Site Menu

null.gif Home
null.gif Members
null.gif News
null.gif Downloads
null.gif Content
null.gif Site
null.gif Drugs
null.gif Physics
null.gif Nature
null.gif Poetry
null.gif Chess

Site Info

Last SeenLast Seen
Server TrafficServer Traffic
  • Total: 9,712,692
  • Today: 319
Server InfoServer Info
  • Aug 08, 2022
  • 12:39 pm EDT
 

Resources



Passwords

PC Tools Password Generator
Boutrager CGI Passwords
.htaccess Password Generator

Favicons

Favicon maker- Create a favicon from any image

CSS Scrollbars

CSS Scrollbar

SEO

SEO: Search Engine Optimization
SEO: Search Engine Optimization

Powered by RavenNuke™

Powered by RavenNuke(tm)

Evaders Squadron Coding

Evaders Squadron Coding

Clan Templates

Php Nuke Clan Themes

DaDaNuke

dadanuke.org: addons, themes, fixes, mods and support for PhPNuke/RavenNuke™ CMS

Papa Mike Creations

Papa Mike Creations

Honeypot

Stop Spam Harvesters, Join Project Honey Pot

VB Script

VisualBasicScript.com

PhP Resources

The PHP Resource Index

PhP Junkyard

Free PHP scripts for download

Coffeecup

CoffeeCup - HTML Editor- Flash - Web Design Software

Memory

Crucial Memory

NMAP

NMAP Security Scanner

Pirate Bay
The Pirate Bay

AX4
Tricks • Secrets • Bugs • Fixes

Tizag
Tizag Web Tutorials

Reporter's Desktop
Reporter's Desktop

NukeSentinel™

This is the list of NukeSentinel(tm) banned IP addresses.

  • 89.45.90.*
  • 91.90.122.*
  • 194.113.35.*
  • 136.144.17.*
  • 193.233.209.*
  • 159.203.84.*
  • 212.58.200.*
  • 45.132.225.*
  • 69.167.42.*
  • 51.141.165.*
  • 45.143.164.*
  • 64.225.0.*
  • 98.159.98.*
  • 193.233.210.*
  • 161.129.70.*
  • 20.113.154.*
  • 20.219.1.*
  • 20.119.37.*
  • 20.109.179.*
  • 3.80.25.*

Trophy

Thank you, Navy SEALs

NukeSentinel™

You have been warned!
We have caught 2662 shameful hackers.

The Second Amendment is an Individual Right

Robert Greenslade 

In a recent article entitled: Tell me why the States needed the so-called 'Collective Right' Second Amendment?, I gave some examples of how to prove the right enumerated in the Second Amendment is an individual right without referencing the Amendment. The purpose of this article is to show that there is another amendment that can be cited to prove the right enumerated in the Second Amendment is an individual right. [EN-1]

The Fourteenth Amendment, which was allegedly ratified by several States on July 9, 1868, [EN-2] states in part:

"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."

The legislative origin of this part of the Fourteenth Amendment can be traced to the Joint Committee on Reconstruction. Following the War Between the States, Congress appointed a Committee to report "by bill or otherwise" whether the Confederate States "are entitled to be represented in either House of Congress." The Committee had a broad mission and began its work by drafting constitutional amendments that would outline the plan of reconstruction.

On January 12, 1866, a subcommittee submitted a "proposed amendment to the Constitution." Representative Bingham delivered the report of the Committee:

"The Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all persons in every State within this Union equal protection in their rights of life, liberty, and property."

The Committee rejected this proposal, but it formed the basis for subsequent proposals. During the following months, additional proposals were considered but were also rejected.

The proposal that became Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment was submitted by Congressman Bingham and agreed to by the Committee on April 28, 1866.

Representative Stevens, speaking for the Committee, introduced the proposed amendment in the House of Representatives on May 8, 1866:

"I can hardly believe that any person can be found who will not admit that every one of these provisions is just. They are all asserted, in some form or other, in our Declaration [of Independence] or organic law. But the Constitution limits only the action of Congress, and is not a limitation on the States. This amendment supplies the defect, and allows Congress to correct the unjust legislation of the States..."

On May 23, 1866, Senator Howard of Michigan introduced the proposal in the Senate. In a 1994 Duke Law Journal article, William Van Alstyne and his associates wrote the following concerning Senator Howard's remarks:

"So, in reporting the Fourteenth Amendment to the Senate on behalf of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction in 1866, Senator Jacob Meritt Howard of Michigan began by detailing the 'first section' of that amendment, i.e., the section that 'relates the privileges and immunities of citizens.' He explained that the first clause of the amendment (the 'first section'), once approved and ratified, would 'restrain the power of the States' even as Congress was already restrained (by the Bill of Rights) from abridging the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms... [etc., through the Eighth Amendment]."

Senator Howard referred to the right enumerated in the Second Amendment as a personal right of the people, not a collective right of the States. He concluded his remarks by stating:

"[T]here is no power given in the Constitution to enforce and to carry out any of these guarantees. They are not powers granted by the Constitution to Congress... they stand simply as a bill of rights in the Constitution, without power on the part of Congress [to] give them full effect; while at the same time the States are not restrained from violating the principles embraced in them. The great object of this first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."

His statement that the "great object of this first section of this amendment is...to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees" proves the Second Amendment cannot be a "collective right" of the States. Fundamental guarantees pertain to the rights of the people, not so-called "collective rights" of the States. It should be noted that during this debate, there was no objection to Senator Howard's description of this part of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In 1871, a bill was before the House of Representatives that contemplated enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment. Mr. Garfield, who had participated in the debates on the Amendment in 1866, stated these debates would be historic because they would settle the meaning of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

"I ask the attention of the House to the first section of that amendment, as to its scope and meaning. I hope gentlemen will bear in mind that this debate, in which so many have taken part, will become historical, as the earliest legislative construction given to this clause of the amendment. Not only the words which we put into the law, but what shall be said here in the way of defining and interpreting the meaning of the clause, may go far to settle its interpretation and its value to the country hereafter."

A few days earlier, in a debate on the same bill, Representative Bingham, still a member of House, gave a lengthy explanation of the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment as he had originally conceived it:

"Mr. Speaker, the Honorable Gentlemen from Illinois [Mr. Farnsworth] did me unwittingly, great service, when he ventured to ask me why I changed the form of the first section of the fourteenth article of amendment from the form in which I reported it to the House of February, 1866, from the Committee on Reconstruction. I had the honor to frame the amendment as reported in February, 1866, and the first section, as it now stands, letter for letter syllable for syllable, in the fourteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, save the introductory clause defining citizens."

He continued his remarks by stating that the first eight Amendments "never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment."

It is a cardinal principle of statutory construction that the intent of the lawmaker constitutes the law. This principle also applies to constitutional law. In this case, we have a direct quote from the individual who framed the wording of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment - "letter for letter syllable for syllable." The intent of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, as stated by its author, was to make the limitations enumerated in the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights applicable to the States. Thus, from a constitutional standpoint, adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment made the restraint contained in the Second Amendment, concerning the individual right to keep and bear arms, enforceable against every State in the Union.

The intent of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment disproves the "collective right" interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Brady Campaign contends the Second Amendment was adopted "to prevent the federal government from disarming the State militias."

"The U.S. Constitution established a permanent professional army, controlled by the federal government. With the memory of King George III's troops fresh in their minds, many of the 'anti-federalists' feared a standing army as an instrument of oppression. State militias were viewed as a counterbalance to the federal army and the Second Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from disarming the state militias."

If this was an accurate statement, then Congressman Bingham could not have included a "collective right" Second Amendment in the limitations of Section 1. He would have had to omit it because this provision prevents the States from infringing the rights of the people.

As stated by Congressman Bingham, the intent of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment was to extend the limitations enumerated in the first 8 amendments to the individual State governments. [EN-3] If the Second Amendment was adopted "to prevent the federal government from disarming the State militias," as the Brady Campaign asserts, then Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment extended this prohibition to the individual States. In other words, this provision would bring into play the limitations of the Second Amendment to prevent the States from disarming themselves. In addition, it would give the federal government the power to prevent the States from disarming themselves. The absurdity of this can be seen by the following example. If a State like Nevada attempted to disarm its militia, this section would give Nevada standing to go to federal court and sue Nevada to prevent Nevada from disarming itself.

As shown above, the original intent of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment was to grant the people a remedy against a State in the event it attempted to violate the prohibitions enumerated in the first 8 Amendments to the Bill of Rights. Thus, the right enumerated in the Second Amendment has to be an individual right because Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not grant a State a remedy against itself or the actions of the federal government.

EN-1. This article is a re-write of an article I wrote for another publication in 2003 entitled: Firearms and the Fourteenth Amendment.

EN-2. For an interesting article asserting that the Fourteenth Amendment was not properly ratified, see: "There is No "Fourteenth Amendment!" by David Lawrence, U.S. News & World Report, September 27, 1957.

EN-3. The reader will note that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment stated the first 8 Amendments in the Bill of Rights were restraints on the powers of the federal government. It was never asserted that the Amendments granted the people any rights. See paragraph 1 of the preamble to the Bill of Rights to understand the original intent of the Amendments.

ThePriceofLiberty


Short URL:
Liberty
Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2008 @ 14:37:36 EDT by Southern 

click Related        click Rate This        click Share
Associated TopicsGunsLiberty

Topics

Forums

Babes


© ThemeFreaks

GCalendar

<< August 2022 >>

S M T W T F S
  123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031     

bookmark site


Bookmark Us
Bookmark Us

Set as Homepage
Set as Homepage


Support RavenNuke™

RavenNuke(tm) v2.40.01

Proverbs

15:25, The LORD will destroy the house of the proud: but he will establish the border of the widow.

R.O.P.: R.I.P.

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11


Islam spreads like a virus....
more: Islam violence



List of Islamic Terror Attacks For the Past 2 Months

Support Our Troops

Support Our Troops


© ThemeFreaks

Honey Pot

Bots in the pot!
We have [359] bots in the pot!

Page Generation: 0.71 Seconds