmes has no voting ability), let alone equal representation (two senators and a rep), is a tragedy. We tax them, yet give them no voice in the governing of their country or even city.

 

I wonder if that would still be the case if the majority of people living in the city were affluent whites rather than poor blacks...

 

The founders believed the Federal Government, should be located and distinctive or obliged to no State. They learned this in Philidelphia...

 

I would agree with that in total or that and suggest the Civil War was a good example of why...

 

As for Taxation w/o Representation, there are many segments of society that are/were technically effected or have been during history. No, I don't think there would be any difference, if an all white influential majority existed. Per capita is by far the highest in Income, GDP...Whites (36%) are increasing, Blacks (54%) decreasing. Think there are about 160 Foreign Embassies and the Federal Government already owns the majority of Buildings. Aside from that, they are supposed to have 435 people looking out for their best interest, compared to 3 (1 Rep/2 Sen) in many states. Then to implement a State Government with in the District would not seem practical/feasible or a benefit to anyone and with out those things, no territory has ever become a State.

[Nitack]

The founders believed the Federal Government, should be located and distinctive or obliged to no State. They learned this in Philidelphia...

 

I would agree with that in total or that and suggest the Civil War was a good example of why...

 

As for Taxation w/o Representation, there are many segments of society that are/were technically effected or have been during history. No, I don't think there would be any difference, if an all white influential majority existed. Per capita is by far the highest in Income, GDP...Whites (36%) are increasing, Blacks (54%) decreasing. Think there are about 160 Foreign Embassies and the Federal Government already owns the majority of Buildings. Aside from that, they are supposed to have 435 people looking out for their best interest, compared to 3 (1 Rep/2 Sen) in many states. Then to implement a State Government with in the District would not seem practical/feasible or a benefit to anyone and with out those things, no territory has ever become a State.

 

Don't know when the last time you visited DC was, but the government does not own the majority of the buildings. They hold a substantial chunk of land, but no where near the majority of the buildings. Also, not one of those 435 people who are supposed to be looking out for their interests is actually elected by those people or even remotely accountable to them. This is the exact same situation we had in the colonies that lead to revolution. A parliament that asserted that they represented these people, even though they were not elected by the colonies or even were from the colonies. That is a bogus claim to say that they look out for the people.

[jackson33]

Don't know when the last time you visited DC was, but the government does not own the majority of the buildings. They hold a substantial chunk of land, but no where near the majority of the buildings. Also, not one of those 435 people who are supposed to be looking out for their interests is actually elected by those people or even remotely accountable to them. This is the exact same situation we had in the colonies that lead to revolution. A parliament that asserted that they represented these people, even though they were not elected by the colonies or even were from the colonies. That is a bogus claim to say that they look out for the people.

 

 

OK, Land and probably value. Think many years ago I used 65% of the value of DC, in arguing National Debt. Obviously any one subdivision has a great deal of buildings...From 1990-2002 was there about 50 times.

 

The Declaration of Independence, in there list of about 30 complaints, 25 start with "HE" ("present King of England") which was George III. I don't know where the war cry, 'Taxation w/o representation' (Boston Tea Party was local) came from but hardly the main or only reason for declaring Independence. Well down the list was "For IMPOSING Taxes without our consent".

 

The founders set up the District System, governing of the District (bogus claim goes to them) and the system for statehood, which is required for voting participation. I hardly think they feared a rebellion then, not should they now. Frankly, the next 37 States, from the various territories, went through quite a lot to become members of that Union.

 

You are peaking my interest on your new form of government. Post 2...

[modest]

Gun rights only became an issue, when some cities tried to limits ownership and in the DC case outlaw altogether. States and or Cities still can limit, but not legally outlaw.

 

The second amendment restricts the federal government from legislating against the right to bear arms. This applies only to federal legislation. States can outlaw or limit guns however they see fit.

 

United States v. Cruikshank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

~modest

[Nitack]

The Declaration of Independence, in there list of about 30 complaints, 25 start with "HE" ("present King of England") which was George III. I don't know where the war cry, 'Taxation w/o representation' (Boston Tea Party was local) came from but hardly the main or only reason for declaring Independence. Well down the list was "For IMPOSING Taxes without our consent".

 

Ah, but you are missing a key part here. The Declaration was levied against the king and not Parliament because the colonists contention was that parliament had no authority over them because they had no representation. The charges were to show that the King had violated his social contract with the people and therefore they had the right to independence.

[Nitack]

I'm at a meeting all day, but would like to leave you all with a couple questions to hash out so that we can start getting some notions down.

 

1. Should there be a legislative branch? What powers should be vested in them? What is the structure?
   
2. Do we require an executive branch or figure? What powers should be vested in them? What is the structure?
   
3. Do we require a judicial branch? What powers should be vested in them? What is the structure?
   
4. Do we require an administrative branch? What powers should be vested in them? What is the structure?
   

[jackson33]

The second amendment restricts the federal government from legislating against the right to bear arms. This applies only to federal legislation. States can outlaw or limit guns however they see fit.

 

United States v. Cruikshank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

~modest

 

Yes, until the recent SC decision States and/or Cities could restrict ownership to any level, including banning ownership. Technically they still can, but can no longer outright ban. Once the US takes jurisdiction, by law or amendment the States cannot enact or enforce law over riding the National Law. Election of Senators, Abortion, Segregation, Voter Rights (suffrage) and a host of regulations for business, just a few other examples....

[jackson33]

Ah, but you are missing a key part here. The Declaration was levied against the king and not Parliament because the colonists contention was that parliament had no authority over them because they had no representation. The charges were to show that the King had violated his social contract with the people and therefore they had the right to independence.

 

No, the point was/is 'Taxation without representation'. As for the complaints, they had been brewing for generation according to Jefferson. If there was a final thorn cast it was probably the British Military presence, which had increased and there influence on the fledgling little colonies. In defense the British were protecting those colonies from increasing attacks from the then Native Americans...