Nice
A nice little piece written by Mark Bunner, addressing Katherine Letellier’s claim that both views of the second amendment should be considered so that things can be fair, quips:
Her assertion that balance (or the appearance thereof) is more important than content is ludicrous.
I find it amazing that someone who claims to be a government teacher would think it important to “present the diverse interpretations of this controversial amendment” as if all interpretations were equally valid.
Her faulty position would have teachers presenting invalid and faulty “interpretations” as if they were credible and informed.
The science of buoyancy would be presented with the “interpretation” that magic turtles hold up boats.
That’s beautiful.
Update: David Codrea had his letter published too, in part anyway.
December 27th, 2005 at 10:58 am
We need a name for lefty wishful thinking. Perhaps “Second Amendment unintelligent design” theory?
December 27th, 2005 at 6:02 pm
When you’re wrong, your best hope is to attempt to blur the distinction between right and wrong. Your next best hope is to smear your opponents – E does not equal MC squared, because Einstein is a child molester, etc.)
Both of these tactics are, of course, employed continously by the left.
December 27th, 2005 at 11:18 pm
Bunner got off to a good start, and then crashed and burned by comparing teaching about 2nd Amendment to denying the Holocaust.
December 28th, 2005 at 12:54 pm
See?! This is what the Bill of Rights has caused!
In the beginning, we had a very clean system. We had a very limited set of powers given to the Federal government. Those powers were finite, clear, and concise.
Shortly after that, some in congress decided to follow the English rule and create a Magna Carta of sorts to limit the power of the federal government. In England, however, the Magna Carta was intended to take away some of the ultimate power of the monarchy. The American system was based on the idea that the people had all powers and rights, with only limited power given to the government. In this case, the Bill of Rights would limit powers not held by the federal government. As Hamilton feared, the Bill of Rights became a ‘colorable pretext to claim more [powers] than were granted’.
We have moved from a ‘default deny’ situation (think of firewalls) where the government has a limited set of allowed powers with the prohibition that everything else is denied, to a ‘default accept’ situation where only those things in the Bill of Rights are denied.
By ignoring the Constitution in order to create the Socialist Nanny State (SNS(TM)), as most liberals have, we have created the problem where we now have an out-of-control Federal government. It has become our monarchy, and the Bill of Rights has prohibited it from ultimate power. We have, in an effort to limit our government as we would a monarchy, created a monarchy.
The only way to fix this is to start holding the federal government to its Constitutional bounds. I used to believe that Republicans were more likely to do this, but I’m beginning to question it. Since the liberals and/or Democrats are completely incapable of limiting the power of the government, I’m not sure where to turn.
Okay, my rant is over.
December 28th, 2005 at 2:14 pm
That’s a pretty good rant, JJ, but Hamilton wanted a strong central government. In fact, as Secretary of the Treasury, he created the First Bank of the United States, an organization of questionable constitutionality. Because of that, and because of his stated desire for a national “governor” that was elected for life (which didn’t fly at all at the Constitutional Convention), I think his statement about how the Bill of Rights was dangerous because it would be reinterpretation as the only list of rights citizens have needs to be taken with a grain of salt. We came very close to no Bill of Rights at all.
If not for that list of rights that we were begrudgingly awarded back in 1791, freedom of speech and RKBA would have long been legislated away (only temporarily, of course) due to some perpetual pending emergency.
December 28th, 2005 at 3:16 pm
Hamilton didn’t say that the bill of rights would be the only listing of rights for the citizens. He said that it would provide a colorable pretext for the government to claim more powers than were granted to it. The direction of the statement is important. Hamilton was directing his statement at powers of the government, not the rights of the citizens.
I think this is a major misconception. The Bill of Rights does not, in fact, give rights to citizens. We do not have the right to guns because of the 2nd Amendment. We do not have the right to free speech because of the 1st Amendment. We have those rights because they were endowed by our Creator. The Bill of Rights wasn’t a listing of Rights. It was a listing of prohibitions on government actions. It says ‘Congress shall pass no law…’. It doesn’t say ‘the People have the right to…’. By both listing government powers in the Constitution, then listing prohibitions in the Bill of Rights to powers not granted in the Constitution, the government has ignored the Constitution in favor of a ‘do not violate the BoR’ attitude. The Bill of Rights is easier to understand, so the wonderful limitations in the Constitution are ignored.
We, as the People, have all rights and powers endowed upon us by our Creator. We gave very limited powers to the government. The government does not list our rights.
This is a very important distinction. I know it seems like semantics, but it isn’t. It is the wording that gets us. We do not have a list of rights. We have all rights. The government has a listing of specific, limited powers. It has no power that we do not grant it.
I know it seems like I’m nitpicking. I’m not. This is a very important distinction to make.
The First Bank of the United States could be seen as conforming to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. The national “governor” would have still been limited in power by the Constitution. These concepts do not bother me, generally because they would have still been very limited. Read Federalist #84.
December 29th, 2005 at 10:13 am
JJ,
We’re on the same page with the inalienable rights. I myself have about one billion reserved, unenumerated rights, including the right to shout “theater!” in a crowded fire, and the right to keep and bear pseudoephedrine hydrochloride (Sudafed).
Being as you are in agreement with me about a federal government of limited power, which line exactly in Article I, Section 8 specifically authorities the creation of a national bank? Which line kinda sorta allows it?
He starts out saying certain rights are enumerated already in the Constitution, and then states further enumerations of other rights are dangerous. WTF?
While many perhaps think Hamilton was just expressing his benevolent opinion, because he wanted that “Governor” for life, and his aggressive expansion of the federal government during his public service, I think he would have been more than happy with a government based around King George Washington the First.
That “Governor” for life, by the way, would not last long with the weaker Hamilton style forged constitution chains. Our beloved Constitution would ring as hollow as the USSR’s version.
Despite the Roman Triumvirate, Caesar still became dictator.
December 29th, 2005 at 12:42 pm
As I read it, the Constitution enumerated no rights. If you could point out where the Constitution enumerates rights, I’d appreciate it. I see in Federalist 84 where he says:
Thanks,
December 29th, 2005 at 3:40 pm
JJ,
Ok, you’ve ignored my claim that Hamilton wanted a king. You’ve failed to address the specific authorization of a national bank. and then you’ve narrowly focused your reply to one specific statement.
I’m sorry I paraphrased Hamilton. Let me correct it.
He starts out saying “yet it contains … various provisions in favor of particular privileges and rights” and then he goes and describes them, and then states that the enumerations of rights is dangerous. WTF?
December 30th, 2005 at 2:59 pm
I think you are misreading and picking parts you like. An enumeration of rights, like some believe the BoR is, would lead to people looking to that enumeration as a listing of the only rights we have. Notice how people have gone to the BoR to find a right recently? Notice how no one knows what the 9th Amendment says. I think what Hamilton feared has happened. Rather than having an addendum document detailing further prohibitions on government actions, we have a document that has become a listing of what we believe are our rights.
Hamilton was not picking a king, as you say. He was picking a leader of the executive branch. Considering how our government was formed, the executive branch would have still been constrained like it is now. He was addressing term limits, or the lack thereof. Don’t get your tin-foil hat in a twist over this one.
A national bank could logically be construed as a matter of interstate commerce. While I don’t agree that it is necessary, the Constitution does allow for the regulation of interstate commerce, which is what this bank would be created to do. Is that plain enough for you?
I’m not sure what your message is here? Are you trying to take Hamilton out of context? Are you intentionally trying to misunderstand what he said? He was talking about various state constitutions, not the one being voted on. Read the whole thing, and don’t look for phrases out of context.
December 31st, 2005 at 11:44 pm
I’m not sure what your message is here? Are you trying to take Hamilton out of context? Are you intentionally trying to misunderstand what he said? He was talking about various state constitutions, not the one being voted on. Read the whole thing, and don’t look for phrases out of context.
I don’t think I’m taking Hamilton out of context, but yea, that’s pretty much want I was going for. If I would have been there, and it actually happened pre-1787, I’d be on the sideline there, rooting for Aaron Burr’s aim to be true.
From what I can tell, Hamilton the vanguard of the ones that wanted the scrap the Articles of Confederation, and start over. Also, am I to assume the timing, Jefferson being overseas and all that, was just a coincidence? Even Patrick Henry “smelt a rat”.
Then, as Secretary of the Treasury, he got the federal government to take on all the several states’ war debt (first instance of pork, I think, and hey if the federal overlords start giving away other peoples money, the people getting the cash are gonna want it to stick around) and then he got the fed-gov to impose that unfair tax on whiskey.
Wikipedia: One of the steps taken to pay down the debt was a tax imposed in 1791 on distilled spirits. Large producers were assessed a tax of six cents a gallon. However, smaller producers, most of whom were Scottish or Irish descent located in the more remote western areas, were taxed at a higher rate of nine cents a gallon.
I think that pretty much counts as the first baby step to the fed-goons pampering to those corporate personhood thingys, at the expense of free people (and in many cases, war veterans) everywhere.
But even before that, there was the blockade of Rhode Island, designed solely to twist their arm into joining the “land of the free”.
I can highly recommend Hologram of Liberty By Kenneth W. Royce (aka Boston T. Party) for our side of the story.
December 31st, 2005 at 11:57 pm
Here I am, “misreading and picking parts” I like.
“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
“A Republic, if you can keep it.” -Ben Franklin
January 5th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
[…] JJ and I rant on about Alexander Hamilton. Should we have have followed his advice and never enumerated any rights in an effort to keep the federal government weak and limited, or was he a closet monarchist, proposing disaster? […]