I assume most of us are troubled by the USSC Citizens United decision. While I’m all in favor of an amendment to clarify that constitutionally a person can only be a NATURAL person not an artificial one, the bar to passing a constitutional amendment is ridiculously high and could take years to pass… if ever.
But are there are other possible avenues of attack to push corporations out of politics?
What about the IRS tax code?
Currently religious and non-profit entities receive tax-exempt status on the condition they NOT engage in political campaign activities. This is NOT considered a restraint on their First Amendment free speech laws. If these groups violate this agreement, they lose that perk.
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=161131,00.html
Corporations receive numerous benefits such as limited liability protections and tax benefits such as the ability to write off expenses all designed to facilitate commerce.
Why can’t the tax code be changed to make these tax benefits conditional on corporations NOT engaging in political campaign activities?
Technically this would NOT be a restraint on corporate free speech any more than it is with those religious and non-profit organizations.
Corporations, likewise, would remain free to engage in political activities. Only they, too, would be faced with the choice that such involvement would end all of those special benefits in the tax code. Changing IRS code could possibly be done in time to prevent a massive avalanche of corporate money from affecting this year’s election.
Currently a proposal floated by Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen does NOT include this approach. You can read their proposal here: http://vanhollen.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=169969
I urge you to contact Chuck Schumer at 202-224-6542 and Chris Van Hollen at (202) 225-5341.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Reforming The Anti-democratic US Senate
Contrary to what many believe, the US is not a democracy. And even with a representative government and a constitution, if democratic principles are at the heart of a republic, one could argue the US is not even a republic. Elections 2000 and 2016 again proved that a candidate REJECTED by the People can be imposed upon our nation. In the Senate, a mere 17% of the population gets 52% of the seats. A president and Senate representing a minority of the population can pack the federal judiciary changing US law forever and enter the US into unwise international treaties. This is insane. Our system violates our founding principle that government derives its JUST power from the CONSENT of the governed.
Our system is not just anti-democratic, it is so absurdly reform proof system that it has set in cement the politics of 1787. In all our history, not ONE of the 27 ratified amendments to the Constitution has in any way changed the anti-democratic nature of our Constitution. Aside from our antiquated first-past-the-post electoral system which I’d argue is incapable of measuring the proverbial Will Of The People, the political side of our government only further distorts the public will. I believe this distortion is so pervasive the Constitution and our electoral systems shape public opinion more than the other way around. With all the current dysfunctionality evident in government today, why do we still subscribe to the notion we mere mortals dare not touch what the Framers intended?
The core problem on the political side is the concept of state suffrage… the idea that entities called states deserve equal representation with the People... and those states, regardless of population, deserve an equal vote. At the Constitutional Convention, the small population and slave states insisted this anti-democratic concept be written into the fabric of the Constitution as a condition of ratification. On the legislative side, the larger states would receive more representation in the House but state suffrage was embodied in the Senate where each state, regardless of population, received two senators.
This arrangement made sense in 1787 because they looked at politics through a prism that only STATES mattered. After all, it was those fiercely independent states which were negotiating for that “more perfect union” with each other. However, when one looks at how any individual CITIZEN is represented in our Constitution, a more disturbing picture of our system emerges.
When the Constitution was written the ratio between the largest and smallest population states, Virginia and Delaware respectively, was about 12.6:1. That ratio now between California and Wyoming is about 69:1.
While there aer adjustments in the House with states losing or gaining seats, the Senate formula is absolutely frozen. Delaware in 1787, and Wyoming now, each get their two Senators. And since there are no protections in the Constitution against such demographic trends, each state will get their two senators regardless if the ratio becomes 100:1 or 1,000:1. Today the Senate has become perhaps the most anti-democratic and most dysfunctional legislative body on the planet.
Let’s be more precise: states are not represented by two senators, the PEOPLE of each state are represented by two Senators. This was made more evident with the enactment of the 17th Amendment in 1913. It permitted for the first time direct popular elections for each state’s senators. Any citizen who chooses to live in Wyoming now has nearly 70X the influence in the Senate than any citizen in California. What’s wrong with this picture? Such vote weighting/dilution schemes are ILLEGAL on all other levels of government.
We’ve been brought up to believe that this Senate/House arrangement is fair because any given citizen in, say, California, is somehow represented by ALL their state delegation. In reality, no citizen votes for ALL the representatives of their state as one does for a Senator. Citizens can vote for only ONE Representative and only ONE represents any given citizen… not their entire state delegation of 53 Representatives.
One might think that solving the problem of the anti-democratic Senate might require a constitutional amendment… a formula that itself is bizarre. It requires a high bar of ¾ of the states to ratify, but since 1820, the ¾ smallest states that could ratify any amendment have contained LESS than 50% of the population! In fact, the 12 smallest states that could thwart any amendment today represent a mere 4% of the population and it might be as low as 2%, a slim majority in those states. However, it’s not just a matter that the small states would object to any such amendment, it’s that the Constitution has an enormous poison pill which protects the Senate against all attempts to reform it short of a Constitutional Convention.
Article V includes this language "...that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
This situation is so bizarre than one proposal to get around this insurmountable roadblock suggested the extraordinary measure to break up the larger states to create 75 states.
I believe that proposal is unlikely to gain any support. American identity is too tied to state residence. Short of a Constitutional Convention I don’t see ANY way to make the Senate more democratic… except possibly through the backdoor.
Under the Article 1, Section 5 each house is free to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings” as well as be the judge of the “qualifications” of their own members.
Section 5 - Membership, Rules, Journals, Adjournment
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members…
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.
When in the Constitution the requirements for votes in either body are mentioned, say to override a presidential veto, we see language such as: If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.
While implied, I can find no specific mention that the total vote MUST represent a single vote for each senator or representative… only some ratio is given. Is there an opening here?
But what about Article 5 which states “...that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” Suffrage is merely the right to vote and this section seems to imply that all senate votes should weigh the same. But is there an opening here too?
Until some high profile voting rights cases in the 1960’s, the concept of popular suffrage in US history never guaranteed one person one vote. Sadly, those court cases which established this principle did NOT apply to the Constitution itself which remains the last bastion of vote weighting/dilution schemes in the US. That citizens in the large states quietly accept this situation is a tribute to our secular religion that teaches, ours is the best political system in the world. And despite the fact citizens have suffrage, given our federal structure the weight of representation behind each vote varies by state. A citizen in WY has about a 70x "bigger" vote in the Senate and amendment process.
Given this legal context where the representational "weight" of individual suffrage varies by state, why has the concept of state suffrage remained sacrosanct? Can the concept of state suffrage be modified in ways we’ve not yet thought of to CORRECT the undemocratic nature of the Senate? While it’s politically improbable, could the rules of the Senate be rewritten so the vote of each Senator is weighted to represent 1/2 of their state’s total population? The population numbers would come from US Census annual state population estimates. In this corrective vote weighting scheme each state would technically retain equal suffrage to vote.
We now have FOUR Justices on the Supreme Court, three under Trump, ratified by Senators representing less than 50% of the US population. Weighting each Senators vote by population would ensure NO LAW or political nominee could pass the Senate without the approval of those who represent the MAJORITY of the US population.
As I wrote years ago the currents of antidemocratic government are insidious.
ulTRAX
modified 2-28-21
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Obama MUST Go For McCain Jugular
John McCain will, of course attack Senator Obama’s strengths. If the attack gets traction, what does Obama have left to sway the undecided?
To respond, Obama MUST attack what McCain is marketing as his unique strength… that he would be a uniquely strong leader who can keep America safe.
Yet it’s clear to all but the most radical of the flag-wavers who are pathologically incapable of critiquing ANY president regardless of their abuses or crimes, that by supporting the war against Iraq, a nation that posed no threat to the US, McCain has proven he does not just lack the judgment to be Commander-in-Chief, he is, in fact, DANGEROUS to the security of the nation.
Here are some simple truths that it would be refreshing for a US politician to speak...
The first is that if a war is unnecessary for our nation’s security, then ALL the blood, sweat, tears, and treasure, were pissed away in vain. Second: not the bravery of our troops, not the flag waving, nor any brilliant strategy to win such a pointless war can change that painful fact that it was all for nothing.
What kind of person would support such an unncessary war? It’s been said that if all a person has is a hammer, all the problems look like a nail. McCain’s fatal flaw is more concerned about demonstrating US power that national REAL security actually become a secondary consideration.
By his mindless support for the Iraq war which distracted from the war against Al Quida and placed the Afghanistan campaign at risk, McCain proved that he is easily distracted from the REAL security needs of the US.
Obama has to make sure the US public is not blinded by the flag-waving on the Right. He has to speak out for sanity... that in perilous times or not, the US can NEVER afford a president who will make the world more perilous. Bush proved it.
ulTRAX
8-27-08
To respond, Obama MUST attack what McCain is marketing as his unique strength… that he would be a uniquely strong leader who can keep America safe.
Yet it’s clear to all but the most radical of the flag-wavers who are pathologically incapable of critiquing ANY president regardless of their abuses or crimes, that by supporting the war against Iraq, a nation that posed no threat to the US, McCain has proven he does not just lack the judgment to be Commander-in-Chief, he is, in fact, DANGEROUS to the security of the nation.
Here are some simple truths that it would be refreshing for a US politician to speak...
The first is that if a war is unnecessary for our nation’s security, then ALL the blood, sweat, tears, and treasure, were pissed away in vain. Second: not the bravery of our troops, not the flag waving, nor any brilliant strategy to win such a pointless war can change that painful fact that it was all for nothing.
What kind of person would support such an unncessary war? It’s been said that if all a person has is a hammer, all the problems look like a nail. McCain’s fatal flaw is more concerned about demonstrating US power that national REAL security actually become a secondary consideration.
By his mindless support for the Iraq war which distracted from the war against Al Quida and placed the Afghanistan campaign at risk, McCain proved that he is easily distracted from the REAL security needs of the US.
Obama has to make sure the US public is not blinded by the flag-waving on the Right. He has to speak out for sanity... that in perilous times or not, the US can NEVER afford a president who will make the world more perilous. Bush proved it.
ulTRAX
8-27-08
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Iraq: So They Will Not Die In Vain part 2
Part One of this series can be found here.
We can’t underestimate the sacrifices that those in the military are willing to make nor those sacrifices already made should be honored this Memorial Day.
Yet as citizens we also have a responsibility to insure we do NOT call on the military to make those sacrifices in vain. That SHOULD be uncontroversial. Sadly, in America it’s not.
There is a basic truth here that many deny or remain oblivious to. By definition an unnecessary war is one that’s not vital for our national security or survival. Even if we prevail in such an unnecessary war, then all the sacrifices of blood and treasure were for nothing since our national security or survival were not served. There is NO way around this incontrovertible fact.
I may be a Progressive but I’m not anti-military. I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and Gulf War… though I’ve later rethought that support. I opposed Vietnam, Panama, Granada, Libya, and Iraq.
The mantra “support the troops” has become as meaningless as “pro-life”. It is meaningless phrase because it has become a slogan that both sides wear on their sleeves. They seem to value the terms as self-descriptions to proclaim their moral superiority… and as shields against their critics. Yet I all too often see a pattern. Most, especially on the pro-war side, don’t feel any responsibility to actually flesh out what their precious slogan means. It’s become as meaningless as the term “pro-life” when someone also supports the death penalty or an economic system where exploitation of others is a central feature.
Similarly those who support unnecessary wars avoid the obvious contradiction in their position: how can one REALLY support the troops when they didn’t oppose an unnecessary war at the start and now wish the troops to remain longer in a brutal meat grinder? Knowing all those sacrifices the troops are willing to make for the nation, how can ANY patriot ask, if not demand, they make such sacrifices in vain?
The military may have to follow orders whether they like it or not. When civilians do the same or allow themselves to be manipulated by cynical and dishonest politicians, it destroys one of the checks and balances of our system that can keep us out of unnecessary or illegal wars.
It SHOULD be axiomatic that no one would want to see our military used to support some special interests as we did when we repeatedly sent in the military to protect the interests of United Fruit, the oil companies, and the like. It SHOULD also be axiomatic that no one would want to see our military used in unnecessary if not illegal wars begun cynical politicians who wrap themselves in the flag.
By denying these simple realities of US politics, the faux patriots betray their real agenda. They aren’t concerned about the military. They just claim to be. They’ll believe ANY noble-sounding pretense if it’s wrapped in God and Country.
The faux patriots have genuinely deluded themselves they have a monopoly on something called patriotism. Their pathological patriotism does not require them to shed all preconceptions and rethink what’s really best for this nation. Their patriotism doesn’t require them to question whether our military is being asked to sacrifice for some pointless cause or politician’s glory. To them patriotism is summed up in that old slogan: America right or wrong. This isn’t patriotism, it is a religious creed that requires nothing more than mindless loyalty and flag-waving. Even if the most cynical, perhaps criminal, president wraps themselves in the flag… some 20-25% of the population can be counted on for a mindless, Pavlovian, flag-waving response.
So it’s clear in my mind those PROTESTING the needless Iraq War and the Bush Junta’s criminal agenda are the REAL patriots compared to the intellectually and morally bankrupt faux patriots.
All the flag waving of these pathological patriots can’t conceal their intellectual and moral bankruptcy.
Shame!
Revised: 2-18-10
ulTRAX
We can’t underestimate the sacrifices that those in the military are willing to make nor those sacrifices already made should be honored this Memorial Day.
Yet as citizens we also have a responsibility to insure we do NOT call on the military to make those sacrifices in vain. That SHOULD be uncontroversial. Sadly, in America it’s not.
There is a basic truth here that many deny or remain oblivious to. By definition an unnecessary war is one that’s not vital for our national security or survival. Even if we prevail in such an unnecessary war, then all the sacrifices of blood and treasure were for nothing since our national security or survival were not served. There is NO way around this incontrovertible fact.
I may be a Progressive but I’m not anti-military. I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and Gulf War… though I’ve later rethought that support. I opposed Vietnam, Panama, Granada, Libya, and Iraq.
The mantra “support the troops” has become as meaningless as “pro-life”. It is meaningless phrase because it has become a slogan that both sides wear on their sleeves. They seem to value the terms as self-descriptions to proclaim their moral superiority… and as shields against their critics. Yet I all too often see a pattern. Most, especially on the pro-war side, don’t feel any responsibility to actually flesh out what their precious slogan means. It’s become as meaningless as the term “pro-life” when someone also supports the death penalty or an economic system where exploitation of others is a central feature.
Similarly those who support unnecessary wars avoid the obvious contradiction in their position: how can one REALLY support the troops when they didn’t oppose an unnecessary war at the start and now wish the troops to remain longer in a brutal meat grinder? Knowing all those sacrifices the troops are willing to make for the nation, how can ANY patriot ask, if not demand, they make such sacrifices in vain?
The military may have to follow orders whether they like it or not. When civilians do the same or allow themselves to be manipulated by cynical and dishonest politicians, it destroys one of the checks and balances of our system that can keep us out of unnecessary or illegal wars.
It SHOULD be axiomatic that no one would want to see our military used to support some special interests as we did when we repeatedly sent in the military to protect the interests of United Fruit, the oil companies, and the like. It SHOULD also be axiomatic that no one would want to see our military used in unnecessary if not illegal wars begun cynical politicians who wrap themselves in the flag.
By denying these simple realities of US politics, the faux patriots betray their real agenda. They aren’t concerned about the military. They just claim to be. They’ll believe ANY noble-sounding pretense if it’s wrapped in God and Country.
The faux patriots have genuinely deluded themselves they have a monopoly on something called patriotism. Their pathological patriotism does not require them to shed all preconceptions and rethink what’s really best for this nation. Their patriotism doesn’t require them to question whether our military is being asked to sacrifice for some pointless cause or politician’s glory. To them patriotism is summed up in that old slogan: America right or wrong. This isn’t patriotism, it is a religious creed that requires nothing more than mindless loyalty and flag-waving. Even if the most cynical, perhaps criminal, president wraps themselves in the flag… some 20-25% of the population can be counted on for a mindless, Pavlovian, flag-waving response.
So it’s clear in my mind those PROTESTING the needless Iraq War and the Bush Junta’s criminal agenda are the REAL patriots compared to the intellectually and morally bankrupt faux patriots.
All the flag waving of these pathological patriots can’t conceal their intellectual and moral bankruptcy.
Shame!
Revised: 2-18-10
ulTRAX
Thoughts On The 2ed Amendment
As a gun owner for nearly 30 years I listened with great interest some of the discussion of the Second Amendment during the Supreme Court hearings on March 18th.
I'm certainly not a legal or Constitutional Scholar but I have debated the Second Amendment many times in various political forums. Here are some weaknesses I’ve found in the conservative arguments which seem to be repeated by some of the Conservative members of the USCS.
POINT 1: The term "The People" sounds all-inclusive. But it's clear from the Preamble of the Constitution that "The People" were a small section of the population. Why? Read it:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Surely the “Blessings of Liberty” were only intended for a subset of the population. It was clearly NOT meant for slaves. The politics of the Constitutional Convention, in fact, required the continuation of slavery. Sadly, we’re left with no other conclusion then the Bill of Rights was NEVER originally intended to cover the entire population. In the case of the Second Amendment, states would be free to ban some from owning guns.
POINT 2: If the original intent of the term “The People” were all inclusive, do those who contend the Second represents an unqualified individual right claim the Second Amendment protected the rights of slaves to own guns? Surely the slave states would NEVER permit this any more than they would permit slaves freedom of the press or freedom from unlawful search and seizure. To think otherwise is laughable.
POINT 3: If the Framers intended the Second Amendment to be an unqualified individual right to bare arms, they could easily have used unambiguous language such as “Congress shall make no law prohibiting the right to bare arms” leaving no question as to their intent. Such language was not foreign to them: it was used in the First Amendment.
The Framers choose not to use such language but instead prefaced the amendment with mention of the militia. The prominent mention of the militia is there for a reason. It explains why the right of the “people” (white males) to bare arms must be protected. While some on the Right ignore what appears to be an obvious qualifier, and make torturous arguments about the Framers’ use of a colon vs. a semicolon to “prove” the Second protects an unqualified right to bare arms, imagine some simple changes in the language to make it more comprehensible to modern readers:
Since a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
POINT 4: The Militia Act of 1792 was written and ratified within a few years of the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The original intent of the Second Amendment would have been abundantly clear in the minds of Congress. It states:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
Source: http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
POINT 5: Since the original intent of the Constitution was to grant government limited powers with all remaining powers and rights remaining with the People or the states, the real right to bare arms seems to be in that forgotten, if not utterly ignored, Ninth Amendment. Madison’s greatest fear about having a formal Bill of Rights was that if some rights were enumerated, the unenumerated rights would soon be at risk. Madison was correct. The thought of the People… even in the all inclusive sense, retaining all rights is much too threatening to Conservatives and even most Liberals.
CONCLUSION: The US Constitution is both anti-democratic and essentially reform-proof. Through our history we have imbued it with an almost mystical quality. This is the core of our secular religion. The Constitution also stands in the way of what the modern political parties want to achieve. So since it’s almost impossible to amend the Constitution in any meaningful way, American politics demands we work around around it... all the time paying lip service to “original intent” and the infinite wisdom of the Framers. The modern bastardization of the Second Amendment by the likes of the NRA and a cynical Right wing looking for wedge issues into an unqualified individual right instead of a collective right, and the consistent ignoring of the Ninth by both parties can best be explained by this predictable political dynamic.
(updated 3-21-08)
ulTRAX
I'm certainly not a legal or Constitutional Scholar but I have debated the Second Amendment many times in various political forums. Here are some weaknesses I’ve found in the conservative arguments which seem to be repeated by some of the Conservative members of the USCS.
POINT 1: The term "The People" sounds all-inclusive. But it's clear from the Preamble of the Constitution that "The People" were a small section of the population. Why? Read it:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Surely the “Blessings of Liberty” were only intended for a subset of the population. It was clearly NOT meant for slaves. The politics of the Constitutional Convention, in fact, required the continuation of slavery. Sadly, we’re left with no other conclusion then the Bill of Rights was NEVER originally intended to cover the entire population. In the case of the Second Amendment, states would be free to ban some from owning guns.
POINT 2: If the original intent of the term “The People” were all inclusive, do those who contend the Second represents an unqualified individual right claim the Second Amendment protected the rights of slaves to own guns? Surely the slave states would NEVER permit this any more than they would permit slaves freedom of the press or freedom from unlawful search and seizure. To think otherwise is laughable.
POINT 3: If the Framers intended the Second Amendment to be an unqualified individual right to bare arms, they could easily have used unambiguous language such as “Congress shall make no law prohibiting the right to bare arms” leaving no question as to their intent. Such language was not foreign to them: it was used in the First Amendment.
The Framers choose not to use such language but instead prefaced the amendment with mention of the militia. The prominent mention of the militia is there for a reason. It explains why the right of the “people” (white males) to bare arms must be protected. While some on the Right ignore what appears to be an obvious qualifier, and make torturous arguments about the Framers’ use of a colon vs. a semicolon to “prove” the Second protects an unqualified right to bare arms, imagine some simple changes in the language to make it more comprehensible to modern readers:
Since a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
POINT 4: The Militia Act of 1792 was written and ratified within a few years of the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The original intent of the Second Amendment would have been abundantly clear in the minds of Congress. It states:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
Source: http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
POINT 5: Since the original intent of the Constitution was to grant government limited powers with all remaining powers and rights remaining with the People or the states, the real right to bare arms seems to be in that forgotten, if not utterly ignored, Ninth Amendment. Madison’s greatest fear about having a formal Bill of Rights was that if some rights were enumerated, the unenumerated rights would soon be at risk. Madison was correct. The thought of the People… even in the all inclusive sense, retaining all rights is much too threatening to Conservatives and even most Liberals.
CONCLUSION: The US Constitution is both anti-democratic and essentially reform-proof. Through our history we have imbued it with an almost mystical quality. This is the core of our secular religion. The Constitution also stands in the way of what the modern political parties want to achieve. So since it’s almost impossible to amend the Constitution in any meaningful way, American politics demands we work around around it... all the time paying lip service to “original intent” and the infinite wisdom of the Framers. The modern bastardization of the Second Amendment by the likes of the NRA and a cynical Right wing looking for wedge issues into an unqualified individual right instead of a collective right, and the consistent ignoring of the Ninth by both parties can best be explained by this predictable political dynamic.
(updated 3-21-08)
ulTRAX
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)