This month's horrific shootings in Kirkwood, Missouri provide an all-too tragic and real context for the scholarly debate over the Second Amendment that is now before the Supreme Court in the case of Heller v. District of Columbia (Parker v. District of Columbia in the lower court). One of the key issues in the case is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to armed revolt when an individual perceives the government's actions to be "tyrannical."
The Missouri shootings reveal that some of our citizens condone such violence. Charles Lee "Cookie" Thornton had been embroiled in a long running property dispute with the City of Kirkwood and its City Council. On February 7, he stormed a meeting of the council armed with two handguns and opened fire, yelling "shoot the mayor." When the smoke cleared, three city officials and two law enforcement officers were dead. Thornton's brother later justified the killings, telling local media, "My brother went to war... with the people, the government that was putting torment and strife into his life." Many comments on blogs and web articles covering the story echoed the same theme, including one on AOL News that stated, "GOOD!! I just hope he killed the right people, the evil ones, over this!!!!!! It is time we all stood up for our rights."
In the Heller case, the decision in question is that of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which struck down a District law that prohibits private possession of handguns except in limited circumstances. This marked the first time in history that a federal appellate court had struck down a gun control law on Second Amendment grounds.
In its decision, a panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals expressly held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess arms to defend against the "depredations of a tyrannical government." This insurrectionist philosophy has long been embraced by proponents of the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms unrelated to service in a government regulated militia. A right to arms to protect against "tyranny" is an important point to establish for the gun lobby, which seeks to keep gun ownership anonymous and unregulated by government. It is therefore no surprise that the National Rifle Association specifically endorsed the insurrectionist viewpoint in its friend of the court brief.
Following the decision of the lower court, the District of Columbia sought and obtained review of the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. In his brief to the Court, the respondent, Dick Heller, urges the Court to recognize that the Second Amendment protects the right of citizens to take up arms against their government "should our nation someday suffer tyranny again."
The need to empower government to quell armed insurrections, however, was one of the driving forces behind the drafting of our Constitution. Following the American War of Independence, private rebellions flared up, such as that led by Daniel Shays in Massachusetts. Shays and his followers attacked the armory at Springfield and attempted to shut down the local courts to prevent mortgage holders from foreclosing on their farms. "Shays' Rebellion" was put down with force, but revealed the need for a stronger central authority than that provided by the Articles of Confederation.
It is not because of sloppy draftsmanship that our Constitution prohibits treason and provides the national government with authority to "suppress insurrections." A reading of the Second Amendment that finds a right of individuals to possess arms so that they can engage in armed rebellion against the government when they perceive it to be "tyrannical" is irreconcilable with these and other provisions of the Constitution, as well as our history.
Fortunately, most Americans still believe that our courts are the constitutional method for resolving disputes, and the Supreme Court is likely to address this issue when arguments begin in the Heller case next month. For the sake of our democracy, let us hope they reject the insurrectionist principle (however much future Charles Thorntons believe themselves to be wronged). If the Court sanctions an individual right to armed violence against government, it may just limit its ability to resolve similar disputes in the future.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The Court of Last Resort is your gun.
So this is the HuffingtonPost.com. It might as well be one of the hundred gun lobby/libertarian websites and message boards. There is no end to the mindless, ignorant illogical drivel. Let us get down to somethings very simple: The Constitution is a frame of government not a treaty among sovereign individuals. Citizens are citizens under law and government not individual sovereigns in the State of Nature which is the state of anarchy. There is difference between Civil Society and the State of Nature,
http://www.potowmack.org/2ndtreat.html#94.
Josh Horwitz might have taken his citation a few pages further to p. 54. Judge Silberman must have realized in the end that he is under oath of public office. After many pages of fallacious pap to fabricate an individual right to be privately armed outside of any militia or military context he arrives at these conclusions:
"Reasonable restrictions also might be thought consistent with a "well regulated Militia." The
registration of firearms gives the government information as to how many people would be armed for militia service if called up. Reasonable firearm proficiency testing would both promote public safety and produce better candidates for military service. Personal characteristics, such as insanity or felonious conduct, that make gun ownership dangerous to society also make someone unsuitable for service in the militia."
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf
Registration of ownership, militia call up, proficiency testing, public safety regulation, screening for militia suitability. Hey, these are the makings of a firearms policy. Can we get serious? Can we ask candidates for president starting with Republicans:
Do you accept and support Judge Silberman's conclusion? Will your administration work towards a national firearms policy based on these conclusions.
Judge Silberman's conclusions are not just the basis of a firearms policy: they are also a devastating repudiation of the gun lobby's core doctrine that the purpose of all those
guns in private hands is to maintain an anarchic balance of power between a privately armed populace and any and all government. In the end militia call up and military preparedness trump all other rights, concerns and considerations. Some people have a very difficult time accommodating to a governing authority. Others have a very difficult time with political and intellectual leadership. The individual right the gun lobby claims and Judge Silberman seeks to invent becomes, in Judge Silberman's conclusions, perfectly meaningless. There is no indication that Judge Silberman read my brief in Parker
http://www.potowmack.org/parkarg.pdf
http://www.potowmack.org/parker.html
but his conclusions are what I arrived at when I first starting thinking about this national absurdity twenty years ago. The gun lobby, led by the NRA, would fight viciously any legislative attempts to implement Judge Silberman's conclusions.
But, aside from the ideology, the gun vote is not about guns. It is about controlling political outcomes in a much larger struggle over the modern state and the political economy of capitalism. The simple questions would turn the whole of American politics upside down. Where is the HuffingtonPost.com?
We should not have to wait until vital issues get to the Supreme Court before we can have public discourse and even then not much.
http://www.potowmack.org/index.html
http://www.potowmack.org/5issues.html
http://www.potowmack.org/heller.html
The gun rights ideologies have been in the federal courts for more than thirty years.
http://www.potowmack.org/warin.html
http://www.potowmack.org/silveira.html
http://www.potowmack.org/nordyke.html
http://www.potowmack.org/emeramic.html
Is it because I personally put documents that would enlighten this subject in the hands of Arriana Huffington in 2003 to achieve no result that so little is understood now?
GEErnst
He writes:
"But, aside from the ideology, the gun vote is not about guns. It is about controlling political outcomes in a much larger struggle over the modern state and the political economy of capitalism. The simple questions would turn the whole of American politics upside down."
An obvious socialist--but socialism is anthema to Freedom.
He has a link to John Locke and misuses the Second Essay as in other areas, Chapter 3 On War, Locke argues that I CAN kill a THIEF because I have no idea what his real intentions are....once he has me in his power, he may take my life as well as my property. Locke makes it clear that WE ARE Sovereigns, though in the normal course we use the justice sysytem to exact revenge--but recognizes that under certain circumstances we must act as judge, jury, and executioner.
The founders recognized our individual sovereignty in the Tenth Amendment which ascribes to us as INDIVIDUALS, ALL POWERS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE CONSTITUTION; whereas the opposite applies to the federal government; they may have onlt those powers that are enumerated in teh main body of the constitution--the so-called Bill of Rights(BOR) restraining government over certain pre-existing natural rights. States DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS--ONLY PEOPLE AS INDIVIDUALS HAVE RIGHTS; the people mentioned in the second amendment are the same people in the First, 4th, ninth and tenth amendments. And SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED IS THE RESTRICTION UPON GOVERNMENT---NO INFRINGEMENTS ARE PERMITTED. PERIOD!
So this is HuffingtonPost.com.
"An obvious socialist--but socialism is anthema to Freedom."
I support the socialism of the forty hour work week, first proposed by the Socialist Party, enacted by the socialist congress in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, signed into law by that socialist president FDR, upheld by the socialist Supreme Court in US v. Darby (1941), and enforced, more or less, by this socialist government every since. There are other agendas.
http://www.wisaflcio.org/political_action/rightwing.htm
There is more socialism to dismantle
http://www.potowmack.org/196rehm.html#5trans
Are there any other socialists on HuffingtonPost.com? Where is Arianna Huffington?
Without law there is no freedom. If you have a different idea, file it with the court. We don't want the court to miss anything.
"He has a link to John Locke and misuses the Second Essay as in other areas, ..."
For abuse of John Locke and the Second Treatise see http://www.potowmack.org/196locke.html.
For more important passages from Locke see
http://www.potowmack.org/2ndtreat.html.
"The founders recognized our individual sovereignty in the Tenth Amendment which ascribes to us as INDIVIDUALS, ALL POWERS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE CONSTITUTION; ...
amendments. And SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED IS THE RESTRICTION UPON GOVERNMENT---NO INFRINGEMENTS ARE PERMITTED. PERIOD!"
"In law language is subject to construction"
--G. Gordon Liddy.
The militia clauses of the Constitution, the Militia Act of 1792, http://www.potowmack.org/emerappc.html,
the Second Amendment, the American State Papers were all about conscription. There are no individual rights to speak of in a conscript military organization. The original conscript state militia concept and institution died a natural death in the early republic because no one wanted them and because the US Army did not become a feared instrument of political intrigue as had the King's and Cromwell's army in 17th century England. The original concept was resurrected and transformed as national conscription in the twentieth century Selective Service Acts, the most radical departure from original design and intent in our constitutional history. All three national conscription acts were signed into law by those "socialist" presidents Wilson, FDR and Truman.
Judge Silberman in the end must have realized that he is under oath of public office. May we call him a "socilist". So, can we get our presidential candidates to answer the simple, conventional question, Do they accept and support Judge Silberman's conclusions? Civic obligation and military preparedness trump all other rights, issues and interests. Can we do what the Founders did, enforce a civic obligation, put them on the militia registry and their weapons on the militia inventory, and then call them out to stand guard against wild-eyed gun slingers, the NRA's "armed citizen guerrillas", and other threats to public order. Or, do we have to listen to them bellyache about their individual rights and proclaim their right to enforce vigilante justice?
Where is the HuffingtonPost.com?
GEErnst
And that is exactly what it will take to wake up the leaders in our nation.
It is just a question of time until they too become victims of gun extremists, just as so many innocent children, parents, sisters, wives, grandfathers who have been gunned down daily in America. Still our leaders remain silent, or worse, distort the second amendment into a twisted pro gun jingle.
Maybe they have forgotten the NRA protects no one in their determined battle to make as much money as possible; every death puts one more dollar into their bloodied pockets. Soon, if not already, they will have armed every lunatic in this country, and then we can all get ready to kiss our butts good bye.
But what is more frightening to me than any shooting in the paper, is to read the very angry and threatening posts from gun owners...so much hate in the hands of those who are armed. It reflects the potential for the destruction of a nation, thanks to our own self serving legislators.
Michelle,
I hope you don't consider me a gun extremist. I own guns, and shoot regularly at a licensed range under strict safety guidelines. I was also once a Special Police Officer in D.C. like respondent Heller. Unlike Heller I worked in public housing.
First Point, it's not all the NRA and angry white guys. The supporters of Heller include women legislators, Congress of Racial Equality, Jews for the Possession of Firearms Ownership, Pink Pistols (gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and trans-gendered citizens for self defense), prosecutors, 31 State Legislatures, Scholars, Disabled Veterans and a wheelchair bound lady.
One of the original plaintiffs is a Gay man who has been a victim of a violent hate crime.
Hateful posts are not restricted to pro gun people, to suggest that is to admit to bigotry and hoplophobia. There is plenty of anger and intolerance to go around, and I agree with you, it solves nothing.
Remember that Criminals and lunatics will not be restrained by gun laws. Cocaine and Heroin make it into our country by the metric ton. To assume that the underground would have no access to guns in the face of an outright ban even is an assumption contrary to facts and experience.
You are also overlooking the positive benefits of gun ownership that far outweigh the negatives. There are a whole rack o' amicae curiae briefs in the Heller case. For and against. I have read them all, you might want to try that.
Peace,
Doug
Michelle,
I don't like to call people names; but you're a nut. No one wants kids or anyone else killed; and that includes manufacturers of arms and ammunition. Ignoring the REAL reason for the Second Amendment, which is to prevent tyranny (do you REALLY trust government to have to monopoly on arms?) but I fail to see how you do not understand that criminals will ALWAYS be ARMED. ALWAYS! Why in good God's name would you want to DISARM the good guys? If you somehow manage to get FULL compliance and confiscated every gun from every law-abiding person, the violence rate will RISE. This already has happened in England and Canada--and WASH. DC, too!
If there had been someone like ME (and there are lots of us) who had a gun in that mall a few weeks ago, that nut would not have sqeezed off more than 3 rounds before I or someone like me, would have killed him. Lives could have been saved, but the law-abiding who OWNED weapons but OBEYED thh law and did not have one available were unable to assist. Gun-free zone laws create killing zones---victim disarmament zones.
I know itys not that your a female that you don't understand this because I know women that DO get it, and know men that don't....but try to reason this out---unarmed law-abiding people become victims; armed ones do not. I know, because my handgun saved my life not once, but twice! And I didn't have to fire a shot either time. It doesn't always work out that way, but it mostly does. Firearms are used almost 2 million times annually by law-abiding citizens to thwart crime, and about 98% of the time, the didn't have to fire a shot. Had they not been armed, there would have been almost 2 million more victims. Do you really think that is a good idea?
You need to think about this and study it more and stop with the feeling thing, cause it ain't working for you.
You actually need to get your facts straight. There is not a lot of violence in either Britain or Canada. You know how many gun homicides England had last year? 58. Canada had 184 gun homicides in 2004. Japan had a whopping 21 in 2006. You know how many we had in the U.S. in 2005? 12,352. You're reading those numbers right.
Just about every other industrialized democracy out there has far tougher gun laws than we have, far fewer guns, and FAR lower rates of homicide and gun death. And guess what? They're all still democracies, with citizens who vote and have every right to speak their minds and live as they wish. And they're doing it without arming their populations to the teeth. And some of them have been around a lot longer than we have.
The gun manufacturers could not care less who is dying from their products. For years, the ATF tried to forward them data showing exactly which of their gun dealers were channeling guns to criminals. First they refused to take the data. Then they had the NRA prohibit the ATF under law from releasing the data to either manufacturers or to our Congress.
If you're going to insult women, or anyone else who has "feeling" about 30,000 lives lost to gun violence each year (and any human being would have a feeling about it), get your facts straight.
There are 300 million here in teh US and 12352 gun deaths--some from justifiable homocide. It is true we are a more crime-ridden society and a more violent one---peaceful societies do not really need gun control and violent ones don't benefit from it. England's and Austrailia are in fact suffering massive increases in gun violence and as for US statistics: lawful gun owners use their weapons almost 2 MILLION times to thwart crime--mostly without firing a shot, as most of that 12,352 gun deaths were from criminals. You really want to see another 2 million victims?
http://www.guncite.com
also try http://www.keepandbeararms.com. Lots of links to the right, of course ;)
Lots of stats there
So, just curious, but how'd those violent crime rates change in said countries? You know, at the time when the gun controls became most strict.
Take your time; I'll wait.
I assume you have evidence to support your assertions? Was it not the NRA that most loudly supported updating/upgrading the NICS to better screen the mentally ill ("lunatics") from getting weapons? I'm no friend of the NRA, but I would like to try to keep the discussion honest.
It's curious that you would harbor so much dislike for the more than eighty million gun owners in America because of a select few who roam the internet.
I guess you've never read that bill. The NRA actually never formally supported the bill until they were permitted to add substantial language to the House version, H.R. 2640, just before it initially passed in that chamber.
The NRA's additions had nothing to do with the bill's stated purpose, which was to PREVENT dangerous individuals from getting their hands on guns. The NRA's additions actually served exactly the opposite purpose, to establish procedures to re-arm those who are currently prohibited under federal law from buying guns due to reasons of mental health illness. Now every state participating in the grant program will have to establish programs to allow for these people to petition to get their guns back. They're even going to pay these peoples' attorney fees in certain cases. It defies all sense and will undoubtedly lead to violence down the road (self-inflicted and otherwise).
This is no surprise. After the Brady Bill was passed back in 1994, the NRA went to court in several states to assert the premise that the states had no requirement to submit records to the federal background check database. They even attempted to have the entire Brady law statute thrown out at that point, unsuccessfully.
Read what they said about the NICS bill, what they bragged about when they commented on it.
You're right. A lot of these guys think McVeigh had a point. And this is the mentality governing gun policy in our country right now.
There is a huge difference between 1 or even a VERY small minority blowing things up because they are malcontents. But if you have say MILLIONS wanting to take up arms; surely something is wrong and now requires violence to settle it. Also McVeigh blew up innocent children and non-government employees. Not exactly in the tradition of the founders' revolution
The Parker decision asserted an INDIVIDUAL right to insurrection, not a right of MILLIONS of individuals. The NRA and CATO are asserting exactly the same thing, and individual right to insurrection. That is how insane this is.
I am glad to see a blog on the subject of the Supreme Court's pending Second Amendment case.
Now I want to ask a question. This case relates to gun laws in the District of Columbia. The Supreme Court sits in DC. Will the Court render a decision which eliminates all or many restrictions on gun ownership in DC? If so, will the justices travel to and from work in armored cars? Would the Supreme Court rule differently if this case involved another community, say Boise, Juneau, or Montgomery?
Imagine how different DC will be if everyone can carry a handgun to and from work on the subway.
I have mixed feelings. I am friends of a family who lost a son and brother to a gunman on the streets of DC. The shooter wasn't protecting himself from the government. Actually he had just left a hospital after visiting his babymomma and newborn child. Sick, huh?
So... you've got mixed feelings because a few folks broke the law to carry a weapon, have broken laws to use said illegally-possessed weapon, and this supports the notion that SC justices will be any differently effected if the ban is lifted? Should I define criminal, or are you alright with that?
If folks haven't broken the law to attack the justices yet, why would they break the law after to attack them?
The question before SCOTUS is the following
Whether the following provisions " D.C. Code
secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 "
violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals
who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia,
but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for
private use in their homes?
The preamble to the (embarassing?) United States Declaration of Independence is
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
The briefs entered (so far) can be found here "
http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/pleadings.html
I am at a loss for words here. I can"t figure out where this guy gets his notions.
The D.C. Court of Appeals decision is here
http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/parkerdc030907.pdf
I can't find the part the author alleges where they "expressly held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess arms to defend against the "depredations of a tyrannical government." "
75 pages of densely reasoned opinion - easy to miss if it was tucked into a footnote. Certainly not a main point if a point at all.
Maybe he can give a page number - or I have the wrong decision. It would help if the author is going to appoint himself as a spokesperson for the court or others that he provide a link. If any.
That quote is on page 46 of the decision. Here is the full paragraph: "To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the
depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to
placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment"s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual"s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia."
Josh is actually right-on in his reading here. The Parker court became the first in history to embrace an insurrectionist purpose for the amendment.
Thanks for the direction -
there are others on pp 17-19, 37 and probably others. They seem to be referring to a universal, pre-existing right of self defense against criminals, criminal gangs and criminal gangs so powerful as to have taken over the role and function of government. There is also a reference to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising against Nazi Rule of Government.
What I mean by pre-existing is prior to this Republic and throughout human history of government.
This is distinct from the author's suggestion that we face legitimization of armed murder, mayhem, armed attacks against local government or sedition. This is of course rubbish.
It may have been the first COURT to embrace the idea of the insurrectionist view, but they did that due to the large number of quotes from the founders who espoused it.
Of course the Constitution says that the federal gov't has the right and authority to put down insurection, and specifically mentions treason as a crime. It must. Especially since the founders had just fought a revolution, which to the British was insurection, and they didn't want the people to overthrow them.
Once again....government has powers, not rights. These powers are derived from the consent of teh governed, and EXCEPT for those powers reserved SOLELY to the Federal govenment (and they are few)
then those powers rest with the states OR the people. As to (natural) rights: only PEOPLE as INDIVDIDUALS have rights. These rights are pre-existing because we get them from God. We have them because we draw breath.
The cardinal natural rights are to Life, Liberty, and Property. Naturally that implies the right to defend those rights, for without such ability, then one can be said to not be in possession of them. Furthermore, one may distinguish natural rights from priviliges or so-called "human/civil rights," by the fact that natural rights are ABSOLUTE. And my exercise of them can not in principle EVER abbrogate your rights. However one may forfeit a right when one tries to prohibit an absolute right of another. For example, by trying to rob or kill me, I may kill you if I can in defense of my own rights. One may see an excellent exposition of this idea in John Locke's Second Essay Concerning Civil Government, Chapter 3, "On War." This section deals not with wars between governments, but rather when one individual makes war on another by attempting to rob the other of the intended victim's natural rights.
As to the POWER to suppress insurrection, that is from Art I Sec 8, Claause 15 of the US Constitution. It says that the Congress can call forth the militia to this function; however, the founders did not regard the militia as the ARMY. The militia were the citizens of a community. PERIOD.
If in the judgment of the people the government has usurped power, or as Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 28 if the representatives betray their constituents (by tyranny)then the people have recourse to self-defense (armed revolution). The main point however is that only PEOPLE have rights!
And as far as what I said, you didn't answer it. The gov't has as it's primary responsibility to itself, the authority, and requirement to protect itself from any threats, internal or external. Therefore Treason is a crime, and one of the only crimes specifically forbidden by the Constitution. Also therefore insurrection (attempting to overthrow the gov't) is a crime, as an extention of Treason.
Even though the founders had themselves a mere decade before BEEN treasonous revolutionaries, they looked at the gov't that they had founded and thought that it needed more POWER (happy now!?) and thus they created the Constitution which included the power of the federal gov't to resist overthrow from all sources.
This was my point, not that it's a right or a power for the gov't to protect itself.
Then you have learned nothing. The founders in teh Declaration of Independence clearly states that the PEOPLE have a right to abolish a government if the government becomes tyrannical.
While such a tyrannical government may operate under the COLOR of law and use the charge of treason; it has no moral authority and severs any allegiance I have when they themselves commit treason against the FORM of government (our constitution) when they abbrogate our rights and usurp our powers.
If the government is legitimate as evidenced by conformity to the Constitution and rspec for our rights and poers, whether exercised through the local states or directly ourselves, then any person or group who wages war against the LEGITIMATE government may be chaged with treason.
But when they usurp powers and abbrogate rights, they are as a government NOT legitimate and it is correct to act in rebellion against the "office holders" and restore the operation of teh Constitution. Abraham Lincoln himself recommended such a course of action.
This was in fact done in Athens, TN in the middle 1940s. There was an armed insurrection and not having enough weapons, the people (most were recently returned veterans) stormed the local Armory and expropriated the weapons and removed from office those who had usurped power by a falsified election (it was, quite naturally the Democrats that had falsified the election) and the proper authorities were installed in office.
Whatever, please stop focusing on my misuse of one word. Whether they are called rights or powers is really unimportant.
It matters, because of the mindset it sets up in others.
Your logic completely evades me. Actually, given that they had just fought a revolutionary war, you would think the Founders' tendency would have been to NOT put in the treason clause and anti-insurrection clauses. Clearly, though, events like the Shays Rebellion changed their thinking and made them realize that the Constitution--and our democracy itself--had to have some additional safeguards in place. It speaks volumes that these provisions were included in the Constitution BY REVOLUTIONARIES.
But, by that time, they weren't revolutionaries anymore. In fact, they weren't really revolutionaries in the first place, they just wanted to be the leaders of their own lives, like everybody else.
Further, if you look at what they wrote, at the time of the revolution they were very liberal about what a person could do to their own gov't (the Declaration of Independence is the best known example), but by the time that the Constitution was written (1787) they recognized that a lot of what King George had done was understandable, if not reasonable.
Posted February 20, 2008 | 04:44 PM (EST)