Tuesday, August 9, 2011

Essay Question--How Does the Second Amendment negate Article III, Section iii?

Actually, this question goes further in depth than just relating to Article III, Section iii of the United States constitution which defines treason.

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

The militia’s purpose is to suppress insurrections, not foment them according to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15:

“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”
Insurrection being defined by Webster (a good American Dictionary, not that evil OED) as:
an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government
Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951) mentions the insurrectionist theory as being off the table:

The obvious purpose of the statute is to protect existing Government, not from change by peaceable, lawful and constitutional means, but from change by violence, revolution and terrorism. That it is within the power of the Congress to protect the Government of the United States from armed rebellion is a proposition which requires little discussion. Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a “right” to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change. We reject any principle of governmental helplessness in the face of preparation for revolution, which principle, carried to its logical conclusion, must lead to anarchy. No one could conceive that it is not within the power of Congress to prohibit acts intended to overthrow the Government by force and violence. The question with which we are concerned here is not whether Congress has such power, but whether the means which it has employed conflict with the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.
Explain how a document that says that the Militia is to suppress insurrections and only lists one crime, treason, which is pretty much the same thing as insurrection, allows for people to commit treason using the Second Amendment:
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.
.

21 comments:

  1. Teahcing new tricks....August 9, 2011 at 9:18 PM

    to a stupid ole dog....

    It does not, neither does A:III,s:iii, negate the 2nd......

    Now was that so hard.....

    Bet you wish you had an article III in whatever passes for a constitution in merry ole England right now..... riots and all that....

    And I bet the shop keepers wish they had the 2nd Amendment....

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well it is pretty simple really. It will be considered treason if the force trying to overthrow the government fails. If they suceed, it will be considered a Revolution and a new government will be formed.

    As always, history is written by the victors.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Teahcing new tricks

    You're such a dim bulb, you need to learn how to spell!

    Why have guns? The crims would just steal them and use them against us.

    The way they do in the US.

    Where do all the guns the criminals carry come from, Teahcing new tricks? They steal them from people like you.

    Jim, I like your answer. You traded a king for a worse tyrant!

    ReplyDelete
  4. BTW, Teahcing new tricks, you need to be intelligent to teach me tricks, spouting bullshit doesn't work.

    I want to see an argument that stands up, which yours doesn't it's just dim crap that makes no sense.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Furthermore, teaching new tricks, any shop keeper who shot a rioter could end up on the dock like Tony Martin.

    We have things in England called "Laws" and the rule of law, which means no man (or woman) is above them--including the monarch.

    It might be a hard concept for you to understand with your limited intellect, but work at it.

    We prefer a society where people don't just open fire at each other.

    You may want your country to become Somalia, but we prefer civilisation. We've lived through enough wars to want peace at home.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "You may want your country to become Somalia, but we prefer civilisation."

    Nothing says civilization like a pack of rioters burning and looting their way through the city :)

    Again, why would you want to shoot these people. As others far wiser than me explained, if you just give them what they want, it is likely no one will be hurt and that is really the best outcome right?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dear Jim, the odds of such an insurrection succeeding against the current technical level of equipment and expertise is minimal.

    So, the victors would almost certainly be the existing government. Further, as they are still at least nominally elected rather auctioned off to big money (on the right even more than the left), they ARE still our properly insituted and lawful government.

    But keep on dreaming that fantasy that people like Sharron Angle like to feed as red meat to the low information ideologues who support their pandering.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jim wrote:"Nothing says civilization like a pack of rioters burning and looting their way through the city :)

    Again, why would you want to shoot these people. As others far wiser than me explained, if you just give them what they want, it is likely no one will be hurt and that is really the best outcome right?"

    One of the differences Jim, between lawful government and tyrrany is the appropriate use of force in response to threats. While the riots are deplorable, it is no coincidence that they tend to occur, as Laci noted, during repressive conservative administrations in the UK. The most that would however be appropriate would be to fire rubber bullets. Otherweise one of the risks to both sides would be an escalation of the already intense protests into greater violence. I applaud the Brits, both those protesting and those responding - especially the latter - for NOT degenerating into firearm violence. What they have is already bad enough, but easer to recover from and move forward.

    So don't be such a heavy handed responder, that can backfire on you and you can completely lose all control instead of just some temporary control of a limited area.

    The Brits have made the smartest possible move to address a bad situation.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Dear Jim, the odds of such an insurrection succeeding against the current technical level of equipment and expertise is minimal."

    I did not say who was likely to win, only what the outcome would be depending on who won. Just like it was in our original Revolution. What would history have said if the British had quashed those treasonuos people and put the colonies back in the good graces of the King?

    And again, I applaud the restraint shown by England. What is a few burning blocks and whole livelyhoods destroyed by some rioters against the life of those rioters? I mean those kids need to have fun and be free to express themselves. I would hesitate to use even rubber bullets as those can indeed kill people if they hit the right spot. Wouldn't want to risk that would you?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Jim, I think that you are unable to smell the stick of your own US shit.

    Please watch this video before making any more idiotic comments.

    I notice that PA is a shall issue state with Philadelphia having the most NRA members per capita.

    I was less likely to be shot in Ulster, as a member of the paras than in the US as a civilian!

    You can keep your civilisation. I'd prefer to work with peaceful, sane, lawful solutions rather than be shot.

    Especially it's by some well intentioned wanker.

    ReplyDelete
  11. What is your goal, Jim? To end the riots, with the smallest amount of bloodshed AND property loss? Or to over react, and have the riots spread even further by people who do appear to have some legitimate grudges that were NOT addressed by prior recent peaceful protest attempts.

    You ARE aware, aren't you Jim, of the very large, very peaceful protsts PRIOR to this situation degenerating?

    Even at the current levels of opposition to the rioters, the response has spread. It is not going to end through greater levels of violence from the UK.

    That didn't work in other places either, if you pay attention to your current world events.

    It is useful to think with your brain, preferably not while overloaded on testosterone, which adversely affects risk assessment.

    ReplyDelete
  12. " I'd prefer to work with peaceful, sane, lawful solutions rather than be shot."

    So burning buildings and looting is a "peaceful, sane, and lawful solution" in England? These people did not get what they wanted through non violent protest, so it is just natural that they resort to violence to achieve their goals. And it is not right for the general population to use violence to stop them, but it is ok for the government to do so? When the government decides to cave in and grant the demands of the mob, should others then riot in protest of that decision?

    Who was it that said civilization does not accept violence? I think the rioters are proving you wrong. Either it is ok for them to riot or it is going to be ok for the government to use violence to stop them. It seems the only question is who should have the authority to defend stuff with violence. Dog-gone and Laci say let the government do it, and the pro gun crowd suggests everyone has a right to defend themselves and their property. We should see how well the government approach works over the next several months in England, Greece, Spain, Italy and any other bankrupt European countries.

    ReplyDelete
  13. There has been a long simmering set of unresolved problems which became intolerable and boiled over into violence.

    It is not a desirable situation, but the answer is not to escalate the violence. The long term and short term solution is to resolve the underlying problems peacefully, so far as it is possible, not to create greater problems.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "I notice that PA is a shall issue state with Philadelphia having the most NRA members per capita."

    Laci - I will bet you a year's salary that those people were not NRA members or lawfully issued a concealed carry permit by any state let alone PA. If that is the case, then how is it relevant that PA is a shall issue state? I notice nobody returned fire from the bus, so it is not like there were loads of guns here. I guess if they had threatened to come set the guy on fire all would be ok? It is so much more civilized to watch your cities burn than to take to the streets and fight against such unlawfulness?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hey,Jimbo, then what were these people doing with guns in the first place and how did they get them?

    When are you going to admit you have a serious need for gun control?

    After all your family has been shot dead while you are trying to get your concealed firearm out and you added to it by accidentally shooting a couple of family members?

    Get real!

    If you want to carry a gun during a riot--go for it.

    And collect your Darwin Award on the way out.

    ReplyDelete
  16. BTW, Jimbo,does Bloody Sunday mean anything to you beyond the U2 song?

    Personally,using deadly force will make the situation far worse.

    But, I guess you prefer to live in Mogadishu or Darra to civilisation.

    "Special place for special peoples!"

    ReplyDelete
  17. Little doggie understoodAugust 10, 2011 at 2:20 AM

    Laci The Dog said...

    Teahcing new tricks

    You're such a dim bulb, you need to learn how to spell!


    Wow!!!!!, found out by the spell check nazi..... keep up the good work Himmler!!!



    We prefer a society where people don't just open fire at each other.

    I get it, you prefer a society where they actually fire up your neighbors.... that's cool enjoy the marshmallow roast, and remember that it will over when the shooting starts....

    ReplyDelete
  18. Americans should be ashamed of the gun violence, especially gun owners.

    I think many who are ashamed just won't admit it.

    The idea of fighting against the government is nothing more than a juvenile macho version of the victimization that many gun owners love to wallow in. Calling on the Second Amendment to justify it is further bastardization of that archaic concept.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Dear Jim, the odds of such an insurrection succeeding against the current technical level of equipment and expertise is minimal."

    Dog Gone - didn't you argue in another thread that if the government was to open fire on the citizens then that would almost guarantee a toppling of that government in England? Seems to me that you are saying an armed uprising (and they are only armed with sticks and rocks) of the people can indeed be successful in overturning a government.

    ReplyDelete
  20. August 10, 2011 10:37 AM
    Jim said...
    "Dear Jim, the odds of such an insurrection succeeding against the current technical level of equipment and expertise is minimal."

    Dog Gone - didn't you argue in another thread that if the government was to open fire on the citizens then that would almost guarantee a toppling of that government in England? Seems to me that you are saying an armed uprising (and they are only armed with sticks and rocks) of the people can indeed be successful in overturning a government."


    Jim, lad, you are such a numpty, to use a word I picked up from my pal Laci.

    The chances of an armed insurrection succeeding in ending the existing U.S. form of government, ie. a revolution, are NIL.

    Firing on unarmed civilians, even if they are rioting, would result in a vote of no confidence and new elections for a change of ADMINISTRATION in the UK, not their government, where they hold elections in a much shorter and saner fashion than we do here, and in a manner which is more responsive than purely term elections.

    The Cameron GOVERNMENT = the Cameron ADMINISTRATION running the government per their last election.

    NOT the overthrow of their legal, established government by insurrection.

    Or do you fail to recognize the different, but equally correct, uses of the word government? Or maybe you are simply that ignorant of how government works in other countries - you might wish to check out Canada for an example of people who live under democracies that operate differently than we do.

    A real insight - watch the British PM's weekly wrangle with parliament; those are far more entertaining, for both wit and content, than anything on CSPAN. Bush could never have spoken off the cuff on any topic the way the Brit PMs have to do; Obama has done it, notably without cue cards or teleprompter or even 3x5"s, when he addressed Republicans his first year in office.

    Tsk tsk tsk - Jim, your ignorance flag is NOT something to fly proudly!

    Laci, now you be careful! Laughing that hard could cause you an injury! When you get your breath, you might like to run a brief civics lesson, UK style, to explain how elections are initiated and run on the eastern side of the Atlantic.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Jim, While technically the government lasts five years, one of the benefits of the Westminster System is that there is something called a motion of no confidence which means that the elected parliament no longer has confidence in the appointed government.

    Thus the sitting government will request that the head of state dissolve the elected parliament and call a new election without seeking the forming of another Government, such that it would remain in power during the election period. The head of state may agree to do this, depending on factors such as time until a mandated election, reasonable expectation of the forming of another government or in very rare circumstances, on royal prerogative alone. However, where the head of state believes the government no longer has the confidence of the responsible house (i.e., the directly elected lower chamber which can select and dismiss it; in some states both houses of parliament are responsible), a head of state has the constitutional right to refuse a request for a parliamentary dissolution, so forcing an immediate resignation.

    FYI, the defeat of a supply bill (one that concerns the spending of money) automatically requires (by convention) the resignation of the government or dissolution of Parliament, much like a non-confidence vote, since a government that cannot spend money is hamstrung. This is called loss of supply.

    If the US had a Westmiinster based system, the Debt Ceiling and Budget debates would have led to a dissolution of parliament and new elections.

    I also agree with Dog Gone's opinion that the use of force by the Police or military would have worse repercussions, in particular lead to a vote of no confidence.

    Likewise, the Common Law interpretation of self-defence allows for deadly force to be used in extremely limited circumstances.

    We believe in the sanctity of human life, which is only given lip service in the United States.

    ReplyDelete