Convention of States: Good or Bad?

[*michaelsean*]

(09-19-2017, 11:55 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We lost Allen West in my district due to this....

But that's a federal seat.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-20-2017, 09:51 AM)michaelsean Wrote: But that's a federal seat.

Yeah I know. Not really on the point but just speaking on manipulating the map.

[Belsnickel]

(09-19-2017, 06:30 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: And yet a standing Army was made and in combat only 3 years into Washington's 8 year stint as President.

Followed by Founding Father John Adams. Founding Father/Declaration of Independence writer Thomas Jefferson.

It's not like they didn't know they could change the Constitution, either, considering they added an 11th on DURING Washington's Presidency.

This doesn't really refute my point regarding the Constitution. I know they did this, I know the legal hoops that have to be jumped through because of the way it is written, I'm just saying that the intent is clear in that document and in writings of several founders that said a standing army was a threat to democracy. The reality hit them very soon, but for some reason they never amended that part. It's very interesting to look at.

(09-19-2017, 06:30 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Regardless of all of that, though. It still doesn't address the point that you claimed the militias were the Army, and in fact the militias were never the Army. Even if there was briefly a temporary Army, it was the Colonial Army, which was very distinct from the militias.

Regulars vs militia.

Colonial army was never the army of the United States. When you look at the Constitution, you can only talk about events from 1787 onward, since that is the signing of the Constitution. Or maybe 1789 onward, since that is technically the start of our current government. The U.S. Army may see itself as descended from the colonial regulars, but the founding of the branch happened in 1791. Again, I know the history of how immediately they saw the need for a standing army, but they still had the view of it being a threat to the republic to exist and we have to wonder why the document wasn't amended to account for this change in policy that was so immediate.

I have my suspicions that the anti-federalists would have fought it tooth and nail.

(09-19-2017, 06:30 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: And lets just say we ignore the bit about being able to keep arms, and we ignore the fact that every President we've ever had has had a standing army, and we ignore the fact that the Military and the militias were vastly different things. All of which makes it pretty clear the idea of the 2nd amendment meaning being able to join the military is bullshit.

How about this?

Every male of 18 years or older in this country has to sign up for selective services. That makes every adult male a sort of militia, since they're able to be called up at any time in order to serve. Thus... all adult males should be allowed the right to keep and bare arms. (Sorry women, y'alls screwed until you wanna accept the "equality" of being drafted.)

So are you arguing for a more Swiss-like system?

[Bengalzona]

(09-19-2017, 11:55 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We lost Allen West in my district due to this....

Yes. And it goes both ways. You have instances where an area has, for example, 4 representatives from one party and 2 from the opposing party. The minority party representatives may support the jerrymandering because it secures their positions.

[BmorePat87]

Looking at our Constitution requires us to look at the Articles of Confederation and see why it was changed. The obvious differences include an executive, taxation, the ability to fund a national army, equal representation in the legislature, no federal courts, and the ability to enforce laws.

People who advocated for a stronger national government like James Madison (principle author of the Constitution) and Alexander Hamilton, sought to fundamentally change how our government operated. The Articles were doing what they were written to do, but that didn't solve the problems that the country faced.

Our Constitution was great in 1787 when it was drafted, but it's due time we overhaul somethings. The basic composition of the three branches doesn't need to change, but I certainly would like to see Congress reformed. This could include term limits, though I am not in favor of this for a variety of reasons I have outlined here in the past. The bicameral system existed to both appease slave states and provide assurances to smaller Northern states that slave states won't dominate the legislature. Senators were elected by the state legislatures to ensure that the house where the states were equal were filled with more qualified individuals. Of course, the issue now-a-days is that

The Electoral College doesn't operate today the way it was intended to operate. When it was implemented, states had to send electors to the House to vote, with states having the freedom to pick their own method for choosing electors. Most assumed this would just be a show for the House to then vote on the President, as they assumed no one would win a majority. Of course it has evolved now to be a system where official tickets are nominated and we vote on that individual, however this idea of electoral votes has remained, despite every other aspect changing. It remains because it allows smaller states to remain more relevant and it won't ever be removed through our system because our system is designed to let a majority of small states with less population impeded progress. We couldn't even extend a number of rights to minorities until those states declared a rebellion and weren't part of the process.

This of course presents one of the flaws with a document that was a compromise for states that refused to allow progress to occur. We put a lot more emphasis on the importance of states than is really necessary in 2017.

I'm all for open dialogue on changing the Constitution, but the concept of a state convention only perpetuates one of the biggest flaws with the Constitution.

[BmorePat87]

There seems to be some misunderstanding of Matt's historically accurate depiction of the 2nd Amendment, whether knowingly or not. With regards to the 2nd Amendment debate, any judicial precedent prior to Heller (2008) presented it as a state's right to have an armed militia in defense of an overreaching government, not as an individual's right to own a firearm. The concept doesn't translate perfectly today, hence much confusion and many willfully ignoring the militia clause. Another reason why a Constitution written in the context of today is necessary.

[mallorian69]

(09-19-2017, 06:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: But you are neglecting the language of the Constitution itself.

Article 1, Section 8

Notice all of the wording, but 12 especially. It is rather clear that the intent for a standing, permanent army was not there. Navy? Yes, but not an army.

I don't read it as there isn't supposed to be a standing army. The way I read it is that the appropriations bill can't last long than 2 years. You would just have to pass a new one once that one expires.

[Belsnickel]

(09-20-2017, 01:11 PM)mallorian69 Wrote: I don't read it as there isn't supposed to be a standing army. The way I read it is that the appropriations bill can't last long than 2 years. You would just have to pass a new one once that one expires.

When you look at that, in conjunction with the lack of a limit on naval appropriations, and the writings of the framers, the intent becomes clear. It was stated in the writings of several framers that they saw a standing army as a threat to the republic. They had seen the ground forces of Britain used to oppress the people, and they did not want the same to occur, here. They saw a standing army as a tool of tyranny.

Now, the interpretation you have is what has been used to justify a standing army for pretty much our entire history, but it denies the intent. The ambiguous wording has led to that corruption.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-20-2017, 01:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: When you look at that, in conjunction with the lack of a limit on naval appropriations, and the writings of the framers, the intent becomes clear. It was stated in the writings of several framers that they saw a standing army as a threat to the republic. They had seen the ground forces of Britain used to oppress the people, and they did not want the same to occur, here. They saw a standing army as a tool of tyranny.

Now, the interpretation you have is what has been used to justify a standing army for pretty much our entire history, but it denies the intent. The ambiguous wording has led to that corruption.

Is there writing on the intent of the 2nd amendment?  I know I've seen quotes, but with no context it's hard to tell.

[Belsnickel]

(09-20-2017, 01:27 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Is there writing on the intent of the 2nd amendment?  I know I've seen quotes, but with no context it's hard to tell.

Most of the writing I have seen is in the vain of an armed citizenry being vital to the continuation of the republic. It is the same reasoning, and works in conjunction with, the standing army situation.

The framers felt that a standing army was a threat to the republic and a tool of tyranny because if the government became one that was not "of and by the people" they could then use the standing army to oppress the people. The usage of citizen militias as the ground force prevents this. With no standing army, there is no one to turn against the people, and if they attempt to call the militias you have buffers at the state level, as well as the citizens themselves. These militias could also be raised if the federal government ran afoul of the people and overthrow it. So the 2A was put in place because the states wanted to ensure there was a mechanism in place to prevent the federal government from stripping them of their rights to form their militias. Without an armed citizenry, they could not raise them.

In all seriousness, and this isn't even me just trying to continue the debate or just arguing for fun like I do sometimes. This is what all of the writing of the framers points to as the intent behind the issues of a standing army and the 2A. What has caused this to be corrupted (and I use this term not when negative connotations, just on its base meaning) is a textualist reading of both Article 1 and the 2A. When you take only a textualist approach and ignore all of the other context, you get what we have today. I'm not giving an opinion of what is right or wrong, especially legally speaking, all I can say is that this is what is made clear as the intent of the framers during the creation of our current government and because that ambiguity was not clarified in the founding documents, we have veered from that.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-20-2017, 01:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Most of the writing I have seen is in the vain of an armed citizenry being vital to the continuation of the republic. It is the same reasoning, and works in conjunction with, the standing army situation.

The framers felt that a standing army was a threat to the republic and a tool of tyranny because if the government became one that was not "of and by the people" they could then use the standing army to oppress the people. The usage of citizen militias as the ground force prevents this. With no standing army, there is no one to turn against the people, and if they attempt to call the militias you have buffers at the state level, as well as the citizens themselves. These militias could also be raised if the federal government ran afoul of the people and overthrow it. So the 2A was put in place because the states wanted to ensure there was a mechanism in place to prevent the federal government from stripping them of their rights to form their militias. Without an armed citizenry, they could not raise them.

In all seriousness, and this isn't even me just trying to continue the debate or just arguing for fun like I do sometimes. This is what all of the writing of the framers points to as the intent behind the issues of a standing army and the 2A. What has caused this to be corrupted (and I use this term not when negative connotations, just on its base meaning) is a textualist reading of both Article 1 and the 2A. When you take only a textualist approach and ignore all of the other context, you get what we have today. I'm not giving an opinion of what is right or wrong, especially legally speaking, all I can say is that this is what is made clear as the intent of the framers during the creation of our current government and because that ambiguity was not clarified in the founding documents, we have veered from that.

But for the people who lean toward the militia side of the amendment, I can just declare myself part of the militia.  There are no requirements in drilling, training, organization etc.

[BmorePat87]

(09-20-2017, 01:56 PM)michaelsean Wrote: But for the people who lean toward the militia side of the amendment, I can just declare myself part of the militia.  There are no requirements in drilling, training, organization etc.

The reality is that no one, outside of criminals and the mentally unwell, was being prevented from owning firearms prior to Heller. It was a matter of what types of firearms could be restricted and what regulations could be put on firearms. 

The opinion decided that there a ban on handguns was unconstitutional, but it also went further and stated that the requirement that all shotguns and rifles in DC had to be unloaded and equipped with a trigger lock was unconstitutional, stating that the protection was for your individual right to own the weapon for self defense not the right to be armed if called upon to act in a militia. 

While I agree with the idea that in 2017 militias are irrelevant and that this should be read now as an individual's right, I think the majority opinion's historical defense pales in comparison to the minority opinion's historical argument.  It came down to politics, with shaky historical arguments acting as a defense. It really was just the first attempt to try to enact a new interpretation whose popularity was only a few decades old. It's odd because they made sure to state their sweeping overhaul of legal precedent didn't then erase other gun regulations, leaving the question of where do these things get challenged open. It also only applied to federal restrictions, not states, until McDonald v Chicago (2010)

[Belsnickel]

(09-20-2017, 02:12 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The reality is that no one, outside of criminals and the mentally unwell, was being prevented from owning firearms prior to Heller. It was a matter of what types of firearms could be restricted and what regulations could be put on firearms. 

The opinion decided that there a ban on handguns was unconstitutional, but it also went further and stated that the requirement that all shotguns and rifles in DC had to be unloaded and equipped with a trigger lock was unconstitutional, stating that the protection was for your individual right to own the weapon for self defense not the right to be armed if called upon to act in a militia. 

While I agree with the idea that in 2017 militias are irrelevant and that this should be read now as an individual's right, I think the majority opinion's historical defense pales in comparison to the minority opinion's historical argument.  It came down to politics, with shaky historical arguments acting as a defense. It really was just the first attempt to try to enact a new interpretation whose popularity was only a few decades old. It's odd because they made sure to state their sweeping overhaul of legal precedent didn't then erase other gun regulations, leaving the question of where do these things get challenged open. It also only applied to federal restrictions, not states, until McDonald v Chicago (2010)

Exactly this.

My biggest reason for calling for a new constitution is because of these sorts of battles. We have had so many interpretations of our constitution that have changed, and many rightfully so, because of our contemporary society. This is how it is supposed to work, and I have no problem with that, but we have to be honest that the need for constant interpretation is very near, if not here already. The U.S. Constitution just doesn't translate well for today's society in a lot of ways, and so it's time for a rewrite. We should be proud we made it work this long, seriously, but it's time to give up the ghost.

JMHO.