Why is it that the term "the people" is not consistent.

D

delta58

New member
Can someone explain to me why some people think the term "the people" refers to a collective right in some circumstances and not others? The Constitution of the United States begins with "We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...". Does this apply to all of the people or just some of the people? The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to asssemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Who is this refering to? All of the people or some of the people? The second amendment says," A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Who are these people? I don't see any difference in any of them all I see is the people. Can anyone shed any light on this for me?
 
Basically I suspect collectivist interpretations of 'the people' as regards RKBA falls under the rubric of The Big Lie. If you recall Hitler found out that if he told a lie loudly enough and long enough people would start believing it. The hope is that one day if it is iterated until 'the people' forget the truth 'the government' can get rid of these unwashed masses who want to have sayso about their own destiny.
 
It's simple - the liberal/left interpret 'the people' in the way that most favors their socialist agenda.

Free armed citizens don't fit into their plans to reduce us all into docile worker ants in their utopia, so that 'the people' means no RKBA for, well, the people.
 
The people were men, land owners, and white.

Women need not apply and the darker of the population was considered 3/5 of a person and then I don't think women were involved either.
The True constitutionalist worries me. What are they stupid or what.

In the real world there were many indentured servants, not just the slaves of the south. We still have the same problem in the Asian community, the Indian
(hindu) community and how about the Braceros, now that is pitiful.

Oh well the Republicans are doing such a good job at covering it up and the liberals are such dolts. I think I will just stop and wish everyone a Happy Holiday.

Harley
 
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
Click to expand...

Someone who disagrees with something will always find something, even something illogical, to support their argument. I hope they don't expect me to believe it.

The Constitutional use of the words "the people" is explicit and difficult to criticize, even today, but the current definition of "militia" has changed from it's original intent.

Originally, the "Militia" was every able bodied male between about 15 and 65 and they were expected to be prepared to take up arms for the protection of their greater community. Today, we have a (semi) professional Militia in the Guard and Liberal social engineers use that as the foundation of the argument that only the State, through the Militia, has the right to keep and bear arms.

I believe it would be correct to understand that the original intent in the Constitution was that it was expected that "the people" would be armed and able to defend themselves and their communities. I recognize that we could debate who was counted amongst "the people" in those days but I really don't wish to debate that now.

Simply put, there weren't sufficient Federal, State or local troops or police to protect "the people" and they needed to handle that themselves. Today, we have mulitple levels of law enforcement and 911 at our fingertips but they aren't going to arrive until after the crime has been commited and the criminals have departed.

The need and right for "the people" to be armed, and not be infringed, still exists.
 
I'm not sure the term "militia" has changed as much as some people might think. I think federal law still considers every able bodied male from 18 to 45 part of the militia. It seems like I have seen this somewhere. But I'm sure the gungrabbers won't agree with that.
 
Last edited:
The US Supreme Court says that the usage *is* consistent

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=494&invol=259

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez
494 U.S. 259 (1990)
Docket Number: 88-1353

"the people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. 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. See United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279, 292 (1904) (Excludable alien is not entitled to First Amendment rights, because "[h]e does not become one of the people to whom these things are secured by our Constitution by an attempt to enter forbidden by law"). The language of these Amendments contrasts with the words [494 U.S. 259, 266] "person" and "accused" used in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating procedure in criminal cases.
Click to expand...
 
Anyone here care to have a go at what "well regulated" means? And while we're at it, what we're supposed to do once we are outside the age limit of the militia?
 
Harley Quinn said:
Women need not apply and the darker of the population was considered 3/5 of a person and then I don't think women were involved either.
Click to expand...
Yet we have had some amendments to our Constitution that have changed certain things. Then too, you would do well to remember that not all the Framers believed in such servitude. They believed that the phrase, "all men are created equal," did in fact mean all men and women. Not a very popular notion in the 18th century, but one that slowly gained acceptance.
The True constitutionalist worries me. What are they stupid or what.
Click to expand...
One wonders why? Words mean something. And in a written constitution, they mean what was meant when written... Not what words and phrases have morphed into today. Why is that stupid?

Your comments about slavery in other parts of the world are a red herring, as they have no bearing upon the US and the operative law here.

This is unlike you, Harley. I would almost think you are suffering from Holiday Depression.
 
Rkba 101

Anyone here care to have a go at what "well regulated" means? And while we're at it, what we're supposed to do once we are outside the age limit of the militia?
Click to expand...

I created the following compilation to assist with these oft-asked questions...
William W. Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125 (2d ed. 1829). was
the author of "A View of the Constitution of the United States of
America." His work was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West
Point. He is quoted by Stephen P. Halbrook in "That Every Man Be
Armed: The Evolution of a Consitutional Right" as follows.

"In the Second Article, it is declared that a well regulated militia is
necessary to the security of a free state: a proposition from which few
will dissent. Although in actual war, the services of regular troops
are confessedly more valuable, yet ... the militia form the palladium of
the country .... The corollary from the first position is, that the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. THE
PROHIBITION IS GENERAL. NO clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give Congress a right to DISARM THE
PEOPLE. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some
general pretence by a state legislature. But, if in any blind pursuit
of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be
appealed to as a restraint on both."

Tenche Coxe, a friend of Madison and future Pennsylvania Attorney General
wrote the following glowing report of the Second Amendment, "As civil
rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may
attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be
occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to
the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the
article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789. Madison later read these
words and wrote back to Coxe, "...the printed remarks I already find in
the gazettes here...be greatly favored by explanatory strictures of a
healing tendency, and is therefore already indebted to the cooperation
of your pen."

Coxe, like the rest of our Founding Fathers was not a late-comer to this
issue; the following words were written prior to the Constitutional
Convention: "The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the
people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will
form a powerful check upon regular troops, and will generally be
sufficient to over-awe them. Who are the militia? Are they not
ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords
and every other terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of
an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of
either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it
will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

General Principles of Constitutional Law by Thomas Cooley, was one of
the most popular law school texts of the latter 19th Century. Said
Cooley, "The right of self defense is the first law of nature; in most
governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within
the narrowest limits possible."

Further,

"The right is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology
of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only
guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not
warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere,
consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the
performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service
when called upon...If the right were limited to those enrolled, the
purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or
the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet in voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order."
Click to expand...

"Well-regulated" means "skilled."

As you can see, Judge Cooley's words show that RKBA is not limited to militia.

I have been unable to find contrary views by the Founders or contemporary figures during the times of these writings. They were excepted views.

Did I answer your questions?

Rick
 
Maybe we examine the term "militia" in relation to the draft: Only members of the militia are eligible for the draft. The draft pulls from the militia. In order to have effective draftees in time of war, the militia must train itself, and remain "well regulated".

Perhaps if we see further assaults on the 2nd ammendment, we could counter-strike on legislation regarding the draft?

I don't have anything against the draft in general, it just seems that the themes relating "militia" to "arms" share common legal components with democratic conscription.

The gun grabbers have hopes of one day using law enforcement and military to take guns away... So if the military is made to safeguard our private ownership vis-a-vis its dependence on the militia in time of wars and drafts, the libs will get another enemy.

I know most armed forces are conservative, but I sometimes think that the top military brass around DC have more in common with liberals than conservatives. That might light a fire under their keisters to not go along with any BS.
 
In fact, if we simply stated that the draft may only pull from members of the militia, this would fix all problems with the second ammendment.

Obviously you can't draft the "National Guard" as liberals think the militia refers to. If the draft refered to you and I as the militia, that would cement the integrity of the 2nd ammendment once and for all.
 
Because if the words, The People, are taken as it should, then they would have no ground to stand on with trying to ban firearms.

To make it a collective and not individual gives credit to their argument, at least to those that aren't schooled or are lacking in intelligence.

With the creation of the National Guard, by federal mandate, a hundred years after the signing of the Constitution/Bill of Rights, this gave even more "credit" for those that don't know history, and thus firmly believe that the National Guard was in force in the 18th century and they were/are the militia.

When a person or persons have a fear, as they do with firearms and firearm owners, anything can be rationalized in their minds to gain their goal, that goal is "feeling safe".

The People in the 2nd are the same as outlined in the original 10. But when one has such a fear that they will rationalize anything in order to feel safe, they find that words and definitions are the easiest to manipulate.

It's been shown here, on this very board, with some members. People hear or read what they want to hear or read.

Wayne
 
With the creation of the National Guard, by federal mandate, a hundred years after the signing of the Constitution/Bill of Rights, this gave even more "credit" for those that don't know history,
Click to expand...
The NG is not THE Militia. It is A Militia, a Select Militia, which is one of the things that Founding Fathers were concerned and warned about.

Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."

-- Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
Signer of the Declaration of Independence
Click to expand...

By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government. It is observed that select corps may be formed, composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power.

-- Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #29
Click to expand...

And lest we forget the true purpose of the RKBA and the Second Amendment, Hamiton makes it clear later in Fed #29:
This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
Click to expand...

Looks like some folks here need to do a little light reading (research).

This is basic stuff. It should already be part of your intellectual arsenal.

Get to work.

Rick
 
Guys, I understand that the terms "militia" and "the people" are synonymous and interchangeable in 18th century American English.

Consider this, though:
1. Gun grabbers want guns out of the hands of individuals.
2. Gun grabbers think the militia refers to "official" military or law enforcement.
3. Gun grabbers want to use their "militia" to take guns away forcibly if need be.

This would require conscription because it would start a civil war.

If the law reads that conscripts must come from the militia, which regulates itself in times of peace, then the entire confiscation argument collapses because either:
1. The national guard is then the only body from which to conscript, or:
2. Using conscription affirms that the militia is indeed the citizenry at large and they have another point of law aside from the 2nd affirming the RKBA.

I think it would be a great move! I am in no way suggesting that only the national guard can keep weapons.

I am only suggesting playing word games with conscription law to re-affirm the 2nd ammendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top