Orion_VTOL
New member
Is "....THE PEOPLE...." in "We the people of the United states,...." different than "....THE PEOPLE...." in ", the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." ???????
Constitutional question concerning "....the people...."
- Thread starter Orion_VTOL
- Start date
Welcome to TFL,
"The People", of whom you speak are indeed the same. Infact, they are blood relatives.
If you would like proof, look up Patrick Henry's speeches during the Ratification Convention in Virginia; Mr. Henry was very keen on the language used, especially the use of "...the People...".
------------------
~USP
"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
"The People", of whom you speak are indeed the same. Infact, they are blood relatives.
If you would like proof, look up Patrick Henry's speeches during the Ratification Convention in Virginia; Mr. Henry was very keen on the language used, especially the use of "...the People...".
------------------
~USP
"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
Mike Irwin
Staff
Obviously, though, the context of "the people" has changed considerably in the last 225 years...
In the late 1700s, "the people" generally mean property owners and those otherwise eligible for voting. Interestingly, the militia was generally comprised of all free men, indentured servants, and even some trusted slaves in some states.
People who were excluded from "the People" were slaves, indentured servants, women, and those who didn't own property.
That nuance caused no small amount of wrangling during Constitional confirmation hearings in several state legislatures.
I believe that one Virginia state delegate remarked that he was offended that the preamble said "the people" instead of "the states."
Could you imagine the poopstorm that we would be going through if it were worded that way?
------------------
Beware the man with the S&W .357 Mag.
Chances are he knows how to use it.
In the late 1700s, "the people" generally mean property owners and those otherwise eligible for voting. Interestingly, the militia was generally comprised of all free men, indentured servants, and even some trusted slaves in some states.
People who were excluded from "the People" were slaves, indentured servants, women, and those who didn't own property.
That nuance caused no small amount of wrangling during Constitional confirmation hearings in several state legislatures.
I believe that one Virginia state delegate remarked that he was offended that the preamble said "the people" instead of "the states."
Could you imagine the poopstorm that we would be going through if it were worded that way?
------------------
Beware the man with the S&W .357 Mag.
Chances are he knows how to use it.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mike Irwin:
I believe that one Virginia state delegate remarked that he was offended that the preamble said "the people" instead of "the states."[/quote]
That delegate was indeed Patrick Henry. He was upset that the Constitution was a confederation of the people and not of the states. From a certain point of view he had every reason to be concerned.
Though, it is speculated that his concern over the wording of "the People" specifically in the Preamble was to a certain extent, political posturing. Henry didn't like the idea of a constitution in the first place. Neither did Samual Adams, for that matter. It was Henry's desire to attack every little piece of the document under ratification; ruthlessly.
I believe it was his opening speech in which he complained that the authors of the Constitution had, "... no right to ascert that they speak for 'The People' and as such have no right to include such language"(para-phrased as i don't remember the actual quote.)
Indeed, during the Virginia Constitutional Convention, none chose to refute the notion that "...The People" as stated in the Preamble and the Constitution was the individual person, citizen, land-owener, male, free-man, or whatever. Instead, the argument focused on the fact that the Constitution was, and should indeed be, a confederation amoung men (citizens) which was to protect their liberties. (And expressedly not to protect the liberty of the State.)
In understanding Patrick Henry's opposition to the usage of the phrase "...the People..." one gets a proper understanding of its use (if neglecting it's context.)
------------------
~USP
"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
I believe that one Virginia state delegate remarked that he was offended that the preamble said "the people" instead of "the states."[/quote]
That delegate was indeed Patrick Henry. He was upset that the Constitution was a confederation of the people and not of the states. From a certain point of view he had every reason to be concerned.
Though, it is speculated that his concern over the wording of "the People" specifically in the Preamble was to a certain extent, political posturing. Henry didn't like the idea of a constitution in the first place. Neither did Samual Adams, for that matter. It was Henry's desire to attack every little piece of the document under ratification; ruthlessly.
I believe it was his opening speech in which he complained that the authors of the Constitution had, "... no right to ascert that they speak for 'The People' and as such have no right to include such language"(para-phrased as i don't remember the actual quote.)
Indeed, during the Virginia Constitutional Convention, none chose to refute the notion that "...The People" as stated in the Preamble and the Constitution was the individual person, citizen, land-owener, male, free-man, or whatever. Instead, the argument focused on the fact that the Constitution was, and should indeed be, a confederation amoung men (citizens) which was to protect their liberties. (And expressedly not to protect the liberty of the State.)
In understanding Patrick Henry's opposition to the usage of the phrase "...the People..." one gets a proper understanding of its use (if neglecting it's context.)
------------------
~USP
"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
If I am correct, there is a Supreme Court ruling on the definition of the phrase "The People", "The People" were individuals, not a collective group in regard to those rights affirmed in the Bill of Rights. And there was no exception for the definition in the Second Amendment, or the others (such as the First and Fourth).
The case was Verdugo v. Uriquedez (not sure of the spelling fir the last name), and I think that the year of the decision was 1983.
The case was Verdugo v. Uriquedez (not sure of the spelling fir the last name), and I think that the year of the decision was 1983.
If I may chime in here.
First consider the definition of bodies in the Constitution, and Bill of Rights...
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>United States (10th)
<LI>Court of the United States (7th)
<LI>State (2nd, 6th, 10th twice)
<LI>Grand Jury (5th)
<LI>Congress (1st)
<LI>Government (1st)
<LI>Soldier(s) (3rd)
<LI>Person(s) (4th twice, 5th twice)
<LI>Militia (2nd, 5th)
<LI>People (1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, 10th)
</UL>
Now why, pray tell, would you see "people" defined in the Bill of Rights more than any other body?
And by body, I mean, one of the above listed entities.
Allow me to refer to the governments own site,
The National Archives and Records Administration.
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/billrights/billmain.html
Please read the entire page there.
Interesting that it defines the causes of the demand for the Bill of Rights.
Another interesting page there is
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/constitution/conhist.html
A More Perfect Union
Very interesting reading here, and on a Federalite, how nice!!
[This message has been edited by Donny (edited August 29, 2000).]
First consider the definition of bodies in the Constitution, and Bill of Rights...
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>United States (10th)
<LI>Court of the United States (7th)
<LI>State (2nd, 6th, 10th twice)
<LI>Grand Jury (5th)
<LI>Congress (1st)
<LI>Government (1st)
<LI>Soldier(s) (3rd)
<LI>Person(s) (4th twice, 5th twice)
<LI>Militia (2nd, 5th)
<LI>People (1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, 10th)
</UL>
Now why, pray tell, would you see "people" defined in the Bill of Rights more than any other body?
And by body, I mean, one of the above listed entities.
Allow me to refer to the governments own site,
The National Archives and Records Administration.
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/billrights/billmain.html
Please read the entire page there.
Interesting that it defines the causes of the demand for the Bill of Rights.
Another interesting page there is
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/constitution/conhist.html
A More Perfect Union
Very interesting reading here, and on a Federalite, how nice!!
[This message has been edited by Donny (edited August 29, 2000).]
Here was my response to a recent thread. The language is excerpted from the Supreme Court decision and the link to the complete ruling is provided.
The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the people of the United States." The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ("Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble") (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States") (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.
The Amendment was introduced on the floor of Congress, considered by Committee, debated by the House of Representatives and the Senate, and submitted to the 13 States for approval. Throughout that entire process, no speaker or commentator, pro or con, referred to the term "the people" as a limitation. [494 U.S. 259, 290]
Here is the link to the 1990 Supreme Court decision: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=494&invol=259
The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the people of the United States." The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ("Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble") (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States") (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.
The Amendment was introduced on the floor of Congress, considered by Committee, debated by the House of Representatives and the Senate, and submitted to the 13 States for approval. Throughout that entire process, no speaker or commentator, pro or con, referred to the term "the people" as a limitation. [494 U.S. 259, 290]
Here is the link to the 1990 Supreme Court decision: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=494&invol=259
The Plainsman
New member
Obviously NOT! 
------------------
If "the people" in the 1st, 4th, 9th & 10th amendments, means "the people", why do some folks think "the people" in the 2nd amendment means "the state"?
------------------
If "the people" in the 1st, 4th, 9th & 10th amendments, means "the people", why do some folks think "the people" in the 2nd amendment means "the state"?
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
All U.S. Supreme Court cases are at their website.
I first saw US v. Urriquez-Vergugo shown as a 1992 decision; I've lately seen it as 1990. I think 1992 is correct. (I looked it up, one time, but the URL is on another computer's "Favorites".) It does comment that a right of "the people" is an individual right.
If one reads the Preamble to the Bill of Rights (which few do, pro-gun or anti-) you will see that it refers to the purpose of the first ten amendments as controlling against the abuse of power on the part of the federal government. One wonders how this can be accomplished other than by a group made up of--dare I say it?--individuals.
Another factor: The same few people wrote all the first ten amendments. Why would the meaning of words change back and forth during the writing? They were highly literate, and the specific meanings of words were important to them. This is one area wherein they definitely would have been consistent.
FWIW, Art
I first saw US v. Urriquez-Vergugo shown as a 1992 decision; I've lately seen it as 1990. I think 1992 is correct. (I looked it up, one time, but the URL is on another computer's "Favorites".) It does comment that a right of "the people" is an individual right.
If one reads the Preamble to the Bill of Rights (which few do, pro-gun or anti-) you will see that it refers to the purpose of the first ten amendments as controlling against the abuse of power on the part of the federal government. One wonders how this can be accomplished other than by a group made up of--dare I say it?--individuals.
Another factor: The same few people wrote all the first ten amendments. Why would the meaning of words change back and forth during the writing? They were highly literate, and the specific meanings of words were important to them. This is one area wherein they definitely would have been consistent.
FWIW, Art
While this may sound stupid.
When a "person" is being arrested, is the "person" read the Miranda?
Or is it read to the whole of society?
Is a "person" charged in Court, or is it all of society?
Same person/group and general question applied to the acquittel or conviction sequence of the Criminal Justice System?
Again, the person aspect of this should be a clear thing to see.
------------------
"To control people you control the food, to control a nation you control the FUEL."
H. Kissenger
When a "person" is being arrested, is the "person" read the Miranda?
Or is it read to the whole of society?
Is a "person" charged in Court, or is it all of society?
Same person/group and general question applied to the acquittel or conviction sequence of the Criminal Justice System?
Again, the person aspect of this should be a clear thing to see.
------------------
"To control people you control the food, to control a nation you control the FUEL."
H. Kissenger
Uh, I think they taught me (subliminally) in my high school US government class (in a government, I mean "public" school) that "we the people" means "we the people, who are here to save you." Or, in other words, "We're from the government. We're here to help you."
Yeah, that's it.
No, wait.
The correct answer is....
"We the people" means exactly what it says, that is to say ,"WE the people," not "YOU the people." "We" (not written by me, so not self-inclusive) was written by the new "government" of the US (that is, U.S., not "us"). Therefore, the modern powers that be (or the bees that power, if you're so-inclined), decided that they are "we" and you are "you" (or "they" or "them"-but not the ants). I mean, they (the powers that bee) are NOT "they," you are "they," they are "We."
GOT IT?
Yeah, that's it.
No, wait.
The correct answer is....
"We the people" means exactly what it says, that is to say ,"WE the people," not "YOU the people." "We" (not written by me, so not self-inclusive) was written by the new "government" of the US (that is, U.S., not "us"). Therefore, the modern powers that be (or the bees that power, if you're so-inclined), decided that they are "we" and you are "you" (or "they" or "them"-but not the ants). I mean, they (the powers that bee) are NOT "they," you are "they," they are "We."
GOT IT?
What has me confused about this issue is not the wording of the BoR's but what is now considered legally, the people? I've "heard" from reading different websites, reading books, that the "People" mentioned are Freeman and not individuals that are every day American's. As in, if you spell or use the term United States of America in a certain manner, then you are a citizen of the government of America. But if you use it or spell it in another way, then you are a Freeman who resides in America but isn't a citizen of the government. That one group is protected and enjoys all the freedoms set in the BoR's but the other is limited to what the government gives to them.
So, if you have a SSN# or use federal money are you an American Citizen or government citizen? If you don't, do you HAVE to get a SSN# or can you work without one? If you work, can you USE federal funny money or do you have to use some other form of legal tender?
I figure, with huge buildings holding "laws" and "legal documents" put out or signed by the government, there's probably a catch .22 somewhere in the mix.
USP45usp
So, if you have a SSN# or use federal money are you an American Citizen or government citizen? If you don't, do you HAVE to get a SSN# or can you work without one? If you work, can you USE federal funny money or do you have to use some other form of legal tender?
I figure, with huge buildings holding "laws" and "legal documents" put out or signed by the government, there's probably a catch .22 somewhere in the mix.
USP45usp
The Second Amendment Solution
Henry Bowman - Posted: 08.25.00
I can hear the groans: not another Second Amendment article. Well, yes, but perhaps containing a few facts that are not
widely known that may possibly be useful in the defense of our gun rights positions, or of yourself when standing before the
Bar.
Most of us know that the Second Amendment does not "grant" us any right to keep and bear arms, but rather acts as a
prohibition on government to not infringe on this right. What many do not know, however, is that when the other side says that
the Supreme Court has never tackled the issue, they are simply lying. A few citations will suffice.
in 1857 (1) that citizens rights include the right "to keep and carry arms wherever they want."
in 1876 (2) that the Constitution did not grant a right to arms but that the right to arms long predates the Constitution and is
not dependent upon that document for its existence.
in 1886 (3) that "the states cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms."
in 1895 (4) that individuals have the right to possess and use firearms for self-defense.
in 1897 (5) that the right to arms is an ancient and "fundamental" right, "inherited from our English ancestors," and has existed
"from time immemorial."
and more recently,
in 1990 (6) that the term "the people," as used in the Second and other amendments, and elsewhere in the Constitution,
means all the individuals who make up our national community.
There are others, but these should get the discussion going.
From time to time the anti's propose repealing the Second Amendment. Should you find yourself facing a left-wing,
warm-and-fuzzy bedwetter espousing this view, educate them to the fact that the entire Bill of Rights is immune from such
action, since the inclusion of the Bill of Rights was a prerequisite for nine of the thirteen colonies ratifying the new Constitution
in the period 1787-1791. But for the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, there would be no Constitution.
If the whiner persists in this vein, just tell him that you would agree to amending the Second Amendment so as to make it
consistent with the doctrines and beliefs of the Founders, to wit: "Save for lunatics and violent felons, as so adjudged by a
competent court of jurisdiction, the right of the people individually and collectively to keep and bear arms for any purpose
whatsoever is and shall remain inviolate. This amendment applies to weapons of any form, and specifically includes such
weapons as are currently in use by the military forces of the United States or any other sovereign state."
This rewording is completely in accord with the views of the Founders. When you hear that Jefferson, Madison, et al could not
have intended for citizens to own machine guns because such things didn't exist in their time, ask the speaker if his thinking
also applies to the banning of radio and television from protection under the First Amendment for like reasons.
Of course, we all know that trying to win this argument with logic and facts is like wrestling with a pig; you can't win, you will get
filthy, and the pig likes it. Speaking of pigs, however . . . .
Henry Bowman
NOTES:
01. Scott v. Sanford, 60 US 691, 705 (1857)
02. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, 553 (1876)
03. Presser v. Illinois, 116 US 252 (1886)
04. Beard v. United States, 158 US 550 (1895)
05. Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 US 275 (1897)
06. United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, No. 88-1353 (1990)
http://www.sierratimes.com/edcc082500.htm
Henry Bowman - Posted: 08.25.00
I can hear the groans: not another Second Amendment article. Well, yes, but perhaps containing a few facts that are not
widely known that may possibly be useful in the defense of our gun rights positions, or of yourself when standing before the
Bar.
Most of us know that the Second Amendment does not "grant" us any right to keep and bear arms, but rather acts as a
prohibition on government to not infringe on this right. What many do not know, however, is that when the other side says that
the Supreme Court has never tackled the issue, they are simply lying. A few citations will suffice.
in 1857 (1) that citizens rights include the right "to keep and carry arms wherever they want."
in 1876 (2) that the Constitution did not grant a right to arms but that the right to arms long predates the Constitution and is
not dependent upon that document for its existence.
in 1886 (3) that "the states cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms."
in 1895 (4) that individuals have the right to possess and use firearms for self-defense.
in 1897 (5) that the right to arms is an ancient and "fundamental" right, "inherited from our English ancestors," and has existed
"from time immemorial."
and more recently,
in 1990 (6) that the term "the people," as used in the Second and other amendments, and elsewhere in the Constitution,
means all the individuals who make up our national community.
There are others, but these should get the discussion going.
From time to time the anti's propose repealing the Second Amendment. Should you find yourself facing a left-wing,
warm-and-fuzzy bedwetter espousing this view, educate them to the fact that the entire Bill of Rights is immune from such
action, since the inclusion of the Bill of Rights was a prerequisite for nine of the thirteen colonies ratifying the new Constitution
in the period 1787-1791. But for the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, there would be no Constitution.
If the whiner persists in this vein, just tell him that you would agree to amending the Second Amendment so as to make it
consistent with the doctrines and beliefs of the Founders, to wit: "Save for lunatics and violent felons, as so adjudged by a
competent court of jurisdiction, the right of the people individually and collectively to keep and bear arms for any purpose
whatsoever is and shall remain inviolate. This amendment applies to weapons of any form, and specifically includes such
weapons as are currently in use by the military forces of the United States or any other sovereign state."
This rewording is completely in accord with the views of the Founders. When you hear that Jefferson, Madison, et al could not
have intended for citizens to own machine guns because such things didn't exist in their time, ask the speaker if his thinking
also applies to the banning of radio and television from protection under the First Amendment for like reasons.
Of course, we all know that trying to win this argument with logic and facts is like wrestling with a pig; you can't win, you will get
filthy, and the pig likes it. Speaking of pigs, however . . . .
Henry Bowman
NOTES:
01. Scott v. Sanford, 60 US 691, 705 (1857)
02. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, 553 (1876)
03. Presser v. Illinois, 116 US 252 (1886)
04. Beard v. United States, 158 US 550 (1895)
05. Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 US 275 (1897)
06. United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, No. 88-1353 (1990)
http://www.sierratimes.com/edcc082500.htm