United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: FLUSH: ‘Conservative Hero’ Ben Carson To Beck: You Have No Right To Semi-Automatic Weapons In Large Cities
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/conserva ... matic-weapons-in-large-cities/
Published: Nov 12, 2014
Author: Andrew Kirell
Post Date: 2014-11-12 12:32:26 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 40327
Comments: 99
Appearing on Glenn Beck‘s radio show this past week, Dr. Benjamin Carson took a vastly different stance from most conservatives on the issue of gun control, claiming you shouldn’t be able to own semi-automatic weapons in large cities. Carson became a newfound conservative hero last month when he spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast and laid out a series of criticisms of ObamaCare, political correctness, and tax policy right in front of the president himself. Many called the speech “inappropriate” given the apolitical nature of the event, but many conservatives lauded Carson for his “bold” and “sensible” suggestions for policy reform. Asked by Beck for his thoughts on the Second Amendment, Carson gave the popular pro-gun argument: “There’s a reason for the Second Amendment; people do have the right to have weapons.” But when asked whether people should be allowed to own “semi-automatic weapons,” the doctor replied: “It depends on where you live.” “I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it,” Carson elaborated. However, if you live “out in the country somewhere by yourself” and want to own a semi-automatic weapon, he added, “I’ve no problem with that.” Watch below, via TheBlaze:
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
But when asked whether people should be allowed to own “semi-automatic weapons,” the doctor replied: “It depends on where you live.” “I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it,” Carson elaborated. Cities can exert no exemption to the requirements of the Constitution. For those who choose to blather about the militia, the militia includes virtually all men between the ages of 17 to 45, and female citizens in the National Guard. The right reserved by the people, and not delegated to the government, is reserved for all and not just members of the militia. As Madison shows in Federalist 46, the right is not reserved for the purpose of deer hunting but as a defense against an overreaching Federal government. (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. Madison, Federalist 46, re the Militia
Cities can exert no exemption to the requirements of the Constitution. I thought that was a strange view that the constitution vaires dependingon where you live. Don't most peole live in the cities these days? That would mean more then 50 percent would have no right bear arms as defined in the constitution. Where did this guy come from anyway. He's "popular" because he gave a speech at some prayer breakfast? I'm thinking that people like him because he is black. On this subject I think Dr. Carson is just using his judgements. He doesn't want gun violence and he thinks it would be better if no semi automatic guns were in the urban areas or however he phrased it. I think that he is well meaning but that isn't good enough.
Carson is wrong on several issues, the 2nd. being one of them. He is an illegal/legal reformer. He likes big government programs...just that he wants to tweek them into something he considers right. Obamacare... And this among other things. He appears to be a gifted speaker, a likable man. But he is not even Senate material much less for POTUS. I'm amazed at the support so many give him for a run.
“I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it,” Carson elaborated. On this subject I think Dr. Carson is just using his judgements. He doesn't want gun violence and he thinks it would be better if no semi automatic guns were in the urban areas or however he phrased it. I think that he is well meaning but that isn't good enough. To be fair, Dr. Carson did not state his interpretation of what the law says, but rather what his personal preference would be. Carson is a renowned doctor and was the director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins. I think people like him because he is well spoken and articulates conservative ideas on Fox where they toy with the idea of a Carson run for President. He is a good spokesman for conservative ideas but I'm not sure being a neurosurgeon qualifies one for the presidency any more than being a community organizer.
Words mean things. The second amendment does not say, "the right of all persons". It says the right of "the people". Who were "the people"? At the time, they were the rich white men. The ones with someting to lose. The ones who wrote the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights to protect their interests. Only "the people" could vote (Article I, Section 2), for example. And back then, those were the rich white men only. Only they had the right to vote, to assemble, petition the government, keep and bear arms, and be free from ubreasonable searches. Now, who was in the militia back then? According to the Militia Act of 1792, only white adult male citizens. Not women. Not black slaves. Not children. Not non-citizens. Therefore, not all persons. Only "the people". The second amendment protected their right to keep and bear arms as part of a militia. State constitutions protected the rights of other persons.
Interesting analysis.
This argument is a waste of time. Semi-automatic weapons of the type he's referring to are not the source of gun violence in the cities. It's handguns in the hands of teens and gangbangers.
So... All that matters is the perception and propaganda of "gun violence" created by the Statists, globalists, and fascists. The actual ID and demo of 99% of the perps are as you alluded. The globalists-statists and pro-Fascists are enabling and using the said Neanderthals as an excuse to pull the plug on the 2A for the rest of us... ...AS these same globalists-statists and pro-Fascists decided to enable the jihadist Muzzies to do their thing on 9/11 in order to enforce their Big Brother/Patriot Act to further destroy the 2A and 4A... ....AS these same globalists-statists and pro-Fascists decided to enable the Homos and gay Nazis to violate the 1A, 4A, and 14th Amendments (among others.)
It's been awhile, welcome back...
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Single issue voters.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Who were "the people"? At the time, they were the rich white men. The ones with someting to lose. The ones who wrote the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights to protect their interests. Only "the people" could vote (Article I, Section 2), for example. And back then, those were the rich white men only. Only they had the right to vote, to assemble, petition the government, keep and bear arms, and be free from ubreasonable searches. The people were those who organized as political communities called States. The people hold sovereignty which is exercised only as States. The Federal government had no say in who could, or could not, vote. Only later did amendments and federal law forbid voting discrimination based on race or sex, etc. Voting was not restricted to rich White people or men. Neither was it restricted to citizens. Blacks, women, and aliens all voted in the early days of the nation. In early presidential and senatorial elections there was no popular vote at all. To this day, there is no constitutional right to vote for president, as noted in Bush v. Gore. [The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U. S. Const., Art. II, §1.] Who was entitled to vote was entirely a matter under State purview and varied from state to state. For one example, in New Jersey, women voted. http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-8-1-b-who-voted-in-early-america "Of Government in Petticoats!!!" The provision on suffrage in the New Jersey state constitution of 1776 granted the right to vote to "all inhabitants" who were of legal age (21), owned property worth 50 English pounds (not necessarily a freehold), and resided in a county for at least one year. No one is sure what was meant by "all inhabitants" since the New Jersey constitutional convention was held in secret. But it appears that no agitation for woman suffrage occurred at the convention. After the state constitution was ratified by the voters (presumably only men voted), little comment on the possibility of women voting took place in the state for 20 years. Even so, one state election law passed in 1790 included the words "he or she." It is unclear how many, or if any, women actually voted during this time. In 1797, a bitter contest for a seat in the New Jersey state legislature erupted between John Condict, a Jeffersonian Republican from Newark, and William Crane, a Federalist from Elizabeth. Condict won the election, but only by a narrow margin after Federalists from Elizabeth turned out a large number of women to vote for Crane. This was probably the first election in U.S. history in which a substantial group of women went to the polls. Blacks clearly voted: The Supreme Court of North Carolina, State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. and Bat. 20, opinion of the court: U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Curtis, dissenting opinion in Scott v. Sanford: That of New Jersey, to "all inhabitants of this colony, of full age, who are worth £ 50 proclamation money, clear estate." New York, by its Constitution of 1820, required colored persons to have some qualifications as prerequisites for voting, which white persons need not possess. And New Jersey, by its present Constitution, restricts the right to vote to white male citizens. Aliens clearly voted: http://www.ehistory.com/uscw/library/or/123/0369.cfm Page 369 UNION AUTHORITIES. MADISON, WIS., August 12, 1862. Honorable E. M. STANTON: About one-half of the able-bodied men between eighteen and forty- five years in this State are foreign born. They have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States. Have the right to vote under our State constitution if twenty-one years old. Have enjoyed and are enjoying all the privileges of citizens. Are they liable to be drafted? They should be liable. Great injustice will be done to our State if they are exempt, and our quota would be too large if they are exempt. Cannot those who are not willing to subject themselves to draft be ordered to leave the country? Answer this immediately. I must have the time for volunteering extended, as asked for by my dispatches of Saturday and yesterday. Please answer them. E. SALOMON, Governor of Wisconsin.
Therefore, not all persons. Only "the people". The second amendment protected their right to keep and bear arms as part of a militia. State constitutions protected the rights of other persons. The Militia Act of May 8, 1792 (or Second Militia Act of 1792) (a) SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representitives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia by the captain or commanding officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this act. And it shall at all times hereafter be the duty of every such captain or commanding officer of a company to enrol every such citizen, as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of eighteen years, or being of the age of eighteen years and under the age of forty-five years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrolment, by a proper non-commissioned officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. [snip] The Act did not "protect" a right to keep and bear arms. It mandated that the members of the militia possess arms, whether they desired to exercise their right to keep arms or not. The Second Amendment to the Constitution (1791) predates the Militia Act of May 8, 1792 and expressly reserved to the people their pre-existing right to keep and bear arms (the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed). Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.
However, if you live “out in the country somewhere by yourself” and want to own a semi-automatic weapon, he added, “I’ve no problem with that.” If we parse his statement, what Carson is saying is...undisciplined Urban Plantation Blacks and Hispanics are THE problem, and thus this is a 2A compromise. In a way it makes sense.
Those were rare and small exceptions to the rule. My point was that only "the people" were allowed to vote. And 99.9% of them were adult, white male citizens.
Yes. "The people". Not "all persons". "Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed." Yeah? What about it? Seems to me it's defining "the people" as "the voters". Which is what I've been saying all along.
What you actually said was: You were explicitly commenting upon the Constitution, not State laws on qualifications for State offices. The Second Amendment is organic law. It was a restriction on the delegation of power to the Federal government. It said "the people" and it did not exclude anyone from "the people" as you claim. The RKBA was a preexisting right, predating the Constitution, and was not something that flowed from the Constitution. The express restriction on the Federal government was unlimited, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the people to keep and bear arms was never restricted to rich White people. Your fanciful imaginary rewrite of the Constitution has no basis in law or history. If such was Constitution in 1789, what amendment changed that and when did the change enter into force? What the States did was left to the States regarding voter qualifications for non-Federal offices. Notably, while many State laws prohibited women from voting prior to the 19th Amendment in 1920, the Constitution governed qualifications for Federal elections and women could not be barred from running for Federal office. Belva Ann Lockwood was nominated for President by the National Equal Rights Party in 1884 and gained ballot access in 6 States and received 4,149 recorded votes. Lockwood was the first woman to officially appear on the ballot. Note: Victoria Woodhull was nominated in 1872 but did not gain ballot access as she was only 34 years of age. What the Constitution says is not defined by what States may choose to do relative to matters under State purview.
Seems to me you are really reaching. This means many citizens are not considered part of "the people." FYI, you cited an imaginary Executive Order on LP. http://69.164.197.124/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=349284&Disp=1#C1 The 1986 law extended amnesty to illegal immigrants, but not to their spouses or children. Both Reagan and Bush used executive orders to cover the spouses and children. Obama is planning to do exactly the same. (http://www.businessinsider.com/reagan-and-bush-made-immigration-executive- orders-2014-11) misterwhite posted on 2014-11-19 14:17:26 ET In Reagan's case, the Director of INS announced a policy change. If you desire to fact check, here are links for all Executive Orders issued by Reagan in 1986, 1987, and 1988. Happy hunting for a relevant Reagan Executive Order.
Article I, Section 2 of this "organic law" reads: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and ..." Aren't children excluded from "the people" in Article I, Section 2? Women? Slaves? Foreigners? Non-freeholders? Yet you claim no one is excluded from "the people" in the second amendment. So you're saying "the people" means different things?
Correct. But the second amendment protected that right from federal infringement for rich white men and no one else. State constitutions protected the right for others.
Even Business Insider used the term "Executive Order" to describe the action. But if you want to be picky, my statement should read: Both Reagan and Bush used their executive authority to issue orders to cover the spouses and children. Obama is planning to do exactly the same."
Aren't children excluded from "the people" in Article I, Section 2? Women? Slaves? Foreigners? Non-freeholders? Yet you claim no one is excluded from "the people" in the second amendment. You can't seem to shake your confusion that "the people" of the United States are defined 50 different ways by how the various States define who has voting rights. In some states, convicted felons cannot vote, in others they can. State regulation of voting rights does not define citizenship. The people of the nation are defined by the Federal government. The people of the nation are it's citizens. The Constitution was silent on voting rights until the 15th and 19th amendments. The people, the citizens, decided who would be allowed to vote. Your imaginary supposition holds that American citizens are not considered the people of America.
"[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" expressly declared that there was no delegation of authority to the Federal goverment of the right to keep and bear arms already held by the people of America. The people of America existed before the Constitution. It was the citizenry.
Correct. "The people" were the voters, and the states determined who could vote. Sure, there were some exceptions, but 99.9% of the voters were rich, white men, so that's what I used. Not every citizen was allowed to vote. Not even today. "Your imaginary supposition holds that American citizens are not considered the people of America." I thought we agreed that "the people" were the voters. Not all citizens can vote, even today, and back in 1789 they were only the rich white male citizens.
The second amendment protects the existing right of "the people" (NOT all persons) to keep and bear arms from federal infringement. "The people" were the voters, and in 1792 they were the rich, white, male citizens. "The people of America existed before the Constitution. It was the citizenry." Well, yes, "the people" were citizens. But they also voted, and not all citizens voted back then. They still don't.
I'm not being picky. There was no Executive Order, memorandum or proclamation. Just because someone says something does not make it so. This readily fact-checkable information was echoed all around the internet by numerous people, not just by yourself. Reagan's Attorney General Ed Meese wrote a memo and INS District Director Perry Rivkind anounced a policy change. It was an action made within the Executive branch but was not issued by President Reagan. I will assume you have not read the "Reagan" memo/announcement. See this report from 1989 quoting the Meese memorandum. January 15, 1989 [...] George Waldroup, deputy director of the Miami INS office, said the statement by INS District Director Perry Rivkind, "was taken out of context back then. What the statement was, was that he would not deport any Nicaraguan until the due process had been finalized under existing statute or regulation. Nicaraguans have been deported by this district. He did say it was against his moral consciousness to do so when you had a government there like it was." In July of 1987, Meese issued a memorandum directing INS to take a series of steps regarding Nicaraguans. "No Nicaraguan who has a well-founded fear of persecution will be deported in the absence of a finding by the Justice Department that the individual has either engaged in serious criminal activity or poses a danger to the national security," the memo read, according to Meissner. "Every qualified Nicaraguan seeking a work authorization will be entitled to one, and all INS officials are directed to encourage and expedite Nicaraguan applications for work authorizations." [snip] Obama Set to Unilaterally Reshape the Nation’s Immigration System In 1986, Congress passed the Immigration and Reform Control Act, which provided a general amnesty to almost 3 million illegal immigrants. According to the Associated Press, Reagan acted unilaterally when his Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner “announced that minor children of parents granted amnesty by [IRCA] would get protection from deportation.” In fact, in 1987, then-Attorney General Ed Meese issued a memorandum allowing the INS to defer deportation where “compelling or humanitarian factors existed” for children of illegal immigrants who had been granted amnesty and, in essence, given green cards and put on a path towards being “naturalized” as citizens. In announcing this policy, Reagan was not defying Congress, but rather carrying out the general intent of Congress which had just passed a blanket amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants. I assume the public at large has yet to read the Obama Executive Order as it has not yet been published to the public. It should be Executive Order 13862. All Executive Orders must be published in the Federal Register at this one, when it is published, should be available at this link. It is hard to say exactly what Obama is planning to do before the Executive Order is published. There have been indications that the unlawful deportable aliens will be given work permits and social security numbers. We already know that Obama lies about what his actions will do. On Obamacare, the bill had to be passed in order to find out what was in it. Then, the promise and forecast claims evaporated. The American people were Grubered. It is exceedingly difficult to see how Obama is planning to patch an unforeseen result of a recently enacted law -- seeing as how the piece of recently enacted law for Obama does not exist. The Senate legislation (S. 744) frequently cited by Obama was unconstitutional on its face. How much of this does Obama seek to enact by executive fiat? We have to wait to see the Executive Order. The Executive can not raise any funding without congressional authorization, and that must start in the House. The Dem immigration bill in the Senate, S. 744, passed 68-32 and died. It was "blue slipped" and never considered in the House. It was an unconstitutional bill originated in the Senate and raising revenue. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:SN00744:@@@S Latest Title: Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act Sponsor: Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] (introduced 4/16/2013) Cosponsors (7) Related Bills: H.R.5, H.R.490, H.R.1596, H.R.2270, H.R.2624, H.R.3130, H.R.3344, H.R.3431, H.R.3568, H.R.3914, H.R.4460, H.R.4951, H.R.4961, S.223, S.616, S.891, S.1889, S.2561, S.2781 Latest Major Action: 6/27/2013 Passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 68 - 32. Record Vote Number: 168. Latest Action: 6/27/2013 Senate ordered measure printed as passed. Senate Reports: 113-40 For any who claim that obama can implement what is in this Bill without Congress, or that such actions do not required appropriation of funds, this is an 1198-page bill littered with appropriations.
9 SEC. 6. COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM FUNDS.
10 (a) COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM TRUST
11 FUND.—
12 (1) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established in
13 the Treasury a separate account, to be known as the
14 Comprehensive Immigration Reform Trust Fund
15 (referred to in this section as the ‘‘Trust Fund’’),
16 consisting of—
17 (A) amounts transferred from the general
18 fund of the Treasury under paragraph (2)(A);
19 and
20 (B) proceeds from the fees described in
21 paragraph (2)(B).
22 (2) DEPOSITS.—
23 (A) INITIAL FUNDING.—On the later of
24 the date of the enactment of this Act or Octo-
25 ber 1, 2013, $46,300,000,000 shall be trans-
[47]
1 ferred from the general fund of the Treasury to
2 the Trust Fund.
$46 billion here, and $46 billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money. And, of course, U.S. Const., Art 1, Sec 7, cl 1, states, "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." I suppose that because the House would not act to generate the 1198 pages, the Senate felt legally justified to do it themselves. They could not wait. It was an emergency. No, I'm serious about the emergency. See page 66,
2 (1) EMERGENCY DESIGNATION FOR CONGRES-
3 SIONAL ENFORCEMENT.—In the Senate, amounts
4 appropriated by or deposited in the general fund of
5 the Treasury pursuant to this section are designated
6 as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
7 403(a) of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress), the
8 concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year
9 2010.
10 (2) EMERGENCY DESIGNATION FOR STATUTORY
11 PAYGO.—Amounts appropriated by or deposited in
12 the general fund of the Treasury pursuant to this
13 section are designated as an emergency requirement
14 under section 4(g) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go
15 Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–139; 2 U.S.C.
16 933(g)).
Examples of appropriations littered throughout the 1,198 pages of the bill. Under SEC. 1104. ENHANCEMENT OF EXISTING BORDER SECURITY OPERATIONS which begins at page 82, one funds at page 86,
5 There is authorized to be appropriated for each of
6 fiscal years 2014 through 2018 such sums as may
7 be necessary to carry out this subsection.
Under SEC. 1106. EQUIPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY which begins at page 92, we find on page 93,
11 tion to amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated,
12 there is authorized to be appropriated to U.S. Customs
13 and Border Protection such sums as may be necessary to
14 carry out subsection (a) during fiscal years 2014 through
15 2018.
At pages 505-506 we find Section 2541, we find,
18 SEC. 2541. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
19 (a) OFFICE OF CITIZENSHIP AND NEW AMERI-
20 CANS.—In addition to any amounts otherwise made avail
21 able to the Office, there are authorized to be appropriated
22 to carry out the functions described in section 451(f)(2)
23 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C.
24 271(f)(2)), as amended by section 2511(b)—
25 (1) $10,000,000 for the 5-year period ending
26 on September 30, 2018; and
506
1 (2) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal
2 year 2019 and subsequent fiscal years.
3 (b) GRANT PROGRAMS.—There are authorized to be
4 appropriated to implement the grant programs authorized
5 under sections 2537 and 2538, and to implement the
6 strategy under section 2539—
7 (1) $100,000,000 for the 5-year period ending
8 on September 30, 2018; and
9 (2) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal
10 year 2019 and subsequent fiscal years.
You're off topic. In 1792, who were "the people" in the U.S. Constitution? Were they "all persons", "all citizens", or the voters?
[...] I thought we agreed that "the people" were the voters. [...] I thought we agreed that "the people" were the voters. Think again. That idea is absolute blithering nonsense. The Supreme Court explained it simply. U.S. Supreme Court, 60 U. S. 393, 404 (1856) As the following official record shows, about half of the able-bodied men in the state of Wisconsin were foreign born, aliens, had declared their intention to become citizens but had not yet become citizens. Under Wisconsin law they enjoyed the right to vote and all other privileges of citizens. But they were not citizens of the United States. According to your theory, all of these aliens with the right to vote (by Wisconsin law) somehow became "the people" of the United States. http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cache/w/a/r/waro0123/00381.tif100.gif Page 369 UNION AUTHORITIES. MADISON, WIS., August 12, 1862. Honorable E. M. STANTON: About one-half of the able-bodied men between eighteen and forty- five years in this State are foreign born. They have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States. Have the right to vote under our State constitution if twenty-one years old. Have enjoyed and are enjoying all the privileges of citizens. Are they liable to be drafted? They should be liable. Great injustice will be done to our State if they are exempt, and our quota would be too large if they are exempt. Cannot those who are not willing to subject themselves to draft be ordered to leave the country? Answer this immediately. I must have the time for volunteering extended, as asked for by my dispatches of Saturday and yesterday. Please answer them. E. SALOMON, Governor of Wisconsin.
In 1792, who were "the people" in the U.S. Constitution? Were they "all persons", "all citizens", or the voters? The Supreme Court explained it simply. U.S. Supreme Court, 60 U. S. 393, 404 (1856)
The Supreme Court explained it simply. U.S. Supreme Court, 60 U. S. 393, 404 (1856)
I didn't ask who were the "people of the United States". I asked you who were "the people". Article I, Section 2 refers to "the people". Who were they? In 1792 they weren't women or children, were they? They weren't slaves or foreigners. Who were they?
Yes. As I said, there were exceptions given that each state decided who could vote. The bottom line is that "the people" were not all persons or even all citizens. They were a select group who were allowed to vote.
"The people" referred to by the people who wrote the Constitution of the United States were the people (citizens) of the United States, as opposed to the people of some other nation or other definitions derived from sampling Mr. White's blue ice. U.S. Supreme Court, 60 U. S. 393, 404 (1856)
Yes. As I said, there were exceptions given that each state decided who could vote. Do you really mean to say that aliens, citizens of foreign countries, permitted to vote in Wisconsin (and elsewhere) were "the people" of the United States, while United States citizens who could not vote were not "the people" of the United States? No State could decide who was, or was not, a citizen of the United States. That's a Federal matter. Of course, one could be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of any State. If "voters" and "the people," are synonymous, and some States permitted aliens to be voters, alien voters would be among "the people" of the United States. Alternatively, if these voters were not among "the people" of the United States, then "voters" cannot be synonymous with "the people."
Weren't women citizens? Article I, Section 2 says "the people" vote. Women didn't vote.
Correct. "Do you really mean to say that aliens, citizens of foreign countries, permitted to vote in Wisconsin (and elsewhere) were "the people" of the United States, while United States citizens who could not vote were not "the people" of the United States?" That's correct. Wisconsin let those "aliens" vote because they were going to become citizens soon thereafter. So Wisconsin made an exception. But once again, you're citing exceptions to the rule then making some generalization.
Your fantasy remains without merit. See Minor v. Happersett Minor v Happersett, 88 US 162 (1875) 88 U.S. 162 Minor v. Happersett Argued: February 9, 1875 --- Decided: March 29, 1875 ERROR to the Supreme Court of Missouri; the case being thus: The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in its first section, thus ordains; [n1] "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws." And the constitution of the State of Missouri [n2] thus ordains: "Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote." Under a statute of the State all persons wishing to vote at any election, must previously have been registered in the manner pointed out by the statute, this being a condition precedent to the exercise of the elective franchise. In this state of things, on the 15th of October, 1872 (one of the days fixed by law for the registration of voters), Mrs. Virginia Minor, a native born, free, white citizen of the United States, and of the State of Missouri, over the age of twenty-one years, wishing to vote for electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, and for a representative in Congress, and for other officers, at the general election held in November, 1872, applied to one Happersett, the registrar of voters, to register her as a lawful voter, which he refused to do, assigning for cause that she was not a "male citizen of the United States," but a woman. She thereupon sued him in one of the inferior State courts of Missouri, for wilfully refusing to place her name upon the list of registered voters, by which refusal she was deprived of her right to vote. The registrar demurred, and the court in which the suit was brought sustained the demurrer, and gave judgment in his favor; a judgment which the Supreme Court affirmed. Mrs. Minor now brought the case here on error. 1. The word "citizen" is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation. 2. In that sense, women, of born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution as since. 3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had. 4. At the time of the adoption of that amendment, suffrage was not coextensive with the citizenship of the States; nor was it at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. 5. Neither the Constitution nor the fourteenth amendment made all citizens voters. 6. A provision in a State constitution which confines the right of voting to "male citizens of the United States," is no violation of the Federal Constitution. In such a State women have no right to vote. [snip]
You are the one whose argument has been reduced to saying that aliens, foreign citizens, were "the people" of the United States and citizens without the right to vote were not "the people" of the United States.
You're the one citing exceptions, not I. I told you why those aliens were allowed to vote. That one state, one time. I'll ask you one last time. Who were "the people" in Article I, Section 2? In other words, who was allowed to vote in 1792? If you refuse to answer, I'm done with you on this forum. I see no reason to have to ask a question multiple times.
Don't cite 1875 or 1975. In 1792, who were "the people" who voted in Article I, Section 2? Are you insisting that was every citizen?
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously insisted. Deal with it. I will cite the U.S. Supreme Court when it directly destroys your specious argument. It explicitly applies to before the 14th Amendment and before the Constitution. Minor v Happersett, 88 US 162 (1875) 2. In that sense, women, of born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution as since. 3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had. [...] There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an [p166] association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance. For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words "subject," "inhabitant," and "citizen" have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.
Comments (41 - 99) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestAsked by Beck for his thoughts on the Second Amendment, Carson gave the popular pro-gun argument: “There’s a reason for the Second Amendment; people do have the right to have weapons.”
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.
§311. Militia: composition and classes
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.
#2. To: nolu chan (#1)
“I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it,” Carson elaborated.
#3. To: A K A Stone, nolu chan (#2)
#4. To: A K A Stone (#2)
But when asked whether people should be allowed to own “semi-automatic weapons,” the doctor replied: “It depends on where you live.”
#5. To: nolu chan (#1)
"The right reserved by the people, and not delegated to the government, is reserved for all and not just members of the militia."
#6. To: misterwhite (#5)
(Edited)
#7. To: A K A Stone (#0)
#8. To: misterwhite (#7)
This argument is a waste of time. Semi-automatic weapons of the type he's referring to are not the source of gun violence in the cities. It's handguns in the hands of teens and gangbangers.
#9. To: misterwhite (#5)
#10. To: out damned spot (#3)
He appears to be a gifted speaker, a likable man. But he is not even Senate material much less for POTUS. I'm amazed at the support so many give him for a run.
#11. To: misterwhite (#5)
Words mean things. The second amendment does not say, "the right of all persons". It says the right of "the people".
After declaring independence on July 4, 1776, each former English colony wrote a state constitution. About half the states attempted to reform their voting procedures. The trend in these states was to do away with the freehold requirement in favor of granting all taxpaying, free, adult males the right to vote. Since few men escaped paying taxes of some sort, suffrage (the right to vote) expanded in these states. Vermont's constitution went even further in 1777 when it became the first state to grant universal manhood suffrage (i.e., all adult males could vote). Some states also abolished religious tests for voting. It was in New Jersey that an apparently accidental phrase in the new state constitution permitted women to vote in substantial numbers for the first time in American history.
The Constitution extended the elective franchise to every freeman who had arrived at the age of twenty-one and paid a public tax, and it is a matter of universal notoriety that, under it, free persons, without regard to color, claimed and exercised the franchise until it was taken from free men of color a few years since by our amended Constitution.
The Constitution of New Hampshire conferred the elective franchise upon "every inhabitant of the State having the necessary qualifications," of which color or descent was not one. The Constitution of New York gave the right to vote to "every male inhabitant, who shall have resided," &c., making no discrimination between free colored persons and others. See Con. of N.Y., Art. 2, Rev.Stats. of N.Y., vol. 1, p. 126.
OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 3, vol 2, Part 1 (Union Letters, Orders, Reports)
#12. To: misterwhite (#5)
Now, who was in the militia back then? According to the Militia Act of 1792, only white adult male citizens. Not women. Not black slaves. Not children. Not non-citizens.
Chap. XXXIII.—An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defence by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.
That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twentyfour cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed. accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service. except, that when called out on company days to exercise only. he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger and espontoon. and that from and after five years from the passing of this act, all muskets for arming the militia as herein required. shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound. And every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
People. A state; as the people of the state of New York. A nation in its collective and political capacity. The aggregate or mass of the individuals who constitute the state. Loi Hoa v. Nagle, C.C.A.Cal., 13 F.2d 80, 81. In a more restricted sense, and as generally used in constitutinal law, the entire body of those citizens of a state or nation who are invested with political power for political power.
#13. To: A K A Stone (#0)
“I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it,” Carson elaborated.
#14. To: nolu chan (#11)
"Voting was not restricted to rich White people or men. Neither was it restricted to citizens. Blacks, women, and aliens all voted in the early days of the nation."
#15. To: nolu chan (#12)
"(the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed)."
#16. To: misterwhite (#14)
My point was that only "the people" were allowed to vote. And 99.9% of them were adult, white male citizens.
Words mean things. The second amendment does not say, "the right of all persons". It says the right of "the people".
#17. To: misterwhite (#15)
Seems to me it's defining "the people" as "the voters".
#1. To: Ndcorup (#0)
#18. To: nolu chan (#16)
"The Second Amendment ... said "the people" and it did not exclude anyone from "the people" as you claim.
#19. To: nolu chan (#16)
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms was never restricted to rich White people."
#20. To: nolu chan (#17)
"Both Reagan and Bush used executive orders to cover the spouses and children. Obama is planning to do exactly the same."
#21. To: misterwhite (#18)
Article I, Section 2 of this "organic law" reads: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and ..."
#22. To: misterwhite (#19)
#23. To: nolu chan (#21)
"You can't seem to shake your confusion that "the people" of the United States are defined 50 different ways by how the various States define who has voting rights."
#24. To: nolu chan (#22)
"[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" expressly declared that there was no delegation of authority to the Federal goverment of the right to keep and bear arms already held by the people of America.
#25. To: misterwhite (#20)
Even Business Insider used the term "Executive Order" to describe the action. But if you want to be picky, my statement should read:
Both Reagan and Bush used their executive authority to issue orders to cover the spouses and children. Obama is planning to do exactly the same."
Analysts Blaming Immigration Wave On Failed Policies
By DON MELVIN, Staff Writer
The Sun Sentinel Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization ….” And it is the president’s constitutional duty, under Article II, Section 3, to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed ….”
When, in the opinion of the House of Representatives, a Senate-introduced bill that raises revenue or appropriates money is passed by the Senate and sent to the House for its consideration, the House places a blue slip on the legislation that notes the House's constitutional prerogative and immediately returns it to the Senate without taking further action. This blue-slipping procedure, done by an order of the House, is routinely completed to enforce its interpretation that the House is the sole body to introduce revenue or appropriations legislation. The failure of the House to consider the legislation means it cannot become a law. This tactic is historically to be of great use to the House and, as a practical matter, the Senate does not introduce tax or revenue measures to avoid a blue slip.
S. 744
[46]
1 (d) DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.—
4 (4) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—
10 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—In addi-
CHAPTER 3—FUNDING
#26. To: nolu chan (#25)
#27. To: misterwhite (#23)
Correct. "The people" were the voters, and the states determined who could vote.
Correct. "The people" were the voters, and the states determined who could vote.
The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing.
OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 3, vol 2, Part 1 (Union Letters, Orders, Reports)
#28. To: misterwhite (#26)
The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing.
#29. To: misterwhite (#24)
"The people" were the voters, and in 1792 they were the rich, white, male citizens.
The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing.
#30. To: nolu chan (#29)
"The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing."
#31. To: nolu chan (#27)
(Edited)
"According to your theory, all of these aliens with the right to vote (by Wisconsin law) somehow became "the people" of the United States."
#32. To: All (#29)
I didn't ask who were the "people of the United States". I asked you who were "the people". Article I, Section 2 refers to "the people". Who were they?
The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing.
#33. To: misterwhite (#31)
"According to your theory, all of these aliens with the right to vote (by Wisconsin law) somehow became "the people" of the United States."
#34. To: nolu chan (#32)
"The people" referred to by the people who wrote the Constitution of the United States were the people (citizens) of the United States"
#35. To: nolu chan (#33)
"No State could decide who was, or was not, a citizen of the United States."
#36. To: misterwhite (#34)
Weren't women citizens? Article I, Section 2 says "the people" vote. Women didn't vote.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
#37. To: misterwhite (#35)
you're citing exceptions
#38. To: nolu chan (#37)
"You are the one whose argument has been reduced to saying that aliens, foreign citizens, were "the people" of the United States and citizens without the right to vote were not "the people" of the United States."
#39. To: nolu chan (#37)
"Your fantasy remains without merit."
#40. To: misterwhite (#39)
Don't cite 1875 or 1975. In 1792, who were "the people" who voted in Article I, Section 2? Are you insisting that was every citizen?
1. The word "citizen" is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]