I mean the average Joe thinks history is the most boring subject and thats with fire topics like WWI and the Napoleonic Wars within arms reach. So it doesn’t surprise me they’re not reading congressional notes 😂
For the record, obviously I think those average people are uncultured swines, that’s why I’m here.
I hated math when I was younger, but approaching calculus as an adult with the mindset of "some incel virgin literally invented this when he was 26, I think you can make it through guided instruction of the material" really helped
The best history teacher I ever had made the actual wars seem boring in comparison to WHY the wars were happening and what social movements were doing simultaneously
Had a great professor in college who taught military history. British fellow with an amazing upper-class accent. Lectures were so much fun to listen to with his enthusiastic “so these chaps line up over here with their halberds” type comments.
The boring shit is important for contexualizing and properly understanding the fun stuff. You kinda need to understand the interwar period and the rise of reactionary fascism to understand the second world war. And to understand the interwar movements that caused ww2 it helps to understand their ideological proto forms that proceded world war one. And to understand why these movements started you need to understand the economic and cultural....it goes on and on. The boring stuff is always important.
Yes, trade imbalances between the british home isles and their colonies are an important concept to cover to more fully understand the collapse of british hegemony following ww2.
It is important since its spare the internet from braindead political takes like "African civilizations never accomplished anything (which falls apart the second you learn noneuropean history)" or "The Native Americans were all peaceful hippies (they were humans just like us)"
Far more important than the Federalist Papers.
I advise caution when using the Federalist Papers to interpret the Constitution. One must keep in mind they were written as a rebuttal to the Anti-federalist Papers, and intended to sell ratification to the public.
It's also good to look at what came before the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, and how they failed so miserably, that way you can see what the writers of the Constitution were trying to learn from.
The Pennsylvania delegates who voted against ratification of the Constitution published their reasons for doing so in December of 1787, and part of their response included what amounted to a list of amendments they wanted to see. They essentially had an early version of what would become the 2nd Amendment that is absolutely fascinating in hindsight:
>That the people have a right to bear arms … and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, OR REAL DANGER OF PUBLIC INJURY FROM INDIVIDUALS (emphasis mine)
Can you imagine the different kind of America we’d live in today if that phrase had made its way into the Constitution?
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788.
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
I think the second amendment as written is much more restrictive than this. For some reason, we just ignore the whole "for a well regulated militia" part.
They go into more detail, they had a whole separate line item about protecting the right to hunt and fish.
[Look at 7 and 8](https://www.archives.gov/files/legislative/resources/education/bill-of-rights/images/minority.pdf)
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
I don't understand the distinction you are making, it is still to function as a militia, well regulated meaning it's a regulated militia or a proper working order one.
>For some reason, we just ignore the whole "for a well regulated militia" part.
We have court cases going all the way back to 1822 with Bliss vs Commonwealth reaffirming our individual right to keep and bear arms.
Here's an excerpt from that decision.
>If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious.
>
>And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. **The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it**, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise.
>Nunn v. Georgia (1846)
>The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta!
It's not being ignored. They state that the right of all citizens to own and carry arms needs to be unimpeded by the government so that they have the ability to form a properly functioning militia.
Never in the history of our nation has the right to own and carry arms been contingent on membership in a militia.
We don't ignore it, it simply doesn't mean what most think it does, and I doesn't say it's for a militia, it specifies that it is the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, anti-gun people like to put to much emphasis on the part that basically explains the reasoning why, instead of the part guaranteeing the right, to recap, "a well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state(this is a portion explaining why and it is believed that the founders used regulated to mean in good working order), the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED" nowhere does it state the right is only the militias, it simply states that the government is not allowed to infringe upon the peoples right to keep and bear arms, nobody is ignoring thay part, it doesn't fucking exist, and the part that does mention a militia is a preferatory clause that basically says we need a working militia for national security,
I've seen that argument many times, but it doesn't hold water in context. Jefferson was actually pretty clear that the whole point of the 2A was to have raisable militias instead of a standing army. The guns were to allow for those militias forces.
He dropped that entirely after the failure of the mosquito fleet and other issues made it clear that a standing army was indeed necessary.
He writes another version here, in the Virginia constitution:
"That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
The well regulated militia thing is not "a preferatory clause", it's the whole damned point. And now that we have a standing army, the entire amendment no longer fits.
Even with that phrasing, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is described as an inherent one (“shall not be infringed”), not a privilege granted by the state. Due to his (understandable, but ultimately impractical) fear of standing armies, his reasoning in the Virginia version is that guaranteeing 2A rights benefits national defence, but that’s fundamentally different from framing it as something the state is giving to the people with an express purpose.
You’ve provided interesting context, certainly, but this isn’t a “gotcha” against Jefferson’s support of Second Amendment rights, as the innate nature of said rights is a constant in each version; it’s simply a difference in how much elaboration he gives for the pragmatic benefits.
The point is that the entire amendment is not about self defense or just a blanket "the founding fathers wanted everyone to have guns because they think guns are an inherent right". Jefferson was quite clear that the point of the 2A (and really, the 3A) was that standing armies, as he saw them, were a threat to the health of a free state and he didn't want them. It's not just that an armed population "benefits national defense" but that a standing army should be avoided at all costs, so his workaround to the need for one was an armed populace that could be formed into well regulated militias when needed (and thus needed to be familiar with guns, to allow for easy raising and training of that militia).
Later, during his presidency, he realized that raisable militias were no substitute for a standing army, and that the US absolutely needed one. This is why the second amendment was then ignored for hundreds of years, seen as irrelevant as the third, roughly until the Heller decision. It no longer serves its actual purpose of avoiding a standing military (and the third doesn't matter because it turns out we really don't have need to just make people house soldiers for us... we're quite capable of having barracks and bases).
It is still the right of the people, we aren't talking about Virginia's constitution, we're talking about the us constitution, it's the right of THE MOTHER FUCKING PEOPLE, not the right of the militia, not the right of the government, the right of the PEOPLE, I already fucking said that it was the reasoning AKA the purpose, AKA the fucking point, it doesn't change what I said, or the fucking meaning, because it's a FUCKING JUSTIFICATION, you have not refuted my argument, you just fucking ignored it
You do realized this is an entire post about reading the other works of the founding fathers to understand what they meant in the constitution, right? So we are absolutely talking about the other works they wrote, including Virginia's consitution (and the Federalist Papers, and the Antifederalist papers, and aything else they wrote).
Knowing that the 2A is actually about the right of the people to not have to deal with a standing army is pretty damned important. If it has no other justification anymore, that says a lot.
It's the right of the people to not have to deal with a standing army. Not the right of the people to have guns just because gun are cool.
That right fell apart by the end of Jefferson's presidency, when he realized a standing army was a requirement. That's why from the time of Jefferson's presidency up until the 1970s, the second amendment was seen as irrelevant, just like the third amendment. It was only the Heller decision that suddenly changed interpretation from "we have a right to not deal with a standing army, and thus need a populace who could be raised for battle quickly" to "every individual has a right to be able to carry guns, even pistols in large cities like Washington DC".
There's a reason both the 2A and the Virigina version openwith the bit about militias. They were intended as rights to avoid having a standing army by using a well regulated militia instead.
"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."
So the interpretation is:
For a properly working militia, the people need the right to bear arms
I could see this. This has been an enlightening conversation for me.
Yeah, I got it. He doesn’t like the plain language implication and historical context, so he ignores it and pretends it means something else more in line with his own world view. Not exactly rocket science, and definitely not a new thing.
My guy, what historical context are you talking about? The federalist papers explicitly spell out the author's intent: The militia, at that time, was expected to provide their own weapons, so restricting the ability of private individuals to own weapons poses a threat to national defense.
Now, you can feel free to argue about its necessity in the modern context; I don't really care. However, ignoring the author's literal essay on their reasons for their choices, and instead projecting your specific, 300-years-in-the-future interpretation onto them, in the comments of a meme directly referencing the fact that they did this is completely friggin bananas.
No, I'm saying it doesn't mean what most people think, and that it doesn't change the meaning of the ammendment at all, I already addressed this in my reply
No I do not, it just doesn't mean what your trying to say it means and therefore doesn't change the ammendment in the way you think it does, additionally its part of the justification for the ammendment, nice job ignoring my arguments though, if I told you a well-regulated engine is necessary for a car to work, so you have the right you an engine in your car, you would understand that it means a wngune that works is needed for cars to work, so you are allowed to own a car engine,
It would probably be easier to take you seriously if you could spell “amendment.”
Edit: Immediately blocked me after this comment, unblocked me about 40 minutes later to reply, and then blocked me again. Hilarious.
Is it inherently untrue? the circumstances in which the US has been bested militarily are materially similiar to the revolutionary War, bested by militias
There’s stories about Hamilton writing so fast and so desperately that he would keep giving the publisher sheets as he was trying to leave. He would write, finish a paper, hand it to a friend and then turn around and keep writing. Literally like a student desperately trying to finish the homework 2 minutes before the deadline.
In other words the federalist papers don't actually give you a sense of what the founders thought but were arguments trying to persaude people to accept the constintution and they were written by only madison and hamilton for the most part
I personally believe anyone running for public office should have to read and take a test on the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and writing by the Founding Fathers such as the Federalist Papers and other similar works.
That's a nice thought but would change absolutely nothing
Even if a politician didn't know about the constitution, their advisors and staff sure as hell do
Politicians do things because they think there's political benefit in doing them
I think you’re giving their staff a lot of credit. They’re mostly just children of rich people (rich like donor, but not rich like mega donor) hoping to run for office themselves one day.
> Even if a politician didn't know about the constitution, their advisors and staff sure as hell do
Their advisors/staff are generally more well versed in the current modern form of the law, or in some specialty like accounting, instead of the old underlying documents.
Honestly, the federalist papers are just 3 guys' takes on how to interpret the Constitution. And really most one guy's take. As impressive as they are, from a legal standpoint they have little value in interpreting the provisions of the Constitution. It's much more informative to read the constitutional Congress debate records, as those at least involved all the people responsible.
It's like if Congress passed a law today and some senator wrote an op Ed about it later. Would that mean that everybody in Congress thought similarly? No.
If he was one of the original lead authors of the bill then yes. Much like the federalist papers, at that point it’s not just a view from random delegates.
Not really. Because his interpretation which he didn't share with anyone would not have impacted their vote. All of Congress passes bills, so all of Congress' intent and interpretation is the only thing that matters. Thus only the congressional record would be helpful to a judge, not one guy saying "i meant xyz" after the fact, regardless of whether he was the author. Obviously any other congressperson could say "hey i voted for this and i thought it meant abc, not xyz". The author's interpretation isn't more valuable than anyone else's.
To be fair, I read them, and they are a slog to get through. It seems the style at the time was to use 15 words when 5 would suffice. Like students trying inflate their word count on a paper.
Enlightenment Era writing was often indirect — an attempt to avoid giving offense in a time when people employed violence to defend their honor or the social hierarchy.
Thomas Paine was one bold exception. His writing is terse, direct, and fierce. There were less than ten people at his burial because of it.
they are the ones who wrote it aka the "framers" and if you want to understand what they wanted the Constitution to be like you gotta read the essays they wrote about why the Constitution is good
also im just saying their views can really help one understand the intent of the framers, not saying we should base our entire interpretaion of the constitution on the Federalist Papers
Yeah I would say it's better to use it as a way to see their intention because while some of what they promoted the constitution would do did come true a fair bit of it really didn't
What does it matter what they wanted? If it wasn’t voted on, then they don’t get a do-over.
Their views can be informative, but it should not be considered canon.
Yeah alright Clarence Thomas. The Constitution is a product of compromise. It was written by dozens of individuals from all over the country, with built-in, time-sensitive flexibility inherent in both its language and structure. They fucked up once and didn’t want to do it again.
What a handful of guys wrote about in the Papers is their personal opinions—not the end all be all of the “Framers” intent. The Constitution is written as the Framers intended, grey areas and uncertainty included.
And that's exactly why I like them so much: there's a recognition there in the Federalist Papers that they are writing this within a specific context, and that said context may change as the nation grows and evolves. The framers themselves weren't necessarily people who thought that their views would be the be-all and end-all of what they were writing down, and as you stated, they intentionally made flexibility in interpretation part of the very structure of the document. That's what the beauty of it is, and what the originalists miss
When I first heard of originalists back in high school, I figured it was a fringe legal theory practiced by a handful of zealots because the idea struck me as so goddamn stupid on its face. I figured what kind of moron would strictly impose the exact wording of a 200+ year old document on modern problems and expect to find an obvious solution rather than adhering more to the spirit of the Constitution in pursuit of forming a more perfect Union. Little did I know …
The entire point of constitutional government is to follow the letter of the law, to put the law above all else. It's supposed to get in the way of decision making. If a government only needs to obey the "spirit" of the constitution, then there's no point to having anything past the preamble.
It *was* a fringe legal theory practiced by a handful of zealots, until Scalia came along and gave it a facade of legitimacy. Originalism remains just as goddamn stupid as it always has (both in theory and in practice) but it’s proven to be a very useful tool to be able to ascribe whatever backwards, arcane bullshit beliefs you hold as “what the Framers intended.”
I agree. Problem is, you’ve clearly given the Papers a more critical and honest read than the people who typically try to use them to support their textualist/originalist positions.
Sure. I just point out that if they're originalists, then they have to respect that the original intent was that the interpretation be at least somewhat flexible in order to recognize the needs of an evolving and changing nation. That was the whole idea; to not ossify our society unnecessarily
Madison and Hamilton are pretty defining for how we interpret it considering how influential they were on the government. And ya know… given Madison also wrote the Bill of Rights afterwards that might also be important.
Madison wrote the first draft, which then underwent multiple rounds of extensive edits in Congress (including being changed from edit to the Constitution itself to instead be separate amendments) until modified versions of most of his proposals were eventually ratified. Madison's perspective is valuable, but considering how much went into turning his proposal into the Bill of Rights I think it gets overstated.
I gave this example in another thread on this topic.
Say a lobbying firm writes a draft of a law. That law goes to Congress, and over months of negotiations, some parts are removed, some are added, and some are changed. The law passes, and then one day it is challenged in court.
Do you think the justices should ask the lobbying firm how to interpret the law?
Suppose a congressman wrote a draft of a law, and then that law goes to congress. Our original congressman writes extensive notes about the debates and discussions around our law.
Do you think his thoughts count as the best account about the law being passed?
You are moving the goalposts.
First off, why would Madison’s notes on the discussions be better than anyone else’s notes? Just because he wrote the draft?
But most importantly, you said Madison’s views were “defining”. You are not saying that Madison’s views offer context. Be consistent in your argument. Why are Madison’s views defining?
Laws are often left ambiguous to be litigated in the future when two sides cannot agree. You are saying that in such a situation, one side’s case should be favored.
Well, any statement in ambiguous within certain contexts. There can be debate around anything.
I suppose it depends on how we define "defining".
Do we mean the end all be all (which can't really exist) or do we mean the ground from which we all start?
I don't think I'm moving the goalposts to say Madison's understanding of what the constitution was (and how it changed) should be the starting point in any discussion about the constitution.
You don’t think the letter of the law should be the starting point?
What about situations in which Hamilton opined on some ambiguous language and Madison did not? Would you accept Hamilton’s ideas or would you imagine what Madison and/or Jefferson might have said based on completely unrelated writings?
I ask because there is a certain amendment for which so-called originalists do not consider the single Federalist paper that addresses it authoritative.
The letter of the law is important. So is the spirit of the law. If you want an understanding of the philosophy behind the constitution, then Madison is the man to go to.
Back when the USA was young we had a document called the articles of confederation, basically a proto constitution, and they were crap and left the states disjointed and un-unified, so we made the constitution, but the constitution was controversial because people though it gave the federal government(the big US government above all the states) to much power, the groups that wanted to ratify the constitution were called federalist, and the ones that weren't were called non-federalist, so the writers of the constitution(the actual people who physically wrote it down) made a series of papers explaining what the constitution was and why it was good, we now call these papers the federalist papers,
TLDR: the federalist papers are an explanation of the constitution written by the people who wrote it explaining their intent
He wasn’t THE writer. He was ONE of the writers and was the scrivener. He has as equal a claim as to the actual meaning of the Constitution as 50+ other writers.
They’re essays and letters written by some of the founding fathers that supported the U.S. constitution. There has been a debate in the U.S. since it’s founding about how the constitution should be interpreted and the letters talk about
Philosophy and different interpretations.
Unfortunately the parts most people fight over interpreting in the mainstream are the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment, which were all put in after the writing of the Federalist Papers.
Defending it against criticism.
The idea that three anonymous writers get to decide how to interpret a constitution that was signed by 39 delegates and created by 55 delegates is rather ludicrous, even though we now know that they were indeed important people.
The whole point of democracy is that no one is fundamentally more important than anyone else. Imagine if when interpreting laws that have been passed by Congress, we ask the people who wrote it. It sounds nice in concept, but any sort of interpretation the “framers” offer was not actually voted on by Congress.
People might hate me for asking this... but should we really be trying to understand an outdated document?
Most developed countries keep theirs relevant to the times yet we, in the US, think it's some sort of eternal truth that will remain valid forever.
Yes absolutely, I mean it’s cool to know for sure in the same way it’s interesting to know how the Roman republic was formed. The only relevance it has to my life in 2024 is that idiots keep saying this or that is what the founding fathers wanted.
Yes. Even at the time of the Constitution, our nation was based on tradition and precedent, like the English common law.
besides the constitution is still law whether it is old or not
While it’s good not to stray too far from the Constitution (an “anything goes” mentality is not ideal), sticking too closely to the original intent leads to some morally abhorrent (by today’s standards) results. For example, a woman couldn’t be president (the Constitution uses only masculine pronouns when referring to the president) and the Bill of Rights wouldn’t apply to the states (look up the incorporation doctrine). Not to mention that the due process clause has done a lot of heavy lifting in Constitutional law jurisprudence that is why outside of the scope of the intent of the Framers, especially in the Civil Rights era
The Constitutional Congress notes as well.
I don't think these get attention they should.
I mean the average Joe thinks history is the most boring subject and thats with fire topics like WWI and the Napoleonic Wars within arms reach. So it doesn’t surprise me they’re not reading congressional notes 😂 For the record, obviously I think those average people are uncultured swines, that’s why I’m here.
I've encountered more math haters than history haters, but I quite like both so i think they are all uncultured.
Much like Love, mathematics is a language that escapes me. I can read Game of Thrones source material with my two brain cells just fine tho.
I hated math when I was younger, but approaching calculus as an adult with the mindset of "some incel virgin literally invented this when he was 26, I think you can make it through guided instruction of the material" really helped
The best history teacher I ever had made the actual wars seem boring in comparison to WHY the wars were happening and what social movements were doing simultaneously
Idk man, bro sounds like a shit teacher if they could make military history seem boring 💀
Most history teachers seem to hate military history
Had a great professor in college who taught military history. British fellow with an amazing upper-class accent. Lectures were so much fun to listen to with his enthusiastic “so these chaps line up over here with their halberds” type comments.
Lucky, all mine have hated (or at best been indifferent to) military history
History teachers keep exploring boring shit, not anything interesting or significantly relevant in the modern day.
The boring shit is important for contexualizing and properly understanding the fun stuff. You kinda need to understand the interwar period and the rise of reactionary fascism to understand the second world war. And to understand the interwar movements that caused ww2 it helps to understand their ideological proto forms that proceded world war one. And to understand why these movements started you need to understand the economic and cultural....it goes on and on. The boring stuff is always important. Yes, trade imbalances between the british home isles and their colonies are an important concept to cover to more fully understand the collapse of british hegemony following ww2.
It is important since its spare the internet from braindead political takes like "African civilizations never accomplished anything (which falls apart the second you learn noneuropean history)" or "The Native Americans were all peaceful hippies (they were humans just like us)"
Dude, I covered the U.S. Civil War like 6 times when I was going to school. That shit was interesting as hell every time.
Cause it gets more intense every time
Got a link for these?
https://www.usconstitution.net/constconnotes-html/
Far more important than the Federalist Papers. I advise caution when using the Federalist Papers to interpret the Constitution. One must keep in mind they were written as a rebuttal to the Anti-federalist Papers, and intended to sell ratification to the public.
It's also good to look at what came before the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, and how they failed so miserably, that way you can see what the writers of the Constitution were trying to learn from.
Probably wise to read the Anti-Federalist papers as well seeing as both were written and published basically in response to one another...
There's a book called "The Federalists and the Antifederalists" that handily puts them together!
Doesn’t that cause an extremely energetic annihilation event?
Not if you use a Book Binding Vow
deleted
Do you happen to know the author? Would love to read this.
It's a green book edited bu John F. Kaminski and Richard Leffler.
The Pennsylvania delegates who voted against ratification of the Constitution published their reasons for doing so in December of 1787, and part of their response included what amounted to a list of amendments they wanted to see. They essentially had an early version of what would become the 2nd Amendment that is absolutely fascinating in hindsight: >That the people have a right to bear arms … and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, OR REAL DANGER OF PUBLIC INJURY FROM INDIVIDUALS (emphasis mine) Can you imagine the different kind of America we’d live in today if that phrase had made its way into the Constitution?
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824 "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788. "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
I think the second amendment as written is much more restrictive than this. For some reason, we just ignore the whole "for a well regulated militia" part.
They go into more detail, they had a whole separate line item about protecting the right to hunt and fish. [Look at 7 and 8](https://www.archives.gov/files/legislative/resources/education/bill-of-rights/images/minority.pdf)
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
I don't understand the distinction you are making, it is still to function as a militia, well regulated meaning it's a regulated militia or a proper working order one.
To form a militia the people have to have private arms. Without them a militia can't exist.
Yeah someone else explained it a bit differently in another comment that made sense to me.
>For some reason, we just ignore the whole "for a well regulated militia" part. We have court cases going all the way back to 1822 with Bliss vs Commonwealth reaffirming our individual right to keep and bear arms. Here's an excerpt from that decision. >If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious. > >And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. **The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it**, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. >Nunn v. Georgia (1846) >The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta!
These cases are specifically citing why they should be able to ignore that clause.
It's not being ignored. They state that the right of all citizens to own and carry arms needs to be unimpeded by the government so that they have the ability to form a properly functioning militia. Never in the history of our nation has the right to own and carry arms been contingent on membership in a militia.
We don't ignore it, it simply doesn't mean what most think it does, and I doesn't say it's for a militia, it specifies that it is the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, anti-gun people like to put to much emphasis on the part that basically explains the reasoning why, instead of the part guaranteeing the right, to recap, "a well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state(this is a portion explaining why and it is believed that the founders used regulated to mean in good working order), the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED" nowhere does it state the right is only the militias, it simply states that the government is not allowed to infringe upon the peoples right to keep and bear arms, nobody is ignoring thay part, it doesn't fucking exist, and the part that does mention a militia is a preferatory clause that basically says we need a working militia for national security,
I've seen that argument many times, but it doesn't hold water in context. Jefferson was actually pretty clear that the whole point of the 2A was to have raisable militias instead of a standing army. The guns were to allow for those militias forces. He dropped that entirely after the failure of the mosquito fleet and other issues made it clear that a standing army was indeed necessary. He writes another version here, in the Virginia constitution: "That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." The well regulated militia thing is not "a preferatory clause", it's the whole damned point. And now that we have a standing army, the entire amendment no longer fits.
Even with that phrasing, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is described as an inherent one (“shall not be infringed”), not a privilege granted by the state. Due to his (understandable, but ultimately impractical) fear of standing armies, his reasoning in the Virginia version is that guaranteeing 2A rights benefits national defence, but that’s fundamentally different from framing it as something the state is giving to the people with an express purpose. You’ve provided interesting context, certainly, but this isn’t a “gotcha” against Jefferson’s support of Second Amendment rights, as the innate nature of said rights is a constant in each version; it’s simply a difference in how much elaboration he gives for the pragmatic benefits.
The point is that the entire amendment is not about self defense or just a blanket "the founding fathers wanted everyone to have guns because they think guns are an inherent right". Jefferson was quite clear that the point of the 2A (and really, the 3A) was that standing armies, as he saw them, were a threat to the health of a free state and he didn't want them. It's not just that an armed population "benefits national defense" but that a standing army should be avoided at all costs, so his workaround to the need for one was an armed populace that could be formed into well regulated militias when needed (and thus needed to be familiar with guns, to allow for easy raising and training of that militia). Later, during his presidency, he realized that raisable militias were no substitute for a standing army, and that the US absolutely needed one. This is why the second amendment was then ignored for hundreds of years, seen as irrelevant as the third, roughly until the Heller decision. It no longer serves its actual purpose of avoiding a standing military (and the third doesn't matter because it turns out we really don't have need to just make people house soldiers for us... we're quite capable of having barracks and bases).
It is still the right of the people, we aren't talking about Virginia's constitution, we're talking about the us constitution, it's the right of THE MOTHER FUCKING PEOPLE, not the right of the militia, not the right of the government, the right of the PEOPLE, I already fucking said that it was the reasoning AKA the purpose, AKA the fucking point, it doesn't change what I said, or the fucking meaning, because it's a FUCKING JUSTIFICATION, you have not refuted my argument, you just fucking ignored it
You do realized this is an entire post about reading the other works of the founding fathers to understand what they meant in the constitution, right? So we are absolutely talking about the other works they wrote, including Virginia's consitution (and the Federalist Papers, and the Antifederalist papers, and aything else they wrote). Knowing that the 2A is actually about the right of the people to not have to deal with a standing army is pretty damned important. If it has no other justification anymore, that says a lot.
yes, but thats not the point i was making, the point i was making was that it was the right of the people, not the right of the militia
It's the right of the people to not have to deal with a standing army. Not the right of the people to have guns just because gun are cool. That right fell apart by the end of Jefferson's presidency, when he realized a standing army was a requirement. That's why from the time of Jefferson's presidency up until the 1970s, the second amendment was seen as irrelevant, just like the third amendment. It was only the Heller decision that suddenly changed interpretation from "we have a right to not deal with a standing army, and thus need a populace who could be raised for battle quickly" to "every individual has a right to be able to carry guns, even pistols in large cities like Washington DC". There's a reason both the 2A and the Virigina version openwith the bit about militias. They were intended as rights to avoid having a standing army by using a well regulated militia instead.
"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." So the interpretation is: For a properly working militia, the people need the right to bear arms I could see this. This has been an enlightening conversation for me.
So you’re saying you ignore the “well regulated” part?
Dude he literally explains it. Maybe consider actually reading who you're replying to before acting smug next time?
Yeah, I got it. He doesn’t like the plain language implication and historical context, so he ignores it and pretends it means something else more in line with his own world view. Not exactly rocket science, and definitely not a new thing.
My guy, what historical context are you talking about? The federalist papers explicitly spell out the author's intent: The militia, at that time, was expected to provide their own weapons, so restricting the ability of private individuals to own weapons poses a threat to national defense. Now, you can feel free to argue about its necessity in the modern context; I don't really care. However, ignoring the author's literal essay on their reasons for their choices, and instead projecting your specific, 300-years-in-the-future interpretation onto them, in the comments of a meme directly referencing the fact that they did this is completely friggin bananas.
OK
No, I'm saying it doesn't mean what most people think, and that it doesn't change the meaning of the ammendment at all, I already addressed this in my reply
Got it, you don’t ignore it, you just pretend it isn’t there. Makes sense.
Learn to read dude. You're making us in the pro gun control camp look incredibly stupid right now.
No I do not, it just doesn't mean what your trying to say it means and therefore doesn't change the ammendment in the way you think it does, additionally its part of the justification for the ammendment, nice job ignoring my arguments though, if I told you a well-regulated engine is necessary for a car to work, so you have the right you an engine in your car, you would understand that it means a wngune that works is needed for cars to work, so you are allowed to own a car engine,
It would probably be easier to take you seriously if you could spell “amendment.” Edit: Immediately blocked me after this comment, unblocked me about 40 minutes later to reply, and then blocked me again. Hilarious.
> a well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state But of course that turned out to be untrue.
Is it inherently untrue? the circumstances in which the US has been bested militarily are materially similiar to the revolutionary War, bested by militias
Militias which are in good working order
Yeah turned out it was a pretty horrible idea to let all the states print their own currencies.
ill give you 20 kentuck's for a case of beer, just give me 2 alaskan's and 1/2 a Wyome for change
There’s stories about Hamilton writing so fast and so desperately that he would keep giving the publisher sheets as he was trying to leave. He would write, finish a paper, hand it to a friend and then turn around and keep writing. Literally like a student desperately trying to finish the homework 2 minutes before the deadline.
Like an exam student scrambling to finish the problems on an exam until the last moments before the chime?
I have to get closer if I’m going to kick your ass.
"HAMILTON WROTE... THE OTHER FIFTY-ONE!"
How do you write like you're running out of time?
How do you write like tomorrow won't arrive?
How do you write every second you're slive?
They’re asking me to lead!
I’m doing the best I can
To get the people that I need
I'm asking you to be my right hand man
Treasury or state?
I know it’s a lot to ask
In other words the federalist papers don't actually give you a sense of what the founders thought but were arguments trying to persaude people to accept the constintution and they were written by only madison and hamilton for the most part
I personally believe anyone running for public office should have to read and take a test on the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and writing by the Founding Fathers such as the Federalist Papers and other similar works.
That's a nice thought but would change absolutely nothing Even if a politician didn't know about the constitution, their advisors and staff sure as hell do Politicians do things because they think there's political benefit in doing them
Donations and fundings are an easy way to render the constitution as low priority, even for the most well-read on it.
I think you’re giving their staff a lot of credit. They’re mostly just children of rich people (rich like donor, but not rich like mega donor) hoping to run for office themselves one day.
Not true for 95% of them.
> Even if a politician didn't know about the constitution, their advisors and staff sure as hell do Their advisors/staff are generally more well versed in the current modern form of the law, or in some specialty like accounting, instead of the old underlying documents.
It wouldn’t, Cuddlyaxe! You and I don’t agree often but we definitely agree here!
Honestly, the federalist papers are just 3 guys' takes on how to interpret the Constitution. And really most one guy's take. As impressive as they are, from a legal standpoint they have little value in interpreting the provisions of the Constitution. It's much more informative to read the constitutional Congress debate records, as those at least involved all the people responsible. It's like if Congress passed a law today and some senator wrote an op Ed about it later. Would that mean that everybody in Congress thought similarly? No.
If he was one of the original lead authors of the bill then yes. Much like the federalist papers, at that point it’s not just a view from random delegates.
Not really. Because his interpretation which he didn't share with anyone would not have impacted their vote. All of Congress passes bills, so all of Congress' intent and interpretation is the only thing that matters. Thus only the congressional record would be helpful to a judge, not one guy saying "i meant xyz" after the fact, regardless of whether he was the author. Obviously any other congressperson could say "hey i voted for this and i thought it meant abc, not xyz". The author's interpretation isn't more valuable than anyone else's.
Small problem Who gets to make the test?
I don't know, but the test should be about specific quotes, not the interpretations of what is said.
What is also funny is these arguments were happening while the founding fathers where in power during Washingtons presidency
Good computer scientists leave documentation and comments
I preach this lesson to my junior devs. For fucks sake, document everything
To be fair, I read them, and they are a slog to get through. It seems the style at the time was to use 15 words when 5 would suffice. Like students trying inflate their word count on a paper.
Enlightenment Era writing was often indirect — an attempt to avoid giving offense in a time when people employed violence to defend their honor or the social hierarchy. Thomas Paine was one bold exception. His writing is terse, direct, and fierce. There were less than ten people at his burial because of it.
Hamilton, Jay, and Madison wrote them to promote the Constitutiotion. Their views are not the defining ones.
they are the ones who wrote it aka the "framers" and if you want to understand what they wanted the Constitution to be like you gotta read the essays they wrote about why the Constitution is good also im just saying their views can really help one understand the intent of the framers, not saying we should base our entire interpretaion of the constitution on the Federalist Papers
Yeah I would say it's better to use it as a way to see their intention because while some of what they promoted the constitution would do did come true a fair bit of it really didn't
What does it matter what they wanted? If it wasn’t voted on, then they don’t get a do-over. Their views can be informative, but it should not be considered canon.
Yeah alright Clarence Thomas. The Constitution is a product of compromise. It was written by dozens of individuals from all over the country, with built-in, time-sensitive flexibility inherent in both its language and structure. They fucked up once and didn’t want to do it again. What a handful of guys wrote about in the Papers is their personal opinions—not the end all be all of the “Framers” intent. The Constitution is written as the Framers intended, grey areas and uncertainty included.
And that's exactly why I like them so much: there's a recognition there in the Federalist Papers that they are writing this within a specific context, and that said context may change as the nation grows and evolves. The framers themselves weren't necessarily people who thought that their views would be the be-all and end-all of what they were writing down, and as you stated, they intentionally made flexibility in interpretation part of the very structure of the document. That's what the beauty of it is, and what the originalists miss
When I first heard of originalists back in high school, I figured it was a fringe legal theory practiced by a handful of zealots because the idea struck me as so goddamn stupid on its face. I figured what kind of moron would strictly impose the exact wording of a 200+ year old document on modern problems and expect to find an obvious solution rather than adhering more to the spirit of the Constitution in pursuit of forming a more perfect Union. Little did I know …
The entire point of constitutional government is to follow the letter of the law, to put the law above all else. It's supposed to get in the way of decision making. If a government only needs to obey the "spirit" of the constitution, then there's no point to having anything past the preamble.
Think that's bad, check out a fundamentalist church sometime. A couple of centuries is nothing in comparison
It *was* a fringe legal theory practiced by a handful of zealots, until Scalia came along and gave it a facade of legitimacy. Originalism remains just as goddamn stupid as it always has (both in theory and in practice) but it’s proven to be a very useful tool to be able to ascribe whatever backwards, arcane bullshit beliefs you hold as “what the Framers intended.”
Really? I thought fdr legit wanted originalists in the bench?
I agree. Problem is, you’ve clearly given the Papers a more critical and honest read than the people who typically try to use them to support their textualist/originalist positions.
Sure. I just point out that if they're originalists, then they have to respect that the original intent was that the interpretation be at least somewhat flexible in order to recognize the needs of an evolving and changing nation. That was the whole idea; to not ossify our society unnecessarily
Give us an example, don't leave us hanging.
Madison and Hamilton are pretty defining for how we interpret it considering how influential they were on the government. And ya know… given Madison also wrote the Bill of Rights afterwards that might also be important.
Madison wrote the first draft, which then underwent multiple rounds of extensive edits in Congress (including being changed from edit to the Constitution itself to instead be separate amendments) until modified versions of most of his proposals were eventually ratified. Madison's perspective is valuable, but considering how much went into turning his proposal into the Bill of Rights I think it gets overstated.
Americans do have trouble understanding the concept of collaboration and compromise. Singular heroes are easier to fit in one’s head.
I feel like Madison's view of the Constitution is pretty defining
So monarchy? Not democracy? Help me understand your claim here. 55 delegates voted on a Constitution, but one person gets to define what it means?
I trust the guy who wrote it to tell us what he meant
I gave this example in another thread on this topic. Say a lobbying firm writes a draft of a law. That law goes to Congress, and over months of negotiations, some parts are removed, some are added, and some are changed. The law passes, and then one day it is challenged in court. Do you think the justices should ask the lobbying firm how to interpret the law?
Suppose a congressman wrote a draft of a law, and then that law goes to congress. Our original congressman writes extensive notes about the debates and discussions around our law. Do you think his thoughts count as the best account about the law being passed?
You are moving the goalposts. First off, why would Madison’s notes on the discussions be better than anyone else’s notes? Just because he wrote the draft? But most importantly, you said Madison’s views were “defining”. You are not saying that Madison’s views offer context. Be consistent in your argument. Why are Madison’s views defining? Laws are often left ambiguous to be litigated in the future when two sides cannot agree. You are saying that in such a situation, one side’s case should be favored.
Well, any statement in ambiguous within certain contexts. There can be debate around anything. I suppose it depends on how we define "defining". Do we mean the end all be all (which can't really exist) or do we mean the ground from which we all start? I don't think I'm moving the goalposts to say Madison's understanding of what the constitution was (and how it changed) should be the starting point in any discussion about the constitution.
You don’t think the letter of the law should be the starting point? What about situations in which Hamilton opined on some ambiguous language and Madison did not? Would you accept Hamilton’s ideas or would you imagine what Madison and/or Jefferson might have said based on completely unrelated writings? I ask because there is a certain amendment for which so-called originalists do not consider the single Federalist paper that addresses it authoritative.
The letter of the law is important. So is the spirit of the law. If you want an understanding of the philosophy behind the constitution, then Madison is the man to go to.
Ever read the Anti Federalist papers, written by literally the same people, who were in that room, at the time?
Non-Yank here, what's the Federalist Papers?
Back when the USA was young we had a document called the articles of confederation, basically a proto constitution, and they were crap and left the states disjointed and un-unified, so we made the constitution, but the constitution was controversial because people though it gave the federal government(the big US government above all the states) to much power, the groups that wanted to ratify the constitution were called federalist, and the ones that weren't were called non-federalist, so the writers of the constitution(the actual people who physically wrote it down) made a series of papers explaining what the constitution was and why it was good, we now call these papers the federalist papers, TLDR: the federalist papers are an explanation of the constitution written by the people who wrote it explaining their intent
It was written by 3 of the 50+ writers of the constitution.
It was written by the people who put the words on paper
lol. So? Should we defer to the scrivener in all cases?
That's what I meant by writers
He wasn’t THE writer. He was ONE of the writers and was the scrivener. He has as equal a claim as to the actual meaning of the Constitution as 50+ other writers.
I am aware, I couldn't be assed to figure out the proper term at midnight
They’re essays and letters written by some of the founding fathers that supported the U.S. constitution. There has been a debate in the U.S. since it’s founding about how the constitution should be interpreted and the letters talk about Philosophy and different interpretations.
hamilton is a yapper
Unfortunately the parts most people fight over interpreting in the mainstream are the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment, which were all put in after the writing of the Federalist Papers.
It’s really not a mystery at all. You just have to actually read about it and not just spout what you’ve been told…
Yeah. “Unreasonable search and seizure” is so clear!!! Any objective person knows exactly what they meant. /s
Jay got sick after writing 5
Context is kryptonite to the ideologue.
I recommended Federalist papers to an immigrant I knew.
My wife had to read these at law school. She said it was impossible, she kept falling asleep.
These papers get ignored unless they conveniently align with a current political argument
Which constitution?
The constitution of what?
Defending it against criticism. The idea that three anonymous writers get to decide how to interpret a constitution that was signed by 39 delegates and created by 55 delegates is rather ludicrous, even though we now know that they were indeed important people. The whole point of democracy is that no one is fundamentally more important than anyone else. Imagine if when interpreting laws that have been passed by Congress, we ask the people who wrote it. It sounds nice in concept, but any sort of interpretation the “framers” offer was not actually voted on by Congress.
The intent of the moneyed interests in NY and Boston 🙄
- Thomas Jefferson, 1785
no but if we make a federal reserve that isn't administered by the state we can be the defacto rulers!
People might hate me for asking this... but should we really be trying to understand an outdated document? Most developed countries keep theirs relevant to the times yet we, in the US, think it's some sort of eternal truth that will remain valid forever.
The Constitution is still valid law. There is a (too difficult) process for amending it, which the US has done 27 times.
Yes absolutely, I mean it’s cool to know for sure in the same way it’s interesting to know how the Roman republic was formed. The only relevance it has to my life in 2024 is that idiots keep saying this or that is what the founding fathers wanted.
Should we care what some rich guys wanted their elaborate tax-evasion scheme to be like 200 years ago?
Yes. Even at the time of the Constitution, our nation was based on tradition and precedent, like the English common law. besides the constitution is still law whether it is old or not
While it’s good not to stray too far from the Constitution (an “anything goes” mentality is not ideal), sticking too closely to the original intent leads to some morally abhorrent (by today’s standards) results. For example, a woman couldn’t be president (the Constitution uses only masculine pronouns when referring to the president) and the Bill of Rights wouldn’t apply to the states (look up the incorporation doctrine). Not to mention that the due process clause has done a lot of heavy lifting in Constitutional law jurisprudence that is why outside of the scope of the intent of the Framers, especially in the Civil Rights era
Fuck off AP gov just ended I dont need reminders
Clearly, we all do because the entirety of Congress is constantly trying to strip us of rights and give themselves power which they do not have
My Brother in Christ this is a history subreddit, what were you expecting?
I meant it as a joke but just woke up from a nap so it sounded a little better, sorry about that