| Author | Post |
|---|
MatieA
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 08:59 pm |
|
I found the wording of the description of the 2nd amendment troubling.
I'm no expert at digging up this kind of info but it appears that this page was rewritten 10 August 2009 at 1416 EST.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/the-constitution#bill
The Bill of Rights
One of the principal points of contention between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists was the lack of an enumeration of basic civil rights in the Constitution. Many Federalists argued, as in Federalist No. 84, that the people surrendered no rights in adopting the Constitution. In several states, however, the ratification debate in some states hinged on the adoption of a bill of rights. The solution was known as the Massachusetts Compromise, in which four states ratified the Constitution but at the same time sent recommendations for amendments to the Congress.
James Madison introduced 12 amendments to the First Congress in 1789. Ten of these would go on to become what we now consider to be the Bill of Rights. One was never passed, while another dealing with Congressional salaries was not ratified until 1992, when it became the 27th Amendment. Based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the English Bill of Rights, the writings of the Enlightenment, and the rights defined in the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights contains rights that many today consider to be fundamental to America.
The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.
The Third Amendment prohibits the government from quartering troops in private homes, a major grievance during the American Revolution.
The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. The government may not conduct any searches without a warrant, and such warrants must be issued by a judge and based on probable cause.
The Fifth Amendment provides that citizens not be subject to criminal prosecution and punishment without due process. Citizens may not be tried on the same set of facts twice, and are protected from self-incrimination (the right to remain silent). The amendment also establishes the power of eminent domain, ensuring that private property is not seized for public use without just compensation.
The Sixth Amendment assures the right to a speedy trial by a jury of one's peers, to be informed of the crimes with which they are charged, and to confront the witnesses brought by the government. The amendment also provides the accused the right to compel testimony from witnesses, and to legal representation.
The Seventh Amendment provides that civil cases also be tried by jury.
The Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishments.
The Ninth Amendment states that the list of rights enumerated in the Constitution is not exhaustive, and that the people retain all rights not enumerated.
The Tenth Amendment assigns all powers not delegated to the United States, or prohibited to the states, to either the states or to the people.
Last edited on Thu Nov 5th, 2009 09:04 pm by MatieA
|
Batousaii
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 10:00 pm |
|
I think it's just a simple summary - there is a link to read the full and correct Constitution...
- NOW, what I found troubling.. was next to the 2nd Amendment on the Constitution, there is a block that reads ..
"Whether this provision protects the individual's right to own firearms or whether it deals only with the collective right of the people to arm and maintain a militia is strongly debated."
- I am writing the webmaster to request that gets changed to reflect the current ruling under Heller.
The Constitution site is at Batousaii.
-----
I will ask that all who write, please be respectful and lets show them we are the good guys here (compared to the rabbit ant-gunners).
Kindly,
Bat.
|
MatieA
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 10:14 pm |
|
Batousaii wrote: I think it's just a simple summary - there is a link to read the full and correct Constitution...
- NOW, what I found troubling.. was next to the 2nd Amendment on the Constitution, there is a block that reads ..
"Whether this provision protects the individual's right to own firearms or whether it deals only with the collective right of the people to arm and maintain a militia is strongly debated."
- I am writing the webmaster to request that gets changed to reflect the current ruling under Heller.
The Constitution site is at Batousaii.
-----
I will ask that all who write, please be respectful and lets show them we are the good guys here (compared to the rabbit ant-gunners).
Kindly,
Bat.
I agree that it is a simple summary but...Look at the wording:
The Second Amendment citizens the right to bear arms.
|
Batousaii
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 10:29 pm |
|
i do understand the point of contention there, I myself manage ALOT of paperwork on a regular basis, and as such things like that tend to register in my mind as "simplifying" or short cutting words in an effort to "get a simple point across" ... i dont think it's detrimental to the cause, if you want : post a link to the webmaster there and lets try to get them to reword it. I feel if we assertively press for the change with a polite and positive attitude, we will get farther than simply crying foul and expecting them to notice or care. I felt that the wording on the actual constitution page was much more damaging as it directly sates it is not solidified as an individual right, still claims it is debatable... this is clearly wrong.
- So if you post the webmaster, lets get the forum to write and get it changed.
Constitution site http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm
webmaster@sec.senate.gov Webmaster
- I will help as can do ok 
 Bat
Last edited on Fri Nov 6th, 2009 03:56 am by Batousaii
|
SouthernBoy
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 11:04 pm |
|
"The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms."
This is flat wrong, in error, and completely misleading. The Second Amendment, as well as the other nine amendments which make up the Bill of Rights, give, offer, or set aside no rights whatsoever to the people. They simply recognize pre-existing rights and warn the government that these are sacrosanct and not to be infringed upon in any way and under any circumstances. In fact, according to at least two of the Founders, they are not even capable of being repealed.
|
Batousaii
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 03:52 am |
|
ok... great... BTW i agree... BUT... What are you doing about this? Are you writing someone ? Have you encouraged others to do so? Have you asked them to make a change to the text and encourage others to write them too? -- Or are you just complaining? Jumping around, preaching to the choir?
- Ranting and preaching to the choir is fine, but really get you no where.... I might agree, but i like to see a pro-active stance too.
- I challenge you to start and encourage a concerted effort when you see something that is written or posted wrong.... post a link to webmaster, or controlling authority there of.
- WHEN YOU WRITE: Do so with tact, manners, social grace and etiquette or it will fall upon def ears. Remember that many of the people who construct and manage these websites, especially government websites, are pretty intelligent, and most likely live upper middle class lives. If you want to communicate to them, and expect to be heard, then it is prudent to speak their language and sound like your on par with their intellect --- or the result will be an e-mail or letter that gets laughed at and tossed out.
I always write a polite letter when i see something wrong, and i encourage others to do so too...
Write them AT: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact
--Post some links to the webmaster... lets get it changed.
Bat.
Last edited on Fri Nov 6th, 2009 03:57 am by Batousaii
|
gogodawgs
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 06:22 am |
|
"The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms."
This is flat wrong, in error, and completely misleading. The Second Amendment, as well as the other nine amendments which make up the Bill of Rights, give, offer, or set aside no rights whatsoever to the people. They simply recognize pre-existing rights and warn the government that these are sacrosanct and not to be infringed upon in any way and under any circumstances. In fact, according to at least two of the Founders, they are not even capable of being repealed.
Correct.....
They are given to us by our Creator, not government (by the people).
And these rights given to us by God can not be taken.
|
okboomer
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 19th, 2009 |
| Location: | Oklahoma USA |
| Posts: | 113 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 11:56 pm |
|
Sent:
Dear Sir/Madam,
It has recently come to my attention that there is a wording on your website that incorrectly states that the Second Amendment "gives citizens the right to bear arms" at this link:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/the-constitution#bill
As The Bill of Rights "contains rights" that are UNALIENABLE, they cannot have been "given," rather they were affirmed as RIGHTS.
I believe that simply changing the wording from "gives citizens the right to bear arms" to "affirms the rights of citizens to bear arms" would satisfy the true meaning of the Second Amendment.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
"okboomer"
|
MatieA
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Nov 8th, 2009 12:42 am |
|
okboomer wrote: Sent:
Dear Sir/Madam,
It has recently come to my attention that there is a wording on your website that incorrectly states that the Second Amendment "gives citizens the right to bear arms" at this link:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/the-constitution#bill
As The Bill of Rights "contains rights" that are UNALIENABLE, they cannot have been "given," rather they were affirmed as RIGHTS.
I believe that simply changing the wording from "gives citizens the right to bear arms" to "affirms the rights of citizens to bear arms" would satisfy the true meaning of the Second Amendment.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
"okboomer"
very nice, I used the word affirm in my message to them as well. Nice coincidence.
|
okboomer
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 19th, 2009 |
| Location: | Oklahoma USA |
| Posts: | 113 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 8th, 2009 01:37 am |
|
MatieA wrote: very nice, I used the word affirm in my message to them as well. Nice coincidence.
great minds 
|
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Nov 8th, 2009 01:44 am |
|
Rights
All free people are born with certain inalienable rights. Such rights would exist in the presence of Government or none. Government does not have rights. Government has ‘authority’. Authority of government is derived from the people (the governed) and is not separate and autonomous.
Government does not grant Rights. Government can only recognize the legitimacy of a right, codify and enumerate them; protect and defend them (or) deny them. Rights (as codified and enumerated by the U.S. Constitution) become the basis for ‘The Law of the Land’. From this body of laws, all other laws are compared.
Government cannot grant ‘Rights’. Rights are not to be confused with ‘Permit’, ‘License’, ‘Privilege’ or ’Allowance’ or other contrivance. Rights cannot be ’purchased’ nor can government extract fees for the free exercise thereof. Rights are inherent and eternal w/o interference, infringement, impairment or regulation when exercised responsibly by the individual. The free exercise of a Right requires personal responsibility and moderation.
Absolute denial of a right in a free society is tyranny.
Consider this opinion of the Supreme Court:
“The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”
“Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
Rule by such governments headed by absolute monarchs or dictators do not recognize individual rights and often deny them.
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Sun Nov 8th, 2009 01:51 am |
|
The Obama-version of 2A omits the part about keeping arms, too.
As long as it is "hotly debated", the fedgov and anti-gunners can say it means you can bear arms, but you have to keep them in the government armory until the militia is called up.
Last edited on Sun Nov 8th, 2009 01:52 am by Citizen
|
Current time is 02:07 am | |
|
|
|
