Tugboat1988
01-01-2008, 02:00 PM
When entering into agreements, as time passes, what do people believe about the agreement? Well, wise individuals believe what was agreed upon when the agreement was formed, unless changed by documented amendment. There is nothing new to this concerning constitutions or any other contractual arrangement.
Consider the Bill of Rights. It’s easy to find documents published during the forming of our present day Constitution. Among those writings we find concerns about the document being formed without mention of a Bill of Rights. Among those publications, we can determine two basic concerns. One concern from one corner of the room was from people that desired a Bill of Rights that declared an accumulation of individual rights they wished to keep. Another group thought that rights not specifically granted away were retained by individuals and it was unnecessary to list retained rights. None-the-less, a common thread was formed in that both groups wanted a Bill of Rights included in the Constitution. Failing that, they thought the Constitution offered too much power and was not acceptable.
So what did they believe? What did they agree to when they ratified the Bill of Rights? There’s a hot link you Yale folks can be smug about. If you’re from Harvard, you can open it up, or you can find one of your very own. There’s lots of them out there. Maybe they all will lead you to know what the folks thought about it back then when they ratified it.
The first thing the people in 1789 believed was they wanted to prevent misconstruction or abuse of government powers. In their words, construction was a common way to the idea of making something. In this usage, they meant making rules and law that wasn’t granted. If the government did, it wouldn’t be any better than what they shed in the Revolution. Government could just as easy abuse its power. They also believed that the added words “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” would make sure what the intention of the Bill of Rights was. They could have used the word “Banned.”
So, when the Bill of Rights became a part of the Constitution, it denied government the power to infringe upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It also denied government powers to infringe upon all the other things mentioned. And, they believed it was better put that way than to make a list of rights people wanted to keep, and their compact would preserve its usage. It didn't give you rights, and it didn't give government power to manipulate your Rights.
So, that's one thing that is in need correction in this country. First, the perception; then the application as it is applied to government.
Tugboat
Consider the Bill of Rights. It’s easy to find documents published during the forming of our present day Constitution. Among those writings we find concerns about the document being formed without mention of a Bill of Rights. Among those publications, we can determine two basic concerns. One concern from one corner of the room was from people that desired a Bill of Rights that declared an accumulation of individual rights they wished to keep. Another group thought that rights not specifically granted away were retained by individuals and it was unnecessary to list retained rights. None-the-less, a common thread was formed in that both groups wanted a Bill of Rights included in the Constitution. Failing that, they thought the Constitution offered too much power and was not acceptable.
So what did they believe? What did they agree to when they ratified the Bill of Rights? There’s a hot link you Yale folks can be smug about. If you’re from Harvard, you can open it up, or you can find one of your very own. There’s lots of them out there. Maybe they all will lead you to know what the folks thought about it back then when they ratified it.
The first thing the people in 1789 believed was they wanted to prevent misconstruction or abuse of government powers. In their words, construction was a common way to the idea of making something. In this usage, they meant making rules and law that wasn’t granted. If the government did, it wouldn’t be any better than what they shed in the Revolution. Government could just as easy abuse its power. They also believed that the added words “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” would make sure what the intention of the Bill of Rights was. They could have used the word “Banned.”
So, when the Bill of Rights became a part of the Constitution, it denied government the power to infringe upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It also denied government powers to infringe upon all the other things mentioned. And, they believed it was better put that way than to make a list of rights people wanted to keep, and their compact would preserve its usage. It didn't give you rights, and it didn't give government power to manipulate your Rights.
So, that's one thing that is in need correction in this country. First, the perception; then the application as it is applied to government.
Tugboat