| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Gactimus" |
| Date: |
20 Jan 2005 09:27:17 AM |
| Object: |
Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
It looks like Spike Lee was right. Mr. Michael "Bowling for Columbine"
Moore's bodyguards do carry guns,
"Filmmaker Michael Moore's bodyguard was arrested for carrying an unlicensed
weapon in New York's JFK airport Wednesday night."
Well, well, well, could a man who believes that you don't have the "right to
bear arms" actually have a gun packing bodyguard protecting him? I guess as
far as Moore is concerned, there's one standard for all of us peons and
another standard for VILs (very important liberals) like himself.
Sure, Moore may think that "ordinary people" -- like YOU -- can't be trusted
to have a gun to defend your families. It's just too risky. Oh, but if
Michael Moore might be in danger, well that's a different matter all
together; he's special, you see, the rules that he wants to apply to the
"little people" shouldn't apply to him.
What a hypocrite.
.
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 04:56:03 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051418186172%spam@aol.com...
In article <9JGdnfBoZ4CEvGncRVn-oQ@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051242462216%spam@aol.com...
In article <TFTId.159226$Uf.47721@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, David Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051111134994%spam@aol.com...
<snip>
You got it. I love this from Miller:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession of
a
'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' has
some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a
well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment
guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly
it
is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the
ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the
common defense."
As I told him, The United States Supreme Court says you don't have
the
right to own a weapon.
In the absense of any evidence ... we can not say that the Second
Amendment
guarantees the right to .[bear arms].
In Miller the Supreme Court punted the case back to the district court
in
Arkansas to detemine the militia status of Jack Miller's shotgun.
The
Supreme Court never ruled on the question of if Miller's shotgun was
protected or not.]
My position is that Americans unassociated with the militia do not have
the right to bear arms.
Why?
The second amendment.
What part of "the people" do you not understand?
What part of "out of context" don't you understand? The fact that you
need to look to only a portion of the 2nd amendment proves the whole
thing doesn't support you.
So tell me what does "The right of the people..." mean to you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 05:01:24 PM |
|
|
In article <0s2dnXSJ0NMVtmncRVn-vA@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051418186172%spam@aol.com...
In article <9JGdnfBoZ4CEvGncRVn-oQ@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051242462216%spam@aol.com...
In article <TFTId.159226$Uf.47721@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, David Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051111134994%spam@aol.com...
<snip>
You got it. I love this from Miller:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession of
a
'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' has
some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a
well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment
guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly
it
is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the
ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the
common defense."
As I told him, The United States Supreme Court says you don't have
the
right to own a weapon.
In the absense of any evidence ... we can not say that the Second
Amendment
guarantees the right to .[bear arms].
In Miller the Supreme Court punted the case back to the district court
in
Arkansas to detemine the militia status of Jack Miller's shotgun.
The
Supreme Court never ruled on the question of if Miller's shotgun was
protected or not.]
My position is that Americans unassociated with the militia do not have
the right to bear arms.
Why?
The second amendment.
What part of "the people" do you not understand?
What part of "out of context" don't you understand? The fact that you
need to look to only a portion of the 2nd amendment proves the whole
thing doesn't support you.
So tell me what does "The right of the people..." mean to you?
You tell me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 09:24:38 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051501241319%spam@aol.com...
In article <0s2dnXSJ0NMVtmncRVn-vA@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051418186172%spam@aol.com...
In article <9JGdnfBoZ4CEvGncRVn-oQ@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051242462216%spam@aol.com...
In article <TFTId.159226$Uf.47721@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, David Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051111134994%spam@aol.com...
<snip>
You got it. I love this from Miller:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession
of
a
'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length'
has
some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of
a
well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment
guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
Certainly
it
is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of
the
ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to
the
common defense."
As I told him, The United States Supreme Court says you don't
have
the
right to own a weapon.
In the absense of any evidence ... we can not say that the Second
Amendment
guarantees the right to .[bear arms].
In Miller the Supreme Court punted the case back to the district
court
in
Arkansas to detemine the militia status of Jack Miller's shotgun.
The
Supreme Court never ruled on the question of if Miller's shotgun
was
protected or not.]
My position is that Americans unassociated with the militia do not
have
the right to bear arms.
Why?
The second amendment.
What part of "the people" do you not understand?
What part of "out of context" don't you understand? The fact that you
need to look to only a portion of the 2nd amendment proves the whole
thing doesn't support you.
So tell me what does "The right of the people..." mean to you?
You tell me.
Your inability to answer a simple question is noted. If you don't know then
you are hardly in a position to tell me what is or is not protected.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 09:40:03 AM |
|
|
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:fMKdncjhusemjmjcRVn-ug@adelphia.com...
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051501241319%spam@aol.com...
In article <0s2dnXSJ0NMVtmncRVn-vA@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051418186172%spam@aol.com...
In article <9JGdnfBoZ4CEvGncRVn-oQ@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051242462216%spam@aol.com...
In article <TFTId.159226$Uf.47721@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, David
Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051111134994%spam@aol.com...
<snip>
You got it. I love this from Miller:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession
of
a
'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length'
has
some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency
of a
well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment
guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
Certainly
it
is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of
the
ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to
the
common defense."
As I told him, The United States Supreme Court says you don't
have
the
right to own a weapon.
In the absense of any evidence ... we can not say that the Second
Amendment
guarantees the right to .[bear arms].
In Miller the Supreme Court punted the case back to the district
court
in
Arkansas to detemine the militia status of Jack Miller's shotgun.
The
Supreme Court never ruled on the question of if Miller's shotgun
was
protected or not.]
My position is that Americans unassociated with the militia do not
have
the right to bear arms.
Why?
The second amendment.
What part of "the people" do you not understand?
What part of "out of context" don't you understand? The fact that you
need to look to only a portion of the 2nd amendment proves the whole
thing doesn't support you.
So tell me what does "The right of the people..." mean to you?
You tell me.
Your inability to answer a simple question is noted. If you don't know
then you are hardly in a position to tell me what is or is not protected.
What you will find out later with Barnes is this...
This is his M.O.
Once you start to nail him down on a specific topic and you ask for evidence
or proof, he will start off with saying you can't read. Then he will say he
already provided it.
He does this everytime.
At this time, I am not responding to him at all, I have him on killfile.
But I can still see his comments through other people's post. I am baiting
him, and so far he is taking it. I am going to wait, and for the time being
I am just letting him rant. He isn't hurting anyone or doing any damage..he
is just ranting like a lunatic. Most if not all are not paying any
attention to him. But he is going to get himself hemmed up in his own
words..
Lets take for example...I got him already on two contradictions..
The first one is where he says I can have a gun.
Then you see in another post, same day...he says I am supposably not allowed
to carry a weapon.
That is the first contradiction...see..I didn't have to respond to him..he
hemmed himself up..:o)
The second.. He says he didn't say officer should be arrested for shooting
an unarmed
man.
But you can plainly see...same day...he did say "And he would have gone to
jail for killing an unarmed man"
The post are below.
So as you can see, Barnes is easy prey. You don't have to respond to him,
let him rant. Right now he is ranting about claiming he is beating me or
something. That is o.k., it is just part of the bait...he always will
contradict himself.
Just stick to an issue, narrow it down, nail him to a statement..ask for
proof. You will see what I mean. He is WAY too predictable.
From: "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
Message-ID: <230120052032435456%spam@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:32:43 -0800
He doesn't understand that correctional officers, like state police,
municipal, county, and other law enforcement agencies are to be trained on
the use of fire arms.
You are really proud of the idea that you can have a gun, aren't you?
I makes you feel more like a man.
=============================================================================
(CONTRADICTION)
From: "David W. Barnes" <s...@aol.com>
Message-ID: <230120050939257794%spam@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 09:39:25 -0800
Osprey is a guard who isn't allowed to carry a weapon. As for me, I
used to be a police officer who WAS allowed to carry a weapon. I am
STILL licensed to carry a concealed weapon. I just don't do it.
================================================================================
Fourth, he thinks that if a correctional officers shoots an inmate who is
escaping from prison that correctional officer will be arrested. This was
one of the clinchers that convinced me he was never in law enforcement. A
correctional officer is bound to use deadly force if a level five inmate
(that is one who is incarcerated in a prison), escapes, attempts to harm
another officer or another inmate and no other recourse can be solved, or
destroying property.
You said ALL prisoners before, *****.
Just a few months ago, we had a hostage situation.
More war stories to try to convince people he isn't really just aguard.
An inmate took a counselor hostage.
We have heard this story a hundred times. Life must be boring at the
prison. You will be trying to get mileage on this story for years to
come.
A correctional officer shot and killed the inmate.
How proud you must be. The High School graduate killed a person.
Now, according to Barnes this officer should be arrested for shooting an
unarmed man.
Which, of course, isn't what I said.
(CONTRADICTION)
From: "David W. Barnes" <s...@aol.com>
Message-ID: <230120050954342332%spam@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 09:54:34 -0800
Last year we did have a situation where an officer did have to draw his
weapon. We had an escape, during a court run. First time we have had an
escape in more than a decade.
The officer had to holster his weapon, the inmate escaped. The reason was
because he was in an area where there were civilians.
And he would have gone to jail for killing an unarmed man.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 10:28:25 AM |
|
|
In article <Rc-dnVOazP_bi2jcRVn-iw@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:fMKdncjhusemjmjcRVn-ug@adelphia.com...
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051501241319%spam@aol.com...
In article <0s2dnXSJ0NMVtmncRVn-vA@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051418186172%spam@aol.com...
In article <9JGdnfBoZ4CEvGncRVn-oQ@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051242462216%spam@aol.com...
In article <TFTId.159226$Uf.47721@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, David
Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051111134994%spam@aol.com...
<snip>
You got it. I love this from Miller:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession
of
a
'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length'
has
some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency
of a
well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment
guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
Certainly
it
is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of
the
ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to
the
common defense."
As I told him, The United States Supreme Court says you don't
have
the
right to own a weapon.
In the absense of any evidence ... we can not say that the Second
Amendment
guarantees the right to .[bear arms].
In Miller the Supreme Court punted the case back to the district
court
in
Arkansas to detemine the militia status of Jack Miller's shotgun.
The
Supreme Court never ruled on the question of if Miller's shotgun
was
protected or not.]
My position is that Americans unassociated with the militia do not
have
the right to bear arms.
Why?
The second amendment.
What part of "the people" do you not understand?
What part of "out of context" don't you understand? The fact that you
need to look to only a portion of the 2nd amendment proves the whole
thing doesn't support you.
So tell me what does "The right of the people..." mean to you?
You tell me.
Your inability to answer a simple question is noted. If you don't know
then you are hardly in a position to tell me what is or is not protected.
What you will find out later with Barnes is this...
This is his M.O.
Once again we see Osprey not having the balls to face those who
disagree with him and kick his ***** in arguments, so he speaks to us
through others. Really cowardly, but that is Osprey.
Once you start to nail him down on a specific topic and you ask for evidence
or proof, he will start off with saying you can't read. Then he will say he
already provided it.
Coward
He does this everytime.
Coward
At this time, I am not responding to him at all, I have him on killfile.
Except, as you can see, he loves to try to talk to me but is scared to
death of actually debating me. He is a coward.
But I can still see his comments through other people's post. I am baiting
him, and so far he is taking it. I am going to wait, and for the time being
I am just letting him rant. He isn't hurting anyone or doing any damage..he
is just ranting like a lunatic. Most if not all are not paying any
attention to him. But he is going to get himself hemmed up in his own
words..
ROFLMAO!!!!! Here is the REAL reason Osprey can't debate me. I have
repeatedly caught him in lies, just as I have here. Osprey, you are a
liar. Worse than that, you are a moron who lies.
First you say you have me in your kill file. Then you say you are
watching what I say to discover "contradictions." So which is it? The
lies never cease with you, do they!
LOL! What a horses *****.
Do you assholes on the Right see the type of person who votes
Republican? Does it bother ANY of you at all?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 10:28:21 AM |
|
|
In article <fMKdncjhusemjmjcRVn-ug@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051501241319%spam@aol.com...
In article <0s2dnXSJ0NMVtmncRVn-vA@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051418186172%spam@aol.com...
In article <9JGdnfBoZ4CEvGncRVn-oQ@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051242462216%spam@aol.com...
In article <TFTId.159226$Uf.47721@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, David Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051111134994%spam@aol.com...
<snip>
You got it. I love this from Miller:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession
of
a
'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length'
has
some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of
a
well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment
guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
Certainly
it
is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of
the
ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to
the
common defense."
As I told him, The United States Supreme Court says you don't
have
the
right to own a weapon.
In the absense of any evidence ... we can not say that the Second
Amendment
guarantees the right to .[bear arms].
In Miller the Supreme Court punted the case back to the district
court
in
Arkansas to detemine the militia status of Jack Miller's shotgun.
The
Supreme Court never ruled on the question of if Miller's shotgun
was
protected or not.]
My position is that Americans unassociated with the militia do not
have
the right to bear arms.
Why?
The second amendment.
What part of "the people" do you not understand?
What part of "out of context" don't you understand? The fact that you
need to look to only a portion of the 2nd amendment proves the whole
thing doesn't support you.
So tell me what does "The right of the people..." mean to you?
You tell me.
Your inability to answer a simple question is noted. If you don't know then
you are hardly in a position to tell me what is or is not protected.
You are the one who seems to be confused, not me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 04:12:03 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:240120050828212886%spam@aol.com...
In article <fMKdncjhusemjmjcRVn-ug@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051501241319%spam@aol.com...
In article <0s2dnXSJ0NMVtmncRVn-vA@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051418186172%spam@aol.com...
In article <9JGdnfBoZ4CEvGncRVn-oQ@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051242462216%spam@aol.com...
In article <TFTId.159226$Uf.47721@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, David
Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051111134994%spam@aol.com...
<snip>
You got it. I love this from Miller:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that
possession
of
a
'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in
length'
has
some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency
of
a
well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second
Amendment
guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
Certainly
it
is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of
the
ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute
to
the
common defense."
As I told him, The United States Supreme Court says you don't
have
the
right to own a weapon.
In the absense of any evidence ... we can not say that the
Second
Amendment
guarantees the right to .[bear arms].
In Miller the Supreme Court punted the case back to the district
court
in
Arkansas to detemine the militia status of Jack Miller's
shotgun.
The
Supreme Court never ruled on the question of if Miller's shotgun
was
protected or not.]
My position is that Americans unassociated with the militia do
not
have
the right to bear arms.
Why?
The second amendment.
What part of "the people" do you not understand?
What part of "out of context" don't you understand? The fact that
you
need to look to only a portion of the 2nd amendment proves the whole
thing doesn't support you.
So tell me what does "The right of the people..." mean to you?
You tell me.
Your inability to answer a simple question is noted. If you don't know
then
you are hardly in a position to tell me what is or is not protected.
You are the one who seems to be confused, not me.
I'm not confused about the fact you haven't answered my question.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Krulick" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 11:45:17 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
In article <fMKdncjhusemjmjcRVn-ug@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051501241319%spam@aol.com...
In article <0s2dnXSJ0NMVtmncRVn-vA@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051418186172%spam@aol.com...
In article <9JGdnfBoZ4CEvGncRVn-oQ@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051242462216%spam@aol.com...
In article <TFTId.159226$Uf.47721@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, David Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051111134994%spam@aol.com...
<snip>
You got it. I love this from Miller:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession
of
a
'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length'
has
some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of
a
well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment
guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
Certainly
it
is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of
the
ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to
the
common defense."
As I told him, The United States Supreme Court says you don't
have
the
right to own a weapon.
In the absense of any evidence ... we can not say that the Second
Amendment
guarantees the right to .[bear arms].
In Miller the Supreme Court punted the case back to the district
court
in
Arkansas to detemine the militia status of Jack Miller's shotgun.
The
Supreme Court never ruled on the question of if Miller's shotgun
was
protected or not.]
My position is that Americans unassociated with the militia do not
have
the right to bear arms.
Why?
The second amendment.
What part of "the people" do you not understand?
What part of "out of context" don't you understand? The fact that you
need to look to only a portion of the 2nd amendment proves the whole
thing doesn't support you.
So tell me what does "The right of the people..." mean to you?
You tell me.
Your inability to answer a simple question is noted. If you don't know then
you are hardly in a position to tell me what is or is not protected.
You are the one who seems to be confused, not me.
I've provided a thorough answer to him hundreds of times but he
chooses to remain willfully stoooooooopid.:
THE PEOPLE is a legal term of art that has a specific meaning in
law and language:
Bouvier Law Dictionary:
PEOPLE...
A state; as, the people of the state of New York; a nation in
its collective and political capacity. 4 T. R. 783. See 6 Pet.
S. C. Rep. 467.
STATE...
This word is used in various senses. In its most enlarged sense,
it signifies a self-sufficient body of persons united together
in one community for the defence of their rights, and to do
right and justice to foreigners. In this sense, the state means
the whole people united into one body politic; (q.v.) and the
state, and the people of the state, are equivalent expressions.
BODY POLITIC...
When applied to the government this phrase signifies the state.
As to the persons who compose the body politic, they take
collectively the name, of people, or nation; and individually
they are citizens, when considered in relation to their
political rights, and subjects as being submitted to the laws of
the state.
("The Bouvier Law Dictionary remains the basis for the
interpretation of Law since the founding of the American nation.
In questions of law regarding legal definitions from that period
it remains the final arbiter of any disputed interpretation of
that law." http://uslawbooks.com/ajs/bouvier2001.pdf)
Judge Story discusses the relationship between "the people" and
"the state" (equivalent expressions) and quotes Justice Wilson
with respect to the rights of states (a state being a "moral
person"). This carries weight, since the Justice Wilson is James
Wilson, signer of the Declaration of Independence, a part of the
first Supreme Court appointed by Washington, a professor of law
at the University of Pennsylvania, and above all, a delegate to
the Constitutional Convention where he served on the "Committee
on Detail," which was charged with putting the Constitution
into its final form. Here's what Story and Wilson said (I thank
Leif Rakur for providing this cite):
"§ 208. In like manner the word "state" is used in various
senses. In its most enlarged sense it means the people composing
a particular nation or community. In this sense the state means
the whole people, united into one body politic; and the state,
and the people of the state, are equivalent expressions.2 Mr.
Justice Wilson, in his Law Lectures, uses the word "state" in
its broadest sense. "In free states," says he, "the people form
an artificial person, or body politic, the highest end [and]
noblest, that can be known. They form that moral person, which
in one of my former lectures,3 I described, as a complete body
of free, natural persons, united together for their common
benefit; as having an understanding and a will; as deliberating,
and resolving, and acting; as possessed of interests, which it
ought to manage; as enjoying rights, which it ought to maintain;
and as lying under obligations, which it ought to perform. To
this moral person, we assign, by way of eminence, the dignified
appellation of STATE." - Joseph Story, "Commentaries on the
Constitution of the United States," 1833.
Black's Law, 6th Ed.:
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*. In a more restricted
sense, and as generally used in *constitutional law,* the
*entire body* of those citizens of a state or nation who are
*invested with political power* for political purposes.
SOVEREIGN PEOPLE...
*The political body,* consisting of the entire number of
citizens and qualified electors, who, *in their collective
capacity,* possess the powers of sovereignty and exercise them
through their chosen representatives. See Scott v. Sandford, 19
How. 404, 15 L.Ed. 691.
Here's how one non-law dictionary defines PEOPLE:
1 plural : human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a
common interest
2 plural : HUMAN BEINGS, PERSONS -- often used in compounds instead of
persons
3 plural : the members of a family or kinship
4 plural : the mass of a community as distinguished from a special
class -- often used by Communists to distinguish Communists from other
people
5 plural peoples : a body of persons that are united by a common
culture, tradition, or sense of kinship, that typically have common
language, institutions, and beliefs, and that often constitute a
politically organized group
6 : lower animals usually of a specified kind or situation
7 : the body of enfranchised citizens of a state
For legal/political/constitutional purposes, #7 is the SINGULAR
and relevant term; the others can go take a hike!
The LEGAL concept of THE PEOPLE is not numerical or even
geographical, but conceptual and political, and THAT definition
is: "the body of enfranchised citizens of the state." IT is a
SINGULAR, collective entity.
Citizens, or "individuals," included women, children and other
non-enfranchised persons; THE PEOPLE was ALWAYS the enfranchised
body-politic in its corporate, collective sense!
(BTW, it seems, according to the Bouvier Law Dictionary,
"citizen" only originally and primarily referred to the
enfranchised white male of age, which is ONLY the same class
that is called... THE PEOPLE, and from which the militia is
drawn as "the BODY of the PEOPLE"! Only in a wider and secondary
use did "citizen" include the non-enfranchised WHITES; blacks
before the War of the Rebellion did NOT have the title
"citizen"!)
What part of "THE PEOPLE" do you fail to understand?:
WHENEVER the term-of-art "THE PEOPLE" appears in the
Constitution or BoR, or even other official documents of the
era, it means one thing only, in every case: THE PEOPLE is a
singular entity, the collective enfranchised body politic,
specifically, the CLASS of Freeman taken collectively in its
political capacity.
The only PERSONS with "political capacity" were FREEMEN, that
is, free, white males of legal age. Often this was called
FREEHOLDER and then also meant property-owning free, white males
of legal age. The term ELECTOR was often used in local or state
documents, and this may have restricted political capacity even
further, by, say, requiring residence in a location for a
certain period of time.
In 1789, women, black slaves, kids, non-citizens (such as
foreigners, Indians, prisoners, rebels/Tories, etc.) had NO
political capacity. They could not vote, and were not required
to serve on juries or in the militia. In that sense, they were
NOT a constituent part of THE PEOPLE! Thus, they had, or may
have had, the rights of all INDIVIDUALS, such as freedom of
religion or habeus corpus, but NOT the rights of FREEMEN or of
the collective FREEMAN class. OR, and this is where the BoR
comes in, any rights they MAY have claimed were not PROTECTED or
GUARANTEED by the Const!
THE PEOPLE is NOT each and every PERSON "considered as
individuals"! It is the collective enfranchised body politic as
its own corporate identity.
Yes, individuals comprise the CLASS of FREEMEN who make up THE
PEOPLE. But *A* single individual doesn't necessarily have the
rights and powers that only the collective class or subset
thereof may enjoy. Yes, individuals make up a jury, but no ONE
individual person can declare HIMSELF a legal jury of one, or
put himself ON a jury, or find someone guilty independent of
the other jurors, can he? Only the jury as a whole can do what
the jury is empowered to do. There ARE NO one-man militias, and
only THE PEOPLE collectively can organize, arm, and maintain a
militia. Congress can declare war, but NOT one Congressman on
his own. The individual that the collective is composed of may
share in the power and rights of the whole, but doesn't have ALL
the same characteristics or prerogatives of the whole. Or, even
as to collective entities, the United States may declare war,
but NOT an individual state.
A building may be made of bricks, but a brick is NOT the
building! The part is NOT the same as the whole, nor does it
have the same properties or abilities. One can meet IN a
building, but that doesn't mean one can meet in a brick, or even
a pile of bricks equal in number to the number of bricks making
up a building! If one removes one brick from the building, the
building still remains; if one removes and replaces 50 bricks,
the building remains, independent of the particular bricks
changed.
A corporation may be made up of individuals, but it has an
existence that is not dependent on the life or death, or coming
and going of any particular individual.
So, what THE PEOPLE may do as an enfranchised body politic is
NOT necessarily something any individual may do on his own.
However, an individual may share in the process, and may, as a
member of a designated class or subclass, enjoy the rights OF
that class. IF you are a homeowner, the 3rd Amen rights may be
invoked IF you feel your rights as such have been violated. Not
because YOU yourself are listed in the Const, but because YOU
fit the class protected by the collective term "homeowner."
CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. (1780)
PREAMBLE.
The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration of
government, is to secure the existence of the body politic, to
protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with
the power of enjoying in safety and tranquillity their natural
rights, and the blessings of life: and whenever these great
objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the
government, and to take measures necessary for their safety,
prosperity and happiness.
The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of
individuals: it is a social compact, by which the whole people
covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole
people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the
common good. It is the duty of the people, therefore, in framing
a constitution of government, to provide for an equitable mode
of making laws, as well as for an impartial interpretation, and
a faithful execution of them; that every man may, at all times,
find his security in them.
This confirms that it was the ENFRANCHISED BODY POLITIC (see
Mass Const) that established the Const, not each and every
individual AS an individual.
When it says THE PEOPLE, it MEANS THE PEOPLE, the enfranchised
body politic, taken collectively, just as Heyman says Adams
meant in the Mass Const:
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/HeymanChicago.htm
How was the right to arms understood in post-Revolutionary
America? We can attain great insight on this point by exploring
the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780.[145] This document,
which was drafted by John Adams, contains the most carefully
written of all the state declarations of rights and constitutes
one of the best statements "of the fundamental rights of
Americans at the end of the Revolutionary period." [146] [Page
261]
In its preamble, the Massachusetts Constitution sets forth the
relationship between society and its members. The "people" or
"the body-politic" are "formed by a voluntary association of
individuals," who come together through "a social compact." What
is most remarkable is that, having distinguished between the
"people" and "the individuals who compose it," the document then
uses these terms in a consistent way throughout. This makes it
possible to discern with great clarity how the various rights
were understood, and whether they were viewed in individual or
collective terms...
In this way, the Massachusetts declaration draws a clear and
uniform distinction between the rights that belong to
individuals and those that belong to the people as a whole. This
distinction is followed so carefully that it is observed even
when both sorts of rights are implicated. Thus, Article XXIX
declares that the independence of the judiciary is essential
"for the security of the rights of the people, and of every
citizen."
Article XVII of the Massachusetts declaration reads as follows:
The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common
defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to
liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of
the legislature; and the military shall always be held in an
exact subordination to the civil authority and shall be governed
by it.
In view of the declaration's careful usage, there can be no
question that the "right to keep and bear arms" that it
recognizes is one that belongs not to private individuals but to
the people in their collective capacity. This is made even more
clear by the fact that the right is to bear arms "for the common
defence," as well as by the overall concern of the provision: to
control the military force of the community and guard against
the danger of military tyranny. [148]
I have chosen to focus on the Massachusetts Constitution because
of the precision of its language, which strongly illuminates the
nature of the rights that it contains. Yet the same distinction
[Page 263] between "individuals" (or cognate terms) and "the
people" is also generally, although not invariably, observed in
the other post-Revolutionary state declarations of rights. When
these documents recognize a right to bear arms, they always
describe it as a right of "the people," rather than of every
"individual" or "man." [149] This is strong evidence that the
right was understood in collective terms."
Some rights are of individuals, and some are of the THE WHOLE
PEOPLE, just as Gallatin said:
"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right
of the people at large or considered as individuals... It
establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and
which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."
- Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7,
1789
"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right
of the people at large OR considered as individuals...
And the 2nd Amen is a perfect example of a right of the people
at large!
"The people," as the "people at large," the "whole body of the
people," the collective "body politic," have the populus armatus
jus militiae right to be involved in the state's (or nation's)
military function, by establishing, arming, controlling,
maintaining the upkeep and readiness of the militia ("keep arms"
as Adams meant it), and serving ("bear arms" as Madison meant
it, if qualified) as citizen-soldiers (as opposed to "regular"
professional soldiers in a standing army), drawn from the "body
of the people," and "trained to arms" and "enrolled" into an
organized, "well regulated" state militia.
"It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and
which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."
But the "right" to "own and carry guns" was never one of them.
(See Pennsylvania Test Acts)
THE PEOPLE is NOT each and every PERSON "considered as
individuals"! It is the collective enfranchised body politic as
its own corporate identity.
Some rights are individual and apply to ALL individuals or to
particular classes of individuals when applicable. Other rights
are OF the collective entity itself, INDIVISIBLE, and not based
on numbers:
Rights are collective AND individual; collective in their
formulation, individual OR collective in their exercise and
application. It's a floor wax AND a dessert topping!
But unless your name is engraved in the Const, you have the
rights that accrue to you as a member of the class that IS
engraved therein. Does the 6th Amen say "Joe Doe shall enjoy the
right to a speedy and public trial &c"? Of course not! But if
you are arrested, as one who qualifies as a member of the class
of persons called "accused," you have the rights. Can you
appreciate the subtle difference? Your 3rd Amen rights likewise
depend on your being a homeowner. Not ALL homeowners, not a
collective group of homeowners, but ONE OF A CLASS defined as
"persons who own a home." GET IT?
The 3rd Amen talks about the consent of "the owner" (singular),
not "the people" (plural). The 5th Amen says "no person"
(singular), not "no people" (plural). The 1st Amen talks of the
right of "the people" to assemble (obviously plural; how can a
single individual "assemble"?). The 6th Amen refers to "the
accused," "him," and "his" (singular). The 8th Amen avoids the
problem altogether. If they wanted to, the authors COULD have
written "the right of persons to..." to clearly refer to
individuals, or else written "the right to keep and bear arms,
shall not be infringed" to be as vague as the 8th. Well, they
didn't write "persons" when they could have, so there's no
reason to see an individual right. As the courts have affirmed.
In 1792, when the Militia Act was passed, WHO had the specific
right to "bear arms" ("to render military service in person" as
Madison defined it)? Did blacks have the right? Women?
15-year-olds? Non-property owners? Cripples? Feeble-minded?
Prisoners? "Injuns"? "Furreners"? Indeed, the MAJORITY of people
in the country did NOT have the right to "bear arms" in the
militia, hence they had no militia "right" to "bear arms."
Indeed, laws were passed PREVENTING some, such as blacks, from
even possessing guns, "carrying guns" being a separate action
from "bearing arms."
BUT the PEOPLE AT LARGE, the enfranchised body politic (who
WERE, for the most part, the SAME free, white, property-owning
males who could vote, serve on juries AND made up the militia)
ALWAYS had the collective right to "keep and bear arms," a term
of art first used in the 1780 Mass Const by John Adams, that
referred to the democratic organization, control, arming, and
preservation of the well-regulated state militias by the PEOPLE
AT LARGE, the WHOLE PEOPLE as the populus armatus, exercising
their jus militiae right to participate in the state's and
nation's military function, and, if qualified, to serve in
person as a citizen-soldier, as conscript duty if required, to
forestall the need to rely on a standing army, the "bane of
liberty"! The PEOPLE "keep" (keep permanently ready and maintain
in public stores, as Adams and the Articles of Confederation
meant it) and "bear" ("bear arms" meant to Madison in the 2nd
Amen draft "to render military service") in their collective
capacity. For example, a 70-year-old crippled white male could
VOTE for state reps who organized and controlled the militia;
though unable to "bear arms" in the militia personally, he COULD
participate IN the collective function, exercising HIS PART of
that collective right! A 30-year-old white women in 1792 could
do NEITHER!
The 1st Amen freedom of religion applies to EVERYONE, the 3rd
Amen to homeowners (it isn't relevant to anyone else), the 6th
Amen to those accused of a crime... NOT the same classes of
persons, with decreasing levels of inclusion. The "People" of
the 2nd Amen are ONLY those who qualified to vote or (for the
most part) serve in the militia, which WAS NOT everyone by a
long shot. Did blacks, women, 15-year-olds, non-property owners,
have 1st Amen rights? Did those same persons have the right to
serve in the militia, and thereby "bear arms," or vote
democratically (the Const also says "the People" vote for
Congress every two years; did everyone vote? NO? That's why the
People is ONLY the enfranchised body politic!) to participate in
the organization and control of the militia ("keep and bear
arms")?
Were THOSE PERSONS not individuals? Weren't many even citizens?
But they WERE NOT a part of THE PEOPLE!
Laws are written in the collective and general class sense, but
applied in specific individual and class instances IF you are in
the applicable class. IF you are in the class known as
"homeowner" you have individual 3rd Amen rights; IF you are in
the class known as "accused" you have individual 6th Amen
rights.
IF you are a member of the CLASS known as the PEOPLE, i.e., the
enfranchised body politic, YOUR 4th Amen right to be secure in
YOUR person and property is protected. THAT'S why it says THE
PEOPLE.
Which is composed of Freemen, as they belong to the class known
as the People; as Madison's ORIGINAL phrasing of this Amen
indicated "The rights of the people to be secured in THEIR
[emph. added] persons, THEIR homes, THEIR papers, and THEIR
other property from all unreasonable searches and seizures..."
protects the CLASS, so when a member of that class is abused of
these rights, as formulated FOR the CLASS, he, as a member OF
the CLASS, can invoke the rights under the Const for INDIVIDUAL
APPLICATION.
Is that so hard to understand? Hell, even Rehnquist, in
Verdugo, suggested that foreigners, as NON-members of the CLASS
known as The People, did NOT have 4th Amen rights that belonged
TO the CLASS known as The People!
"That text, by contrast with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments,
extends its reach only to 'the people.' Contrary to the
suggestion of amici curiae that the Framers used this phrase
'simply to avoid [an] awkward rhetorical redundancy,' Brief for
American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 12, n. 4,
'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'); Art. 1, 2, cl. 1 ('The House of
Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second
Year by the people of the several States'). 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;)." - United States v.
Verdugo-Urquidez
There's no express individual right to own and carry guns in
this!
Mere dicta by Rehnquist, and NOT part of the ruling, in what was
NOT a 2nd Amen case! But this only PROVES the point that it is
NOT referring to individuals, but to a CLASS of persons that
EXCLUDES those who are NOT part of the class of enfranchised
citizens! THE PEOPLE IS NOT EVERYONE! THE PEOPLE IS NOT simply
every individual person AS person, but a CLASS!
Look: "That text, by contrast with the Fifth and Sixth
Amendments, extends its reach only to 'the people.'!
Hmmm, if something extends its reach ONLY to "THE PEOPLE" than
THAT can't be EVERYONE! THE PEOPLE is LESS than EVERYONE! It is
a CLASS of PERSONS SMALLER than the entire population! ONLY
FREEMEN comprise the PEOPLE! HENCE, it is NOT something that
applies to any or all individuals, as THAT would be EVERYONE!
Nowhere does he EVER even suggest that the rights in these
mentions are individual rights! All that is suggested is that
those, like non-citizens, who are NOT in the class of persons
known as THE PEOPLE are NOT covered by the provisions that refer
to THAT class, so, in THIS case, foreigners are NOT covered by
4th Amen rights! Well, foreigners ARE individuals, right? So if
THEY are not covered by a right of THE PEOPLE, ipso facto, a
right of the PEOPLE is not necessarily one that ALL INDIVIDUALS
have! QED.
"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."
A "class" is a collective term for a collective (adjective)
entity! It is a singular term for a plural number of things!
And in THIS case, it ONLY means the CLASS of persons known as
CITIZENS! ALL it suggests is that NON-CITIZENS may not be
entitled to BOR protections! The dicta, and certainly NOT the
ruling, says NOTHING about the nature of the 2nd Amen or its
rights. All he was saying was that NON-citizens are not
necessarily part of the "class of persons" (class being a
singular term for a plural number) covered by those rights.
Rehnquist did not say that "the People" DENOTED INDIVIDUALS, nor
even implied it! He said CLASS of persons with particular
characteristics, and that was NOT everyone! In 1789 it wasn't
women, blacks, kids, felons, aliens, indians, and more!
Rehnquist was tangentially suggesting in dicta that THE PEOPLE
is a CLASS OF PERSONS and that foreigners, for example, are NOT
part of THE PEOPLE. In 1792 neither were women, kids, blacks,
injuns, felons, etc. Yet they were ALL individuals! Hence, THE
PEOPLE was NOT simply each and all individuals, then or now, but
ONLY the members of THE PEOPLE Class, whose rights MAY or MAY
NOT be DISTRIBUTIVE, depending on the context and nature of the
right.
The 'term of art' is "class of persons," a plural reference to
the people at large, the collective body of persons who ARE
citizens. Which is why a non-citizen alien didn't even have 4th
Amen rights normally distributive to an individual member of the
PEOPLE CLASS! How much less would a non-member of the PEOPLE
CLASS have any right to invoke a NON-distributive 2nd Amen right
of the collective PEOPLE CLASS, the enfranchised body politic in
its collective and political capacity?
See, freedom of speech or religion or 5th Amen rights ARE
individual rights because they are NOT QUALIFIED by the more
narrow CLASS, THE PEOPLE, and ALL persons may invoke them! AS
Rehnquist said in Verdugo, these rights of THE PEOPLE, as
opposed to the broader rights of the 5th and 6th Amens "extends
its reach only to 'the people.'"
Thus, if it extends its reach ONLY to the people, than THE
PEOPLE is more limited than EVERY INDIVIDUAL! It refers to ONLY
the CLASS of PERSONS that are known as FREEMEN, the very same
CLASS from which THE MILITIA was drawn from! OTHERWISE, the
primary right is of THE BODY POLITIC in its collective capacity,
acting for common defense by establishing and maintaining its
militia!
The rights are different rights in each Amen. The People is the
same The People. But some of the RIGHTS apply ONLY to the People
in their collective capacity as the enfranchised body politic
(the whole People), others to certain members of that class
taken collectively (e.g. the militia drawn from "the body of the
People), others to a specific sub-class of The People (The
People of the State), others to the Freemen who comprise The
People, taken collectively or as an individual Freeman. I drew
the distinctions for the different "the People" amendments in
the previous posts.
Second Thoughts: What the right to bear arms really means.
by Akhil Reed Amar
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/103wha.htm
"The amendment speaks of a right of "the people" collectively
rather than a right of "persons" individually.
And it uses a distinctly military phrase: "bear arms." A deer
hunter or target shooter carries a gun but does not, strictly
speaking, bear arms. The military connotation was even more
obvious in an earlier draft of the amendment, which contained
additional language that "no one religiously scrupulous of
bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in
person." Even in the final version, note how the military phrase
"bear arms" is sandwiched between a clause that talks about the
"militia" and a clause (the Third Amendment) that regulates the
quartering of "soldiers" in times of "war" and "peace."
Likewise, state constitutions in place in 1789 consistently used
the phrase "bear arms" in military contexts and no other.
.... anachronistically, libertarians read "the people" to mean
atomized private persons, each hunting in his own private Idaho,
rather than the citizenry acting collectively.
But, when the Constitution speaks of "the people" rather than
"persons," the collective connotation is primary.
"We the People" in the preamble do ordain and establish the
Constitution as public citizens meeting together in conventions
and acting in concert, not as private individuals pursuing our
respective hobbies. The only other reference to "the people" in
the Philadelphia Constitution of 1787 appears a sentence away
from the preamble, and here, too, the meaning is public and
political, not private and individualistic. Every two years,
"the people" -- that is, the voters -- elect the House.
To see the key distinction another way, recall that women in
1787 had the rights of "persons" (such as freedom to worship and
protections of privacy in their homes) but did not directly
participate in the acts of "the people" -- they did not vote in
constitutional conventions or for Congress, nor were they part
of the militia/people at the heart of the Second Amendment.
The rest of the Bill of Rights confirms this communitarian
reading. The core of the First Amendment's assembly clause,
which textually abuts the Second Amendment, is the right of "the
people" -- in essence, voters -- to "assemble" in constitutional
conventions and other political conclaves. So, too, the core
rights retained and reserved to "the people" in the Ninth and
Tenth Amendments were rights of the people collectively to
govern themselves democratically.
"The Fourth Amendment is trickier: "The right of the people to
be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."
Here, the collective "people" wording is paired with more
individualistic language of "persons." And these words obviously
focus on the private domain, protecting individuals in their
private homes more than in the public square. Why, then, did the
Fourth use the words "the people" at all? Probably to highlight
the role that jurors -- acting collectively and representing the
electorate -- would play in deciding which searches were
reasonable and how much to punish government officials who
searched or seized improperly. An early draft of James Madison's
amendment protecting jury rights helps make this linkage obvious
and also resonates with the language of the Second Amendment:
"[T]he trial by jury, as one of the best securities to the
rights of the people, ought to remain inviolate." Note the
obvious echoes here -- "security" (Second Amendment), "secure"
(Fourth Amendment), and "securities" (draft amendment); "shall
not be infringed," "shall not be violated," and "ought to remain
inviolate"; and, of course, "the right of the people" in all
three places.
If we want an image of the people's militia at the Founding, we
should think first of the militia's cousin, the jury. Like the
militia, the jury was a local body countering imperial
power -- summoned by the government but standing outside it,
representing the people, collectively. Like jury service,
militia participation was both a right and a duty of qualified
voters who were regularly summoned to discharge their public
obligations. Like the jury, the militia was composed of amateurs
arrayed against, and designed to check, permanent and
professional government officials (judges and prosecutors, in
the case of the jury; a standing army in the case of the
militia). Like the jury, the militia embodied collective
political action rather than private pursuits.
Founding history confirms this. The Framers envisioned Minutemen
bearing guns, not Daniel Boone gunning bears. When we turn to
state constitutions, we consistently find arms-bearing and
militia clauses intertwined with rules governing standing
armies, troop-quartering, martial law, and civilian supremacy.
Libertarians cannot explain this clear pattern that has
everything to do with the military and nothing to do with
hunting."
Amar's overall 4th Amen explanation makes tentative sense, but
I'm not totally convinced by it, as I've said, and my latest
hypothesis would suggest a more limited right than is normally
thought, but, hey, that is the same situation with the 1st and
2nd Amens too, isn't it?
Here's something based on what I posted in 2001, before I read
Amar's piece:
"It would be awkward to have said 'right of persons to be secure
in their persons, etc.'
Look at Madison's ORIGINAL phrasing of this:
"The rights of the people to be secured in THEIR [emph. added]
persons, THEIR homes, THEIR papers, and THEIR other property
from all unreasonable searches and seizures..."
Why in the plural, even collective, sense at all?
This could have been rewritten to emphasize the individual
nature of the right, for example, the NY proposal (and likewise
the VA proposal) said:
"That every Freeman has a right to be secure from all
unreasonable searches and seizures of his person his papers or
his property..."
but it was merely shortened and tightened by Congress. There was
almost no House debate over this amendment other than a few
minor insertions, as it was late August and they were trying to
wrap up. Perhaps they were not as fastidious as Adams was in
the Mass Const for maintaining consistency of usage.
No question, this, at first, seems to us to be an INDIVIDUAL
right, but the phrasing should have been more consistent to
reflect that if it were.
Of all the amendments, THIS one varies MOST from the
recommendations of the state proposals in this regard, and
strays most from otherwise consistent usage of plural "the
people" and individual "person" or cognates (including the 1st
AND 2nd Amens, to be addressed separately).
Unless there is collective sense I'm missing."
Since then, I've read Amar's piece, and I find it less than
wholly satisfying re the 4th, but I see his point; in any case,
there is more reason to accept ONE amen, the 4th, as being able
to be seen as involving the collective people, in some
philosophical and abstract way that isn't readily apparent, and
as *I* have now further suggested, than to see at least THREE
amens, plus OTHER uses in the Const, as involving individuals
when it is so clear that the collective sense IS meant, based on
ALL the other clues and contexts.
Even the 1st Amen reference to THE People, which some harp on,
WAS originally written to refer ONLY to THE People in their
collective role! In one of the longest and most divided ongoing
House debates in 1789, the original phrase in what was to become
the 1st Amen was the flashpoint for what divided those who
sought more democratic input from those who wanted the
representatives to be more independent. The original words read:
"The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling
and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the
legislature by petitions, or remonstrances for redress of their
grievances." (Madison, June 1789)
Rep. Tucker wanted to add after "consulting for their common
good," "to instruct their representative." THIS was the nature
of the PEOPLE assembling that the Congress had in mind.
When the Mass Const is referenced against this, which Madison
surely had access to, there is less doubt that the intention was
for collective consistency; however, unlike in Mass, the US
Const was picked apart and reassembled by many authors, and the
end result may have lacked the unifying hand of one single
author or editor, as Mass did with Adams.
So, the enfranchised persons who made up THE PEOPLE, and who
COULD serve in juries/militias/legislatures/conventions, rather
than EACH "person" per se (which included women, children, and
other "second class citizens") were those Madison was primarily
concerned with protecting, since THEY were the only persons
whose right and expectation to be free from govt snooping
affected their ability to act freely and independently in the
public arena (juries/legislatures/conventions) free from fear or
intimidation. And this even comports with the NY and VA
proposals that said:
"That every FREEMAN has a right to be secure from all
unreasonable searches and seizures of his person his papers or
his property..."
Why did this say FREEMAN (sometimes FREEHOLDER) rather than just
person/citizen/individual? FREEMAN is the ONLY singular term
that leaves out ALL the citizens/persons/individuals who are NOT
those included in the enfranchised (AND propertied!) class known
as THE PEOPLE, and so referred to in every other instance!
Perhaps Madison and the Congress WERE JUST AS consistent as
Adams was in the MA Const of 1780 in using that term, even if we
didn't notice it at first!
IF this is so, than Amar, himself, is wrong to focus on the
right of privacy as being for ANY person who was not otherwise
part of the ENFRANCHISED PEOPLE! (This NOW includes blacks and
women, of course, but not, for example, kids, which would allow
school locker searches as clearly NOT being a 4th Amen
violation.)
Doesn't it make more sense that the same guys who OK'd slavery
and that women couldn't vote were not so concerned about those
same "second-class citizens" not having various "security"
rights as well? What rights and powers did blacks, kids, and
women have that were to be "retained" by them in Amens 9 and 10?
Which of these persons were going to "consult" or "petition the
legislature" when they couldn't vote or serve? Which of these
persons were going to serve on juries or in the militia, or vote
on the maintenance of the militia, and who needed to be "secure
in their persons... papers... property" to prevent intimidation
when serving in office, on juries, or as voters? Which of these
persons voted each two years on the House races? NONE, and so,
THEY weren't PART OF THE PEOPLE the Const speaks of in EACH
case!
"Individuals" included women, | | | | | |
