The real threat of big government?
One of the painful ironies of the conservative movement over the last twenty years is that right-wing activists have often protested and rallied against phantom menaces — black helicopters, Obama’s death panels, a conspiracy to take away gun rights, etc. — while abetting a massive expansion of governmental powers.
After 9/11, the US government circumvented habeas corpus laws and deliberately sent suspected terrorists (some of them wrongly identified) to foreign countries where they would be tortured.
Federal officials and contractors have also used torture in direct interrogations. Guantanamo Bay still holds human beings who have never been charged with any crime.
For a fascinating illumination of this issue, check out this video. I found it on a liberal website, but it comes from Book TV on C-Span 2.
The clip features a compelling conversation between Ralph Nader and conservative legal scholar Andrew Napolitano (a regular guest on Fox News).
Napolitano — like many conservatives — is a constitutional purist and embraces the “natural law” arguments dear to the Right’s larger political theories.
In his view, our actions over the last decade have been a direct attack on those small-government principles:
Well that is so obviously a violation of the natural law, the natural right to be brought before a neutral arbiter within moments of the government taking your freedom away from you.
And the Constitution itself, as the Supreme Court in the Boumediene case pretty much said, wherever the government goes, the Constitution goes with it and wherever the Constitution goes are the rights of the Constitution as a guarantee and habeas corpus cannot be suspended by the president ever.
It can only be suspended by the Congress in times of rebellion…rebellion of such magnitude that judges can’t get into their court houses. That has not happened in American history.
So what President Bush did with the suspension of habeas corpus, with the whole concept of Guantanamo Bay, with the whole idea that he could avoid and evade federal laws, treaties, federal judges and the Constitution was blatantly unconstitutional and is some cases criminal.
There’s much more that is equally provocative, including a discussion of the slow expansion of government power in our criminal justice system.
Watch the video and then share your thoughts below.
The framers wisely inserted the role of President as Commander-in-Chief with respect to protecting the country. We don’t need to be run by committee when at war. In this context, habeas corpus protection has been overruled (for lack of a better word) by military necessity.
JDM –
As Judge Napolitano points out, it just doesn’t work like that — legally at least.
It’s also worth noting that we appear to be in what amounts to be a permanent state of war.
If we accept your construction, then when do we go back to being a nation of laws?
Under what circumstances can Americans ever know again that they will enjoy the protections of the Constitution?
–Brian, NCPR
I think the Judge is entirely right. The issue is that when the BoR was written un-uniformed combatants were hung as spies, what we refer to now as torture was common place and no one was trying to bring military combatants to trial under civilian law. I would prefer we stick to the Constitution and BoR in every case. Politicians have usurped the militarys prerogative in this area, it should all be under Martial Law and not Civilian Law.
Bret – The problem with your assessment here is that we don’t know until they’ve had a fair trial who is a spy, who an enemy combatant, etc.
The military tribunals established early on under the Bush administration lacked basic safeguards for a fair trial.
Again, this isn’t dovish, left-wing peacenik stuff. It’s one of the basic limitations on big government.
If a government can simply declare that you are an enemy of the state and dump you into a martial court system with far fewer protections and liberties, then we are all vulnerable.
–Brian, NCPR
Brian says, “Under what circumstances can Americans ever know again that they will enjoy the protections of the Constitution?”
If we don’t put constitutional constructionists on the bench, then we won’t have a constitution as we know it.
Brian also says, “It’s also worth noting that we appear to be in what amounts to be a permanent state of war. ”
I think that usurping habeas corpus needs to take place within the context of scope of the war, or we do have problems.
Many years ago in a college course on government my professor said “One of the problems of democracy is that it must tolerate the presence of ideas which are potentially destructive of democracy. When we cease tolerating other points of view we cease to be a democracy”. While we cannot allow actions which are destructive of our government recently the tactic is to simply declare anyone who disagrees to be an enemy of the state and lock them up than to treat them as fellow citizens with the same rights as everyone else.
Of course the right will simply retort that we are a republic, not a democracy. It mystifies me how they can read the history of the American Revolution and the founding of this country and not see that democracy was a defining principle or that being a democracy and a republic are not mutually exclusive. What, if not democracy, do they think “of the people, by the people and for the people” means? It also mystifies me that they are so ready to give up the defining principles of our government at the same time they clam to want to “return” to the founders intentions.
It would be interesting to see how “constitutional constructionists” would interpret the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments.
JDM, when did Congress declare war?
The Founders wisely inserted a provision on the declaration of war precisely to prevent the state of permanent war and fundamental abuses of rights that you advocate.
I don’t think that a Declaration of War should suspend the Constitution, but it would certainly make your case a tiny bit less flimsy and anti-civilization.
Brian, those picked up on the battlefield, observed taking part in combat, etc….what else can you call them except combatants? Those caught participating in espionage, sabotage, etc. would also fall under that heading, wouldn’t they? Or as spies? The sticky part is that our enemies today don’t wear uniforms, so do we try them in military courts or civilian? We aren’t engaged in a law enforcement action, we’re engaged in a military action on foreign soil. In my mind they should be tried under martial law. I don’t know exactly what safeguards normally associated with Marital Law you mean that weren’t present, there has been so much rumor and talk about it that I’m unclear on the exact circumstances. I would prefer they all be tried ASAP after capture and executed, imprisoned, released, whatever the case may be. But neither Bush or Obama has done that. So now what?
Mr Bullard, a Republic resembles a Democracy in many ways, true. But they differ none the less. It’s a matter of representation and consensus versus mob rule. I’m not sure what you think “the right” is so willing to give up, maybe you could expand on that?
Bret, since there is little doubt that we’ve won the “wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan and seen to the installation of new governments, shouldn’t the combatants, whether they be in uniform or not, be taken care of by their own government? In any case, how can anyone who believes in democracy say any person does not have the right to some sort of trial.
Judge Napolitano describes himself as a pro-life, Catholic libertarian, so I guess that gives Republicans and Conservatives an “out” on his seemingly liberal views on this subject.
Forgive me my bias, but Constitutional Constructionists and Bible Fundamentalists have a lot in common, in my view. They tend to “literally” interpret things as they wish them to be. Christ did say he was bringing a new Covenant; Fundamentalis Christians should not quote the OT where if differs from his teaching. In the Constitutional sense, shouldn’t a Constructionist insist that one can only be armed if they are part of a well-sestablished militia?
I know…a little off topic. My point is that I don’t believe their are either strict Constructionists or strict Fundamentalists.
Bret, Republic is a form of government, the structure it uses to operate. You can have a democratic republic or a socialist republic. Both are republics by virtue of their structure. Democracy is more a philosophy or operating principle, the ‘mission statement’ if you will. It was the mission of the founders to establish a democracy (imperfect as it is) and America has long prided itself on being “the world’s leading democracy”.
As for what the right is so willing to give up? Habeas corpus and the right to privacy were both pretty thoroughly trashed in recent years while the right justified it as necessary.
Brian, Bret, et.al –
First, the text of the Constitution, not the Bill of Rights, ensures the “great writ” of habeas corpus. Second, Brian, why is it that you dumb down your analysis of the “conservative movement”? Being provocative is one thing but it’s tedious now. How about making some distinctions between the dopes concerned about black helicopters and the more thoughtful among the right. If you were just a little more careful in what you wrote you could identify George Will and others (i.e. Peggy Noonan, Bork, Glendon, etc.) on the right that don’t support the Tea Party types, Ron Paul’s form of Libertarianism, & GWB’s so-called form of conservatism.
Brian said: “Again, this isn’t dovish, left-wing peacenik stuff.”
Yes, Brian, these days it is, for the most part.
Most of the people protesting the Patriot Act and the usurpation of civil liberties under Bush, and who are angry with Obama today for not reversing those policies, are dovish, left-wing peacenik types.
You make it sound like it’s a bad thing. Or at the very least, unserious.
Have you no respect for people who are right, unless they are from the right?
PS–you also seem to be apologizing for finding a fact-based discussion of the issue on a “liberal” web site, as if it has cooties or something. It’s OK. Really, it is. Liberals are people, too.
PNElba- sounds reasonable to me. So unless there are valid security concerns why hasn’t Obama done this?
Dan, with respect to your 2nd Amend. argument- the people means the whole of the people in all the rest of the Constitution and BoR. Do you propose that in the 2nd “the people” means only the militia? Sorry, that argument got shot down decades ago.
Mr Bullard, are we talking about a republican form of gov’t or a democratic form of gov’t? My understanding is that we have a republican form of gov’t in which the voice and vote of the people is trusted in their representatives. In a democratic form of gov’t 50.00001 percent of the mass vote carries the day, ie- mob rule. The other 49.00099% can just suffer. Both have similar elements in that the whole of the population gets to vote, etc. Are we saying the same thing 2 different ways?
Ummmm, this right wing nut job never went for the Patriot Act. I understood the idea, but it wasn’t right. And Habeas Corpus under military law wasn’t the same as under civil law, or so I understood. Either way, there were a lot of “us” that had a bad feeling, but yeah, we got sold a bill of goods. So what’s the new guy in the White House done to correct it?
Bret, I don’t know why (President) Obama hasn’t done this. I assume because it is a politically untenable position at the moment. Republicans, admittedly with the help of many Democrats, had eight years to convince the American people they need to be afraid. Very afraid. And, they continue to do so with the help of the Tea Party.
President Obama is a nazi, fascist, communist, who pals around with terrorists, hates America and is the single most dangerous man in America. He is not even a citizen. I assume those characterizations make it a bit difficult to actually govern.
During the Cold war did we try Soviet Spies from the Soviet Union in our courts?
1. By the definition of amendment, the Bill of Rights (BoR) is part of the Constitution.
2. Some founding principles of our republic are:
a. The individual’s liberty is to be protected from the Government. (Hence: “habeas corpus”, limited policing powers, and a judiciary separated from the executive.)
b. The minority shall be heard, but the majority rules.
c. Congress (alone) declares war; the Commander-In-Chief prosecutes that which is declared.
d. Congress (alone) ratifies treaties (and by implication ends war).
We have strayed. Both the Right and Left have aided and abetted. I fear the growing extrajudicial and extra-legislative power of the executive.
PNElba, but he has the House and Senate. Despite his shortcomings, a few which you named, he could still do it and fix things. Instead he;s playing basketball, attending parties and golfing. The man needs to get to work instead of playing games.
BTW- the Tea Party is about TAXES. I don;t know why people can;t get that through their heads. Taxed Enough Already- T.E.A.
Bret, I get the sense that you are seeing these terms in black and white, the notion that something is either a republic or a democracy, it can’t be both.
From the Free dictionary: “Republic a) A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president. b) A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.”
From the same dictionary: “Democracies – a) Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.” I would have added emphasis to those last 4 words if the blog interface allowed.
Despite your repeated denials the US government is a democracy. It was designed as such and despite the efforts of some, it remains as such.
“but he has the House and Senate…” Sure, he “had” the House and Senate if you mean a majority of Democrats were elected to those bodies. But you are being disingenuous. There are still a number of very conservative Democrats, especially in the Senate (of course you know that). The House is working, the Senate is not working. If the Senate were allowed to cast votes on Bills maybe things would get done. Majority does not rule in the Senate. Good example of a democracy, huh?
I wonder how well the Senate will work if the Republicans take control of it? Should Democrats prevent a Republican Senate from voting by using the filibuster?
Brett, when the writers said “people”, I think they meant “people”. When they said “well-regulated”, that’s what they meant.
James- a democracy and republic share elements, but in one you have representative gov’t. In the other you have, or can have, mob rule. The difference historically would be the Roman Republic and the French Revolution. Representative Government versus democratic anarchy. That’s why the the Founders established a REPUBLIC. I don;t mean to quibble over words, but they matter.
PNElba- I am of course pulling your chain a bit. When Bush had both houses he never did a lot that he could have either. Why? You said it best- politics. They talk the talk and then they cave. Neither party is worthy of election at this point.
Dan, so “the people” means only those people with certain duties in the 2nd but the whole of the people everywhere else? Sorry, that makes no sense to me or the Supreme Court. You have the right to bear arms, if you wish. You aren’t obligated to, but it’s one of your unalienable rights as an American citizen. You don’t have to speak out either, but you have that right too. You don’t have to exercise your freedom to worship, but you can if you want.
This whole discussion reminds me of a song by a Canadian folksinger I heard in Clayton last Summer. I think his name was Jeremy Fisher and he wrote a song called “Fall For Anything”. The chorus of the song is, “If you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything”. This phrase sums up the thoughts and feelings I experienced when I first learned about the content of the USA PAtriot Act. You can’t call what we have, “Rights”, if someone in government can be exempt from recognizing those rights. Try, Youtube, George Carlin, “Your Rights”
Like George said, just ask Japanese Americans during WWII about “rights”.
Fear is a powerful emotion.
Bret, You are quibbling over words. Worse you are ignoring their accepted meanings. You allege that to have a democracy is to have mob rule but the meaning (as I clearly quoted from the dictionary) is “Democracies – a) Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.” That’s what we have. Nothing there about “mob rule”. Mob rule must be a Bret’s dictionary definition. When is it being published?
No, James, you miss the point. No matter what you say the Founders established a republic, it’s that simple. Democratic elements aside, we don’t have a democracy, we have a republic. Why is that so hard to understand? Yes they share elements, but they differ.
i’m with james — i don’t (and never have) get what bret is talking about with this republicanism vs. democracy business. here’s what my computer’s dictionary says (my bold):
democracy |diˈmäkrəsē|
noun ( pl. -cies)
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representative
how is that not what the founders intended? how is that not the system we have? contrary to what bret writes, we plainly do have a democracy. how else do you understand the word, bret? by “democracy” do you always mean “plebiscitary democracy”? so far your explanations have consisted solely of dropping pejoratives like “mob rule” and “anarchy.”
Okay, look my communicative skills are apparently limited, so I’ll fall back of the internet like you guys have-
“A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.
Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word “people” may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]
Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.]”
Does that help with the distinction? Honestly, the fact we argue over this shows how far the bar of our civics education has dropped. I suppose my using “mob rule” was a poor choice, but if you are familiar with any of the discussion on the subject that is the term used quite often. I suppose it’s to conjure up visions of the French Revolution or the Bolsheviks. I apologize, I tend to assume my thoughts are expressed more clearly than they seemingly are. But the fact remains we were established as a republic and not a democracy and by not understanding that distinction we loose sight of why we even have many of the rights we do. It’s not a small thing.
Read more here-
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html
Evidently, the difference between a republic and a democracy is a big deal in conservative/libertarian circles. Search “republic vs democracy” and that will become apparent.
i feel kinda embarrassed for having just spent so much time following up on this, but i feel like i’ve made some progress! and the conclusion, which i guess has been obvious all along, is that bret and his fellow conservatives truly use the words “republic” and “democracy” in a way different from common parlance, simple as that.
according to common parlance, of course the u.s. is a democracy. as is canada. as is india. as is every country i can think of in europe (which is not to say i’m thinking hard about it, and who knows about russia, but still). these all plainly meet the definitions given by james and me above. check any mass market english dictionary or wikipedia. when bush and the neocons talk about spreading democracy, they’re talking about democracy in the common parlance sense. when essentially any commenter here besides bret talks about democracy, they’re talking about it in the common parlance sense.
but bret uses and interprets these words in a much more arcane way. so far as i understand it, in a republic elected representatives govern according to the rule of the majority, but there is a meaningful framework in place to restrict what the majority can and cannot do. (in the u.s. i guess this is essentially the constitution, and in individual states the state constitutions in addition. of course that framework can be changed, but it’s not easy to do so!) in a democracy à la bret there is no such framework, so that the majority is unchecked in what it can do.
HT, I’m disappointed. I thought this was pretty easy to grasp based on the links provided and I really thought this would “click” since most of the posters here are a bit above the mouth breathing moron level. You honestly don’t see the difference? It’s the difference between liberal and conservative, both political shades, but different. Is it that hard to see? Or is it that you just don’t care about the difference?
huh bret? didn’t i just try to summarize my understanding of the difference — did you read my last sentence?
Your tone suggested you were scoffing at the idea. My apologies if I misinterpreted. Words like “arcane” tend to lend an air of disbelief to your post. My understanding of the difference between a democracy and republic may not meet with the contemporary (ie- dumbed down) Wikipedia version, but the difference is real and important. The North didn’t send the Grand Army of the Democracy against the south. Lincoln didn’t reference “the democracy” in this letter- ”
I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and cause me to tremble for safety of my country; corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in High Places will follow, and the Money Power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the People, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic destroyed.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN, letter to Col. William F. Elkins, Nov. 21, 1864
Ben Franklin was quoted as saying we were given “…a republic, if you can keep it”.
Apparently we don’t even know the difference anymore. How can we be expected to “keep it”?
Bret,
Do conservatives use these semantic distinctions to somehow “prove” that Obama is illegitimate, i.e. that a “mob” democracy elected him, and therefore the republic is in danger?
This is a serious question. I don’t read the same web sites you do, and am interested in the importance placed on the distinction between the two terms. I’m asking, I guess, once you’ve teased out the differences between a republic and a democracy, and find as any right-thinking person does, that a republic is truer to our origins and therefore preferable, what’s the end game, as it pertains to our current affairs?
arcane |ärˈkān|
adjective
understood by few; mysterious or secret : modern math and its arcane notation.
that was exactly the meaning i intended to convey by using the word “arcane.” and i think it was exactly the right word to use. i don’t see why it lends an air of disbelief at all.
i have no idea about the history of the usage of the words “democracy” and “republic,” and while it seems clear enough that understanding this history is important to properly understand the writings of the founders and other historical figures, i can’t say it’s something that really gets me excited. it’s great to understand that a government with formal constraints placed on the majority is different from one without them, but i think it’s pedantry to insist that exclusively one be called a republic and the other a democracy — that’s not what the words have evolved to mean. while maybe it was an important distinction to worry about 250 years ago, i think it’s safe to say that basically everyone today thinks democracy without checks on the majority is a terrible idea and there’s hardly any need to have special terminology for it.
Anon, Obama was legitimately elected as far as the election itself goes. He received the greater number of Electoral College votes. I don’t know of any argument in that line beyond the usual voter intimidation/fraud charges that follow every election. IMO the difference between a republic and democracy is important in understanding the basic thought and theory that formed the USA and why the Founders set things up like they did, whether it’s the BoR or separation of powers or the particular wording of things. The Founders did quibble over words, that’s why the line reads “…life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…” and not as originally written, “…life, liberty and property…”. The single word “property” would have been all the South needed to block any moves towards an end to slavery. It’s important because it gives a slightly different flavor and tone to the concepts of personal freedoms, or unalienable rights, of States Rights a limited Federal Gov’t.
Seriously, there were years of work put into the particular wording of the early documents that set up our nation. To ignore the specifics is to ignore the basic tenants of our rights and freedoms. The addition of a comma to a widely circulated copy of the Bill of Rights changed the tone and to some the meaning of one of the rights enumerated. Things like that are incredibly important, especially to those who are just unaware of the concepts and changes.
HT- If you know the difference then you are already a step ahead when discussing the issue. If you are blissfully unaware of the difference then the conversation can’t even start, can it? How do you discuss shades of color with a blind man? You and I were given a republic and all the rights and responsibilities that go with it. It doesn’t excite you, fine. It did excite me when I first realized the difference, and many others share my interest in this. What the words have evolved to mean isn’t as important as what they were intended to mean, in fact the modern usage of the word is unimportant really. It’s the intent and spirit of what was given to us that matters. Without a firm grasp of the nuances (Brians favorite word lately) you lose the meaning. Add in 200 plus years of misinterpretation and outright ignorance….look around you, this is what you get.
Classic pigeon holing of discussion. Most conversations and internet posts end this way…off topic and quibbling over bull%$@*
Fail!
Back to the matter…we’re all kinda screwed and isn’t Ralph Nader the cats meow? My personal hero.
Great conversation between Nader and Napolitano. I recommend watching it in it’s entirety here – http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/293848-1
Brett, Do you realize you keep proving my point; that semantics are used selectively to support a point of view? I was clear, I thought, that the writers meant ALL the people; they were intelligent men who meant exactly what they wrote. However, they would not have used the phrase “well regulated” if that wasn’t what they meant. It appears to me that you are the one parsing words, and implying that the writers meant what they said…sometimes.
As another famous literary charcter says, “A word means ecxactly what I want it to mean. Nothing more, nothing less.”
So you maintain that only the milita has the right to bear arms? Fine, do a search on who makes up the militia and you still end up with the vast majority of the populace having the right to bear arms. But this is the area I spoke of where that crummy little comma got inserted and screws with people heads. The BoR ratified by the states contained only one comma- “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.” But other copies have additional, up to 3, commas inserted. Mucho confusion and much discussion follows this subject even today. You want to understand the Founders thoughts then do the research and read the discussions. If you really think the Founders, having just gone through a harrowing war, would deliberately disarm the population then you have a completely different and very incorrect view of their intentions.
Even Wikipedia gets it. Note the continued reference to “the body of the people” making up the militia. You’ll find the recent war and Britains
attempts at disarming the Colonies, as in the Boston Massacre, were fresh in their minds. “The people” means the people, not the militia. If they’d meant the militia they would have said “the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”..
Conflict and compromise in Congress produce the Bill of Rights
James Madison’s initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[68]
On July 21, Madison again raised the issue of his Bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison’s motion,[69] and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. The committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment on July 28.[70] On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.[71]
The Second Amendment was debated and modified during sessions of the House on in late August of 1789. These debates revolved primarily around risk of “mal-administration of the government” using the “religiously scrupulous” clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the U.S. Senate:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
The next day, August 25, the Senate received the Amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. When the Amendment was transcribed, the semicolon in the religious exemption portion was changed to a comma by the Senate scribe:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[72]
By this time, the proposed right to keep and bear arms was in a separate amendment, instead of being in a single amendment together with other proposed rights such as the due process right. As a Representative explained, this change allowed each amendment to “be passed upon distinctly by the States.”[73] On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:
A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[74]
The Senate returned to this amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words “for the common defence” next to the words “bear arms” was defeated.[75] The Senate then slightly modified the language and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was:
A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate, but the amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words “necessary to”:
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.[76]
On December 15, 1791, the first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights), having been ratified by three-fourths of the states, were appended to the Constitution.
Brett, I have never said that. I am not a Constructionist; I believe the Constitutuion was drafted as a living document. The Framers knew the world changes, and did not intend their words to be graven in stone. It’s the principles that matter, rather than the strict interpretation of individual words.
I do thank you for the information.
And the principal is that free men have unalienable rights that gov’t cannot infringe upon. Thanks for helping.