Interpreting the Constituiton

[FredFlash]

"the people" phrase is used in every single other instance where it is placed in the Constitution.

The context in which the term "the people" is used in other sections of the Constitution don't include language such as that contained in the proem of the Second Amendment, which must be made to conspire, if possible, with the other language in the expression.

 

[This_person]

The context in which the term "the people" is used in other sections of the Constitution don't include language such as that contained in the proem of the Second Amendment, which must be made to conspire, if possible, with the other language in the expression.

You're onto something there - the words "well regulated militia" must be made to conspire with the already established meaning of the phrase "the people", not the other way around.

 

[FredFlash]

The militia...are the people of the United States. Everybody.

What method of interpretation did you apply to ascertain that the word "militia" means "the people of the United States. Everybody." We need to know, because we need to be consistent and apply the same method of interpretation to the other words in the Constitution.

 

[FredFlash]

I looked at every other use of the phrase "the people" in the constitution, and in each case it meant all the people.

I looked at what constituted a militia at the time, and it was citizen soldiers, often providing their own weapons.

I checked the status of a standing army at the time, and noted there was no provision for one within the Constitution, nor was a practical one in existence.

I read the Preamble to the Constitution.

I noted what it took to ratify the Constitution.

Now all you need to do is establish that the lawmakers probably intended for that method of interpretation to be applied to the Constitution. What evidence do you have?

 

[This_person]

What method of interpretation did you apply to ascertain that the word "militia" means "the people of the United States. Everybody." We need to know, because we need to be consistent and apply the same method of interpretation to the other words in the Constitution.

The words "well regulated militia" must be made to conspire with the already established meaning of the phrase "the people", not the other way around.

 

[This_person]

Now all you need to do is establish that the lawmakers probably intended for that method of interpretation to be applied to the Constitution. What evidence do you have?

Common sense.

Historical perspective.

Their writings and explainations of the time.

State constitutions, written in large part by the same people, with more restrictive requriements for gun ownership.






What do you have to suggest anything OTHER than what I'm suggesting?

 

[FredFlash]

You're onto something there - the words "well regulated militia" must be made to conspire with the already established meaning of the phrase "the people", not the other way around.

So how do we make them harmonize? It appears we have two options.

We may understand the Amendment to say that,

The people being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall no be infringed?​

or do we understand it to mean,

A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the well regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.​

The Amendment declares that a well regulated militia is necessary. The right to keep and bear is merely the means to that end. Thus, we must comply with the rules and sacrifice the means to the end.

I don't like it that the lawmakers viewed the right to bear arms as merely the means to an end. I don't like it that the lawmakers didn't clearly acknowledge a right to have weapons for self defense. But, we must respect the words of the lawmakers and the rules of construction, even if we don't like the outcome.

 

[FredFlash]

Common sense.

Historical perspective.

Their writings and explainations of the time.

State constitutions, written in large part by the same people, with more restrictive requriements for gun ownership.

I read you to say you have no evidence that the lawmakers believed the Constitution should be interpreted according to the method you advocate.

 

[FredFlash]

What do you have to suggest anything OTHER than what I'm suggesting?

To ascertain the meaning of the Constitution, I suggest we apply the well established common law rules of construction prevalent at the time the Constitution was being made. Are you familiar with the rules of construction?

 

[This_person]

So how do we make them harmonize? It appears we have two opinions.

We may understand the Amendment to say that,

The people being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall no be infringed?​

or do we understand it to mean,

A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the well regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.​

The Amendment declares that a well regulated militia is necessary. The right to keep and bear is merely the means to that end. Thus, we must comply with the rules and sacrifice the means to the end.

I don't like it that the lawmakers viewed the right to bear arms as merely the means to an end. I don't like it that the lawmakers didn't clearly acknowledge a right to have weapons for self defense. But, we must respect the words of the lawmakers and the rules of construction, even if we don't like the outcome.

Try this on for size:

The people being armed, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall no be infringed?​

Since the definition of what is meant by "the people" is clearly defined numerous other times, it's inconceivable that in this one case they would have meant something different for that phrase. Therefore, it can only be that "a well regulated militia" must be able to be defined by "the people", not the other way around.

So, an armed populace is clearly what was intended by "a well regulated militia". The times show it. Historical perspective shows it. Common sense shows it. Context clues of the rest of the document show it.

What do you have to suggest any other conclusion?

 

[FredFlash]

Try this on for size:

The people being armed, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall no be infringed?​

Dude, you haven't made "people" conspire with "well regulated militia." You've changed "people" to "people being armed" and then made "people being armed" conspire with "well regulated militia." The words "with arms" are not contained in the Amendment.

...it's inconceivable that in this one case they would have meant something different for that phrase.

It's quite conceivable, dude, especially when one considers the follow statements made by individuals who actually participated in the making of the Amendments.

"A majority of the Senate were for not allowing the militia arms."

In the Senate, it was "proposed, and warmly favored that, liberty of Speech and of the press may be stricken out, as they only tend to promote licentiousness."

When making the Amendments, the English language was "carefully culled to find words feeble in their Nature or doubtful in their meaning!"

The "Amendments to the Constitution calculated merely to amuse, or rather to deceive."

The Amendments were "so mutilated & gutted that in fact they are good for nothing, &.... they will do more harm than benefit."

The amendments "appear well calculated to enfeeble [and] produce ambiguity."​

 

[FredFlash]

...what is meant by "the people" is clearly defined numerous other times

None of the words in the Constitution are defined in the document.

 

[FredFlash]

"an armed populace" is clearly what was intended by "a well regulated militia".

At the time the Constitution was made, the common, every day, usual meaning of "well regulated" wasn't "armed" and the ordinary, plain, most know signification of "militia" wasn't "populace."

 

[FredFlash]

The times show it. Historical perspective shows it.

Those aren't admissible under the rules of construction.

 

[FredFlash]

Common sense shows it.

Common sense says that every word the lawmakers put in the Amendment was put there to have meaning and effect.

 

[FredFlash]

Context clues of the rest of the document show it.

The context is ambivalent.

What do you have to suggest any other conclusion?

The words of the lawmakers and the rules of construction?

 

[This_person]

Dude, you haven't made "people" conspire with "well regulated militia." You've changed "people" to "people being armed" and then made "people being armed" conspire with "well regulated militia." The words "with arms" are not contained in the Amendment.

As I've repeatedly asked you before, please stop calling me "dude". I'm not a 1960's flower child, I'm not a Keanau Reeves style surfer.

All you did was substitute "well regulated militia" where it said "the people". Since "the people" are already clearly defined, I reworded to define a "well regulated militia" that fit the already established meaning of the people in context with the amendment.

It's quite conceivable, dude, especially when one considers the follow statements made by individuals who actually participated in the making of the Amendments.

"A majority of the Senate were for not allowing the militia arms."

In the Senate, it was "proposed, and warmly favored that, liberty of Speech and of the press may be stricken out, as they only tend to promote licentiousness."

When making the Amendments, the English language was "carefully culled to find words feeble in their Nature or doubtful in their meaning!"

The "Amendments to the Constitution calculated merely to amuse, or rather to deceive."

The Amendments were "so mutilated & gutted that in fact they are good for nothing, &.... they will do more harm than benefit."

The amendments "appear well calculated to enfeeble [and] produce ambiguity."​

I understand that Madison thought the Bill of Rights to be a stupid addition, because all it did was limit the powers of the federal government, and those powers were already deliniated and did not need to be made more specific.

However, your quotes are all about the Senate. Correct me if I'm wrong, here, but the Senate did not ratify the amendments. Who did that? "The people".

 

[This_person]

None of the words in the Constitution are defined in the document.

"The people" is clearly spelled out, defined, in the Preamble.

 

[This_person]

At the time the Constitution was made, the common, every day, usual meaning of "well regulated" wasn't "armed" and the ordinary, plain, most know signification of "militia" wasn't "populace."

I never implied that "well regulated" meant armed. Article One, Section 8 clearly defines what "well regulated" means in terms of a militia.

Nor did I imply that a "militia" definition would be "populace". I said the source of the militia was the populace. In the United States, that WAS the source of personnel for the militia, and often the source of the arms.

 

[This_person]

Common sense says that every word the lawmakers put in the Amendment was put there to have meaning and effect.

And, every word does.