• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

mbow30 said:
Those links aren’t right either.
Click to expand...

sure they are.

Federalist Paper No. 29 is an essay by Alexander Hamilton, the twenty-ninth of The Federalist Papers. It was published in The Independent Journal on January 9, 1788 under the pseudonym Publius,[1] the name under which all The Federalist papers were published. It is titled "Concerning the Militia". Unlike the rest of the Federalist Papers, which were published more or less in order, No. 29 did not appear until after Federalist No. 36.

Hamilton states that a well-regulated militia composed of the people will be more uniform and beneficial to the "public defense" of Americans. He argues that an excessively large militia can harm a nation's work force, as not everyone can leave their profession to go through military exercises. Thus, a smaller, but still well-regulated militia, is the answer. In the end, Hamilton concludes that the militia, as it is constituted directly of the people and managed by the states, is not a danger to liberty when called into use by other states to do things such as quell insurrections.



Nothing about "defending against the tyranny of a federal government" in there.
 
""To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purposes of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and serious public inconvenience and loss. It would from an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country… to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise, and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."[3][4](James Madison, John Jay, The Federalist, books.google.com).[2]"



what oh what could the fathers have "originally" meant by the term "well-regulated"??
 
zeke said:
wait but he didn't mention adultery.
Click to expand...
The point being, that adultery is ok even though it is mentioned 8 times in a bible that was written when the world only thought to have had 10 months in a year.
But mention homosexuality, which is barely mentioned once...
 
thehabhater said:
The point being, that adultery is ok even though it is mentioned 8 times in a bible that was written when the world only thought to have had 10 months in a year.
But mention homosexuality, which is barely mentioned once...
Click to expand...

but why wouldnt he have mentioned adultery in that speech i don't get it.
 
zeke said:
sure they are.

Federalist Paper No. 29 is an essay by Alexander Hamilton, the twenty-ninth of The Federalist Papers. It was published in The Independent Journal on January 9, 1788 under the pseudonym Publius,[1] the name under which all The Federalist papers were published. It is titled "Concerning the Militia". Unlike the rest of the Federalist Papers, which were published more or less in order, No. 29 did not appear until after Federalist No. 36.

Hamilton states that a well-regulated militia composed of the people will be more uniform and beneficial to the "public defense" of Americans. He argues that an excessively large militia can harm a nation's work force, as not everyone can leave their profession to go through military exercises. Thus, a smaller, but still well-regulated militia, is the answer. In the end, Hamilton concludes that the militia, as it is constituted directly of the people and managed by the states, is not a danger to liberty when called into use by other states to do things such as quell insurrections.



Nothing about "defending against the tyranny of a federal government" in there.
Click to expand...
The federalist papers were advocating in favour of a union and trying to counteract concerns / fears about a centralized government and army.
 
zeke said:
""To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purposes of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and serious public inconvenience and loss. It would from an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country… to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise, and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."[3][4](James Madison, John Jay, The Federalist, books.google.com).[2]"



what oh what could the fathers have "originally" meant by the term "well-regulated"??
Click to expand...
There is evidence that Well regulated meant trained. But that’s besides the point because trying to deduce exactly what was meant at the time js a fools errand, as we know from the dissent.

Anyways, Scalia didn’t surmise that well regulated meant unlimited right to have guns.

he determined that the clause was perfunctory and said it was basically meaningless. He also ignored the fact that there are something like 7 different versions of the 2nd amendment.
 
zeke said:
but why wouldnt he have mentioned adultery in that speech i don't get it.
Click to expand...
Sigh.

Because, they actually condone adultery. The point being, right wing "Christians" selectively parse the bible (both the original and the rewrite) and extrapolate only the context that supports their hypothesis and ignore other context.

Think of you in a "game day" thread.
 
zeke said:
sure they are.

Federalist Paper No. 29 is an essay by Alexander Hamilton, the twenty-ninth of The Federalist Papers. It was published in The Independent Journal on January 9, 1788 under the pseudonym Publius,[1] the name under which all The Federalist papers were published. It is titled "Concerning the Militia". Unlike the rest of the Federalist Papers, which were published more or less in order, No. 29 did not appear until after Federalist No. 36.

Hamilton states that a well-regulated militia composed of the people will be more uniform and beneficial to the "public defense" of Americans. He argues that an excessively large militia can harm a nation's work force, as not everyone can leave their profession to go through military exercises. Thus, a smaller, but still well-regulated militia, is the answer. In the end, Hamilton concludes that the militia, as it is constituted directly of the people and managed by the states, is not a danger to liberty when called into use by other states to do things such as quell insurrections.



Nothing about "defending against the tyranny of a federal government" in there.
Click to expand...

From the article:

This required not only eliminating entire articles that had been proposed by the state conventions, but also cutting some of them in half. For example, one of the most popular proposals was to place limits on a standing army. Six states advocated such a provision, more than proposed protection of the freedom of the press or speech or religion. In the Virginia version, the limitation on a standing army was joined with the “right to keep and bear arms” and “a well-regulated militia.” Madison deleted the limitation on a standing army, despite the fact that his good friend Thomas Jefferson had urged such a limitation.

The contrasting of militia and standing army – one “proper, natural, and safe,” the other “dangerous to liberty” – was a commonplace, and we can see evidence of that thinking, first in the Articles of Confederation and then in the Constitution.

The Articles of Confederation placed a limit on the standing “forces” any state could “keep up”:

Nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any state, in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the united states, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defence of such state.

The wording of the Articles of Confederation was quite different concerning what the state militia could “keep up”:

Every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accounted, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

A remnant of that mistrust of a standing army is evident in the Constitution. It grants Congress the unqualified power “To provide and maintain a Navy,” but the power regarding land forces is severely qualified: “To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.” A “standing” navy is tolerable, not dangerous to liberty, but there must be limitations on land forces....
Click to expand...

But the Constitution did not have in it the assurance that the Articles of Confederation had had, the imperative that the state militias “shall always” be kept up. Madison opposed adding any limitation on a standing army beyond the two-year limit on appropriations already in the Constitution, but he was not against giving assurance to those who were concerned about the power of the new federal government over the military that it would not interfere in the proper arming and maintenance of the state militias. “Armies” could be raised by Congress but not “kept up” without frequent new congressional appropriations, but the arms of the state militias must always be “kept up.”

And so, as Madison first proposed it, “the right of the people to keep . . . arms shall not be infringed.” Why? Because “a well armed and well regulated militia [is] the best security of a free country.” That is what the word “keep” means in the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

All this stuff was about the concern of centralized power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top