The Federalist Papers

K

Keith Rogan

New member
First, let me introduce myself as the FNG on the board. I'm Keith Rogan, I live in Kodiak Alaska and have made it my home for 9 years, I'm active duty Coast Guard and a Libertarian by persuasion.
This board is fantastic! Good threads, easy to use - good job!
I wanted to throw out a suggestion for every gun rights activist who reads these boards. Go to your local book store (or Amazon.com) and get a copy of the Federalist Papers by James Madison, Al Hamilton and John Jay. The book is a collection of essays put together to educate the states assemblies and push for ratification of the constitution.
Every constitutional argument you've ever heard by the gun grabbers is dealt with in this volume. The same guys who wrote the 2nd amendment discuss the rights of a free society.
Every gun owner in America should have a well thumbed copy of this book in their home. Buy it, read it, refer to it often.

Thanks, I'll get off the soapbox now.

[This message has been edited by Keith Rogan (edited March 13, 1999).]
 
Even better are the Anti-Federalist papers, written by those people who opposed ratification of the Constitution on the grounds that a strong central government is a threat to liberty and the pursuit of happiness--how prophetic!
 
Any government is a threat to freedom.It is interesting to note the differences between "liberty" and "license" as they apply to freedom and the concept of government.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
Trevor,

The Anti-Federalists lost. Their arguments may be both educational and prophetic but they don't apply in a legal or constitutional sense.
Madison WROTE the 2nd Amendment. His writings on the Right to keep and bear arms have a direct legal bearing on constitutional arguments about the Bill of Rights. HCI can't argue that the 2nd is about Indian raids when Madison says that its another check and balance in our system to prevent tyranny - it ain't about Injuns or deer hunting, its about freedom and the maintenance of those freedoms for the future.

------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
 
Keith

<Go to your local book store (or Amazon.com) and get a copy of the Federalist Papers>

Why buy it when you can down load it off of the web? I did this a couple years ago. Don't remember the site but a search should turn it up.



------------------
Schmit, GySg, USMC(Ret)
NRA Life, Lodge 1201-UOSSS
"Si vis Pacem Para Bellum"
 
I have links to the Federalist Papers on my website...

Scroll down to "Historical Documents"

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
Great... now all we have to do is get the Lords o de Firing Line is to put the Federalist Papers in to the library.



------------------
Schmit, GySg, USMC(Ret)
NRA Life, Lodge 1201-UOSSS
"Si vis Pacem Para Bellum"
 
Keith, the AntiFederalist papers are also worth reading even though they lost.

Something to note when reading the Federalist Papers: Note how often Jay, Hamilton, and Madison belittle the idea of certain abuses by the goverment proposed under the Constitution. Then look at how many of those abuses have in fact become reality.
 
The antifederalists may have lost, but that defeat does not mean they were wrong. For instance, antifederalist number 7 warns that adoption of the Constitution would lead to civil war. It did. Antifederalist number 9 tells us that a consolidated government is a tyranny. I would agree it is. Numbers 24 and 25 spell out objections to a standing army, which has been and remains a threat to liberty. Numbers 26-28 discuss the use of coercion by the proposed Federal government to effect its dubious policies. Historical examples of this behavior since 1789 are too numerous to mention. Number 29 objects to the national control of the militia. Think about that problem the next time the President sends your local National Guard unit off to some foreign war without congressional approval and over the objections of the people in their states and their elected officials. So it goes since the mistake of ratification was made.

As for the second amendment in the Bill of Rights, if Hamilton wrote it, then he deserves a slap in the face for composing such a poorly written and ambiguous statement of a supposedly protected right. After all, under the Constitution, it is the Court that determines what is legal and constitutional, and the federal courts (in particular, the Ninth U.S. Court of Appeals) in modern times have ruled that the second amendment is a state right, not an individual one--so much for the glory of Hamilton's vision.

It is time for American gunwowners to get over citing the second amendment because the Court in this century has not clearly supported it as the protection of an individual right. That right (which I believe does exist) can only be affirmed culturally and politically in your own locality as you demonstrate that gun ownership is a responsible and socially beneficial behavior. Waiting for the Court to affirm this belief is to watch our right to bear arms to be incrementally taken away by the Constitutional acts of a Federal government that exists for a chosen few. Currently, these few would be the Clintons and their cadre of political operators. The Clintons, with their mixture of elitism and false populism, are the logical result of what the antifederalists were complaining about in 1788. And, frankly, I do not think any Republican is any better; such lack of merit is why the Senate would not convict the President. After the next election cycle, we will merely have another set of charlatans in the White House, all according to the Constitution.
 
Trevor,

There is a whole lot to agree with in your post!

“Right” does NOT always win. The listing of the antifederalists’ fears was more
prophetic that I ever realized. (Thanks for THAT info!)

If I understand you correctly, we agree that the Democrats and Republicans,
together with many of the media and like minded elitists world-wide, sure seem to
be working toward a World Government. This puts them at odds with us, putting
us in the position of voting “against” the candidate we hate the most by voting for
the one we hope will do us the least harm.

I also see little difference between the National Guard and the Reserves. They
both are easily called onto active duty to support our Federation.

We differ somewhat on the Second Amendment. I believe the meaning was clear
to our Founders. Normal “growth” of our language and power-grabbing
perversions have created a conflict where no conflict truly exists.

WE are the militia - necessary to keep a check on and a balance against the natural
tyrannical tendencies of most power seekers. Therefore, by ensuring an armed
populace, the federal government supposedly could not acquire excessive power.
The Supreme Court, to the best of my knowledge, have never disputed that
concept and, in fact, have upheld that concept.

In the Supreme Court case: United States v. Miller, the Court only affirmed an
indictment pertaining to the Firearms Act of 1934 involving the interstate
commerce of a shotgun with a barrel of less than 18 inches, without an appropriate
tax-stamp. The reasoning of the Court included, “... it is not within judicial notice
that a [sawed-off shotgun] is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its
use could contribute to the common defense.” (The Second Amendment Primer
by Les Adams, pg 136)

One analysis of this decision noted that the decision could be taken to “absurd
results” apparently implying we, as citizens, should be keeping fully automatic
rifles and other instruments of war.
I believe we must regain the rights we have lost by reversing the numerous
infringements on the intent of the Second Amendment.

That lower courts have rendered decisions opposing the obvious and documented
intent of the Second Amendment shows it is time for the Supreme Court to poop
or get off the pot! They should support the Second Amendment or declare it
invalid and let the chips fall where they may!

We agree that guns owners should provide a model to demonstrate the benefits to
which you refer. But it is the Second Amendment which is supposed to confirm
such firearms ownership. I believe we should be supporting the Second
Amendment vocally, socially, culturally, legally, and any other way we can come
up with. It is assuredly an individual right. It is a Natural Right secured by the
Second Amendment. To declare it a collective right is an obvious perversion of
the intent of the Amendment and inconsistent with the term “the people” in the
entire document.

However, I am open to any peaceful, legal means of regaining the Rights of the
Second Amendment and finding true representatives to serve us. How can we
achieve those goals?

As always, YMMV.

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited March 14, 1999).]
 
Trevor, I agree with your post wholeheartedly. However, judicial review as practiced by federal and state courts is not sanctioned in the Constitution. It is an acquired power.
 
Just to put my two cents worth in.... The anti-federalists although did not achieve all they set out to do, they however managed to get the bill of rights adopted. For if the federalists had not promised them the bill of rights, the constitution would not have been ratified. And if they had not followed through with that promise there would have been a civil war almost immediately.

And yes it is high time that the Supreme Court give some ligitimacy back to the court system by ruling on the 2nd. As it stands now, I personally do not have any respect for our court system. They do not rule by law, but rather by political whims of the party in power.

Richard
 
Just because the anti-federalists lost, doesn't mean they weren't right about the feds eventually abusing power. The problem is that most of the constitutional issues do not get addressed by the supreme court - such issues are held up in lower courts and never see the light of day.
The ONLY time the 2nd amendment was ever directly addressed by the supreme court was in US vs Miller. Miller lost, but what they don't tell you is that the court clearly upheld the individual right to carry MILITARY arms - Miller lost because he had a sawed off shotgun that could not be shown to be in use by a military force.
So, the supreme court is quite capable of doing the right thing and they get their background cites by reading the writings of people like Madison who wrote the 2nd amendment.




------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
 
No, sir. Miller did not lose because he could not show that a sawed off shotgun had no military use. He lost because he was never seen again after the first trial. Neither he nor his lawyer attended the Supreme Court hearing. The Justices heard nothing but the federal government's side of the issue. The supreme :)irony of the situation is that with the Court that heard US vs. Miller-they would have overturned the NFA if they had heard the entire story.
 
Spartacus,

I know where you're going but its all water under the bridge. Miller and his attorney didn't show up. Amazingly though, the court still upheld the 2nd as an individual right and thats the important thing.
Miller is the only time the Supreme Court has directly examined the 2nd amendment and it upheld the right of citizens to bear military arms - and to bear them without being connected to the National Guard as our liberal friends would have us believe.
We are the militia.


------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
 
The Anti-Federalists did *not* lose.

If they would have lost we would not have a Bill of Rights. That's right, the Federalists opposed having a Bill of Rights.

The Anti-Federalists refused to support ratification of the Constitution until the Federalists gave in to their demands.
The result is a combination of both movements.

Can you imagine the government we would have today if it wasn't for the efforts of the Anti-Federalists?
 
These are all good comments. Let me add that the U.S. courts are as much products of culture and politics as anything else, so it is imperative that gunowners promote firearms, shooting, and the 2nd Amendment as safe and viable pastimes that are vital to our national interests. Let us not be pushed aside as a lot of miscreants (as the anti-gunners would like). Morever, let us not be spoiled by the freedoms we do enjoy because a spoiled people eventually beg for despotic control over their lives. Keep the tradition of the self-reliant, disciplined, and honorable American alive in the facing of the creeping socialism around us.
 
Well yes, the anti-federalists DID lose. They did not wish to ratify the constitution at all. They wanted to keep the US as a sort of lose confederation of independent states as existed prior to 1790.
The federalists opposed a Bill of Rights because they felt it was a redundancy. The Constitution so clearly limits federal powers that they couldn't conceive of any way for a tyrant to abuse them.
Ang what happened? We added ten "amendments" to spell out certain rights and limitations and that very system has been the vehicle the feds have used ever since to usurp more powers - we now 24 amendments that have chipped away at states powers and increased federal powers beyond all recognition. Madison must be doing a 1000 rpm's in his grave at whats happening today. Prior to adding these amendments there was no vehicle at all for anyone to mess with the constitution.


------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top