Welcome to PILOT SPIN!
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Making America white again is a lifestyle choice?
The article title is misleading, also.
You know, anyone qualified should be able to throw their hat in the ring to run for Congress, right?
...
What a fucktard.
Then why were the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union created, and a "more perfect Union" created by the Constitution?
And if you want to go to the Supremes as the absolute source of Truth, then Texas v. White made clear that there was absolutely no way to withdraw from the Constitution or the Union whatsoever.
The founders brutally put down rebellions themselves. Why is that manifest intent not relevant, but the writings of one person are?
Those personal beliefs wildly differed, though. For example, following Shay's Rebellion, Madison desired a stronger central government than even the eventually-ratified constitution provided, to include total federal veto power over state legislatures. He was even initially nonchalant about the omission of a Bill of Rights from the ratified Constitution, though he came around from that eventually (obviously).
The personal feelings of the founders were varied and in some cases fluid. I find it difficult to divine absolute meaning through such a cloudy lens.
Why are those people's motives controlling? Why not others who voted on the Amendment, either in Congress or in the state legislatures who ratified the amendment? Why not those who elected those people, or the state legislators, as their representatives to Congress or the Legislature.
Intent is irrelevant. The words chosen, and their publicly known meanings at the time of proposal/ratification, matter.
Groups of people do not have motives, individuals do.
To place any dependance upon Militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender Scenes of domestick life; unaccustomed to the din of Arms; totally unacquainted with every kind of Military skill, which being followed by a want of confidence in themselves, when opposed to Troops regulary train'd, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge, and superior in Arms, makes them timid, and ready to fly from their own shadows.
The conclusion which I am warranted in drawing from these observations is, that a mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits of the several departments, is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands.
I care not for the private motives of the Founders.
...
The private motives of the founders is secondary to what they legally established.
they believed THEIR republic could not be corrupted like the old government was.
No, it wasn't so people could put down a tyrannical government.
Regulated means well trained, well timed, organized, equipped, etc. like a clock.
Why do people misunderstand English so badly that they think the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is restricted to only militias?
That was a decent answer. But there has been much discussion over that awkward phrase for years. As is, it could be parsed and interpreted in different ways.
"regulated" doesn't mean what you think it does.
