Customer Review

12 of 32 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars The framers of the Constitution in their own words, September 7, 2000
This review is from: The Federalist (Conservative Leadership Series): A Commentary on the Constitution of the United States. A Collection of Essays (Hardcover)
An essential book for every American both young or old, male or female, Democrat or Republican. A delightful discovery on the need of God and guns (or perhaps swords) in the United States and the intolerance of a government in charge of all but answerable to noone. An undeniably perfect fit for todays culture.
Discover your roots from the men that gave their lives for the signing of the Constitution; true heroes. Their resolve was unquestionable and the love for country without reproach.
They brought us so far. We've walked away. Read it and weep. BK
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
Name:
Badge:
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
 
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in
 

Comments

Tracked by 1 customer

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-3 of 3 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 29, 2010 1:19:25 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 1, 2013 10:35:28 AM PST
JNagarya says:
Have read "The Federalist," and numerous of the anti-Federalist paperse, it is obvious to me that the above "reviewer" didn't actually read "The Federalist," because there is othing in the "review" that addresses anything actually in "The Federalist". One glaring example being "Federalist No. 84," which presents all the reasons the authors of "The Federalist" believed a Bill of Rights wasn't necessary.

First of all, the authors of the Federalist papers were only three of over fifty framers of the Constitution -- which over fifty delegates agreed on very little.

Second, I hope you'll review the book again AFTER having ACTUALLY read it, with facts instead of unfounded and anti-Constitutional ideological falsehood. And, therefore, after having ACTUALLY read the Constitution, for the first time, which includes this refutation of your assertion of false gun-nut "patriotism":

US Con. Art. I., S. 8, C. 15. Congress shall have the Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, [and] SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS.*
_____

*The "Declaration of Independence" is also against you on the point:

"[George III] has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power."
_____

You should also be required to read "Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress" (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Univerity Press, paperback, 1991), Ed. by Helen E. Veit, et al. -- the debates of those who WROTE the Bill of Rights. At least those portions of the debates concerning that which became the Second Amendment, upon the false interpretation of which Amendment you rely for your "guns" nonsense.

That portion of the debates of the Bill of Rights by those who WROTE it concerned SOLELY whether to have a standing army -- which the Founders/Framers viewed as a THREAT to liberty/civilian gov't -- or to rely instead on the alternative: militia. That portion of the debate was relatively brief, and the decision was for militia, for the reason summed up in this statement by Congressman Elbridge Gerry:

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." "Creating," at 182.

In short: the Founders chose militia because they intended that it NOT be a threat to gov't.

From there the focus of the debate was how to construct the final clause of the first draft of that which became the Second Amendment in a way which would be equitable. That final clause is the ONLY POSITED "individual right" debated concerning that which became the Second Amendment -- the first draft of which Amendment reads in full:

"The right of the people [PLURAL, as in, "We the people"; it is not, "We the individual," or, "I the people"] to keep and bear arms [as well regulated MILITIA] shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia [not "individual"] being the best security of a free country [not "individual"]: but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in well regulated MILITIA] shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [in well regulated MILITIA] in person." Id., at 30.

Again, that final clause is the ONLY POSITED "individual right" debated concerning that which became the Second Amendment. That POSITED "individual right" having OBVIOUSLY been voted down, it is UNEQUIVOCALLY OBVIOUS that the Second Amendment has nothing whatever to do with "individual" ANYTHING.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 27, 2013 7:08:46 AM PST
Dave says:
Professor Sanford Levinson (Univ. of TX - Law School), co-Author of a standard law school text on the Constitution, is an ACLU stalwart. In his 1989 Yale Law Journal article, cited by George Will, Prof. Levinson concludes that private gun ownership cannot be prohibited. Levinson and Yale Law Prof. Akhil Amar enjoy stature among liberal constitutional scholars. Yet Amar trounces the anti-gun states' right theory almost savagely, reiterating over and over again that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to arms to "the people," not the "states":

When the Constitution means "states" it says so...The ultimate right to keep and bear arms belongs to "the people," not the "states."...thus the "people" at the core of the Second Amendment are the same "We the People" who "ordain and establish" the Constitution and whose right to assemble...is at the core of the First Amendment... Nowadays, it is quite common to speak loosely of the National Guard as "the state militia," but when the Second Amendment was written... "the militia" referred to all Citizens capable of bearing arms. So "the militia" is identical to "the people"...

Further, two other major contributors to constitutional scholarship are neutral historians. One is Prof. Joyce Lee Malcolm, a political historian who work on the English and American origins of the right to arms has been underwritten by the American Bar Foundation, Harvard Law School and the National Endowment for the Humanities. In "To Keep And Bear Arms: The Origins of An Anglo-American Right", prof. Malcolm writes:
The Second Amendment was meant to accomplish two distinct goals... First, it was meant to guarantee the individual's right to have arms for self-defense and self-preservation... These privately owned arms were meant to serve a larger purpose (militia service) as well... and it is the coupling of these two objectives that has caused the most confusion. the customary American militia necessitated an armed public ...the militia being the body of the people... The argument that today's National Guardsmen, members of a select militia, would constitute the only persons entitled to keep and bear arms has no historical foundation.

In short Sir, I believe you are wrong. The Second Amendment has EVERYTHING to do with the individual.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 1, 2013 9:44:43 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 1, 2013 10:58:50 AM PST
JNagarya says:
On more effort to pentrate the irrelevant and the sophomoric:

"Dave says:

Professor Sanford Levinson (Univ. of TX - Law School), co-Author of a standard law school text on the Constitution, is an ACLU stalwart.
_____

So?
_____

"In his 1989 Yale Law Journal article, cited by George Will,"
_____

George Will is an ideologue who makes it up as he goes along. To cite to him is to destroy your own credibility, though you do that beyond using George Will as an authority on anything.
_____

"Prof. Levinson concludes that private gun ownership cannot be prohibited."
_____

Why do you gun-nuts never READ what is actually said into your face in your rush to put words in the mouths of your hallucinations?

Private gun ownership is not being contested.

The issue is the fact that the subject of the Second Amendment is well regulated militia, which is not an individual; and that "the people" is PLURAL, as in "We the people," which is not instead, "We the individual," or, "I the people".
_____

Levinson and Yale Law Prof. Akhil Amar enjoy stature among liberal constitutional scholars.
_____

I have no idea why gun-nuts believe that political ideology matters when the issue is L-A-W. "Justice and the rule of law are to be ABOVE politics." -- John Adams.
_____

Yet Amar trounces the anti-gun states' right theory
_____

Actually, he -- like you -- is taking the "states' rights" position, aginst the facts.

Clue: the Second Amendment, established to assure the states that they could keep their militia, has always been a state right. But that state right does not equal or supersede the supreme Law of the Land.
_____

almost savagely, reiterating over and over again that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to arms to "the people," not the "states":

When the Constitution means "states" it says so...The ultimate right to keep and bear arms belongs to "the people," not the "states."...thus the "people" at the core of the Second Amendment are the same "We the People" who "ordain and establish" the Constitution and whose right to assemble...is at the core of the First Amendment... Nowadays, it is quite common to speak loosely of the National Guard as "the state militia," but when the Second Amendment was written... "the militia" referred to all Citizens capable of bearing arms. So "the militia" is identical to "the people"...
_____

Actually it din't refer to "all Citizens capable of bearing arms, since Militia Acts from at latest the 17th century listed numerous exceptions, including those not sufficiently white.

Amar hasn't done his homework where it matters -- beyond that obvious superficiality. And he is "answering" a question not being asked, based upon a false premise.

This is how it works:

1. "People" is not "individual"; it is plural.

2. "The people" live under Constitutions -- both state and Federal -- which expressly stipulate that the legislative body (whether the Congress, or of the state) shall make the laws.

3. They also expressly stipulate that there shall be elections. Thus "the people" elect representatives from among themselves to the offices of gov't. It is the representatives, in the legislative body, not "the people" who make the laws.

4. Since the beginnings of the several colonies, the militia has ALWAYS been regulated UNDER LAW; first under British charters, then under state constitutions, then -- also -- under the US Constitution. Those laws, and those constitutions, not coincidentally, stipulate that the commander-in-chief of the militia is the state's governor.

Getting it yet? The militia operates not only UNDER law, enacted not by "the people" but by their elected representatives, but -- as has always been the fact -- is an arm of gov't. "Gov't" is STATE.

5. Does "the people" include everyone? Yes. But aren't there exceptions as concerns militia? Certainly: public officials, ministers of the gospel -- a significant list of exceptions.

And where does that list of exceptions appear? In laws, called MILITIA ACTS, enacted by said legislative bodies, by means of which constitutional provisions are implemented.

In short, as the Constitution itself stipulates, "We the people" are the gov't; but "we the people" do not rule directly, _or take the law into our own hands_; we elect representatives from among ourselves to "state" -- GOV'T -- posts.

Got it yet? There is a legal system which regulates the militia; and that legal system is "the state" -- GOV'T -- not "the people" as distinguished from the state.

Now let's get down to fundamentals:

1. The Bill of Rights/Second Amendment was written by the first Congress under the newly-ratified Constitution -- that Congress being, of course, a REPRESENTATIVE body elected to that office.

2. The DEBATES of those who WROTE the Bill of Rights/Second Amendment exist, and are in print, and are available from Amazon as: "Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress," Edited by Veit, et al.

When one READS the debates of those who WROTE the Second Amendment, one LEARNS that the Second Amendment is consistent with the already-ratified Constitution, and that premise for the Amendment was NATIONAL DEFENSE.

The question was whether to rely for NATIONAL DEFENSE on a standing army, or the militia. As the Founders viewed standing armies as being a threat to GOV'T, and viewed militia as composed of loyal patriots, they chose militia, which they obviously DID NOT intend to threaten gov't.

3. The first draft of the Second Amendment, of which the subject is well regulated militia -- clarified for the logic-challenged -- reads in full as follows. Show us in it the "individual right" you believe the Second Amendment "protects":

"The right of the people [PLURAL, as in "We the people; it is not, "We the individaul," or, "I the people"] to keep and bear arms [in well regulated militia], shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia [NOT "individual"] being the best security of a free country [NOT "individual"]: but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in well regulated militia] shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [in well regulated militia] in person." Veit, at 12.

The final clause -- the right NOT to bear arms, to NOT serve in the militia -- is the only "individual" "right" debated concerning the Second Amendment. As that was obviously dropped, the Amendment obviously has nothing whatever to do with "individual" ANYTHING.
_____

Further, two other major contributors to constitutional scholarship are neutral historians.
_____

According to gun-nuts, all historians are biased -- except of course those whose bias supports their bias.
_____

One is Prof. Joyce Lee Malcolm, a political historian who work on the English and American origins of the right to arms has been underwritten by the American Bar Foundation, Harvard Law School and the National Endowment for the Humanities. In "To Keep And Bear Arms: The Origins of An Anglo-American Right", prof. Malcolm writes:

The Second Amendment was meant to accomplish two distinct goals... First, it was meant to guarantee the individual's right to have arms for self-defense and self-preservation... These privately owned arms were meant to serve a larger purpose (militia service) as well... and it is the coupling of these two objectives that has caused the most confusion. the customary American militia necessitated an armed public ...the militia being the body of the people... The argument that today's National Guardsmen, members of a select militia, would constitute the only persons entitled to keep and bear arms has no historical foundation.
_____

Malcolm has been refuted by legitimate historians because she distorts and misrepresents bits of the history in order to arrive at her prefigured conclusion.

Further: not everything is law ("The Federalist" being an example); these are legal authority:

Constitutions, which are implemented byt means of
Statutes (which are often further implmented by means of regulations),
Case law,
Legislative history.

The debates by those who WROTE the Second Amendment are legal authority. "The Federalist" is not -- it was not written or adopted by any legislative body, in that instance Congress.

Law is determined in accorance with legal authority. Letters between people with famous names -- such as Washington and Jeferson -- while of value to the general historian, are not legal authority or law. Books by Levinson, or Amar, or Malcolm, or "opinion" columns by George Will, are not legal authority.

But the debates -- the legislative history -- of those who WROTE the Amendment ARE legal authority.

Last but not least:

1. As reflected in the Constitution itself (Art. I., S. 8., C. 17), beginning no later than 1782, the militia was armed by the state; this is a Virginia statute substantiating that fact:
_____

At a General Assembly begun and held at the Public Buildings in the City of Richmond, on Monday the 21st day of October, in the Year of our Lord 1782.

Chap. XII.

An act for the recovery of arms and accoutrements belonging to the state.

I. Whereas sundry arms and accoutrements belonging to the public in the hands of individuals, who have neglected to return them to the proper officers; and it is necessary that such arms and accoutrements should be recovered as speedily as possible: Be it enacted, that the Governor do, on the passing of this act, issue his proclamation, enjoining all persons having in their possession any arms or accoutrements whatsoever, belonging to the state, to deliver them without delay to the Lieutenant or commanding officer of the county for the time being; and the sheriff of each county within this commonwealth, shall cause copies of the said proclamations, which shall be transmitted to him by the Executive, to be fixed up in the most public places in his county, and if after one month from such public notice having been given, any person possessing any such public arms or accoutrements, shall be convicted of having failed to deliver them up as aforesaid, such person shall, upon every such conviction, be liable to the penalty of twenty pounds, to be recovered by action of debt, bill, plaint, or information, in any court of record within this commonwealth, one half of which penalty shall go to the informer, on conviction of the offender, and the other half shall be applied in aid of the county levy where such offender shall reside. And the Lieutenant, or commanding officer of each county, shall make returns from time to time, to the Executive, of all arms and accoutrements so delivered to him, and also deliver them to the order of the Executive, under the penalty, if he fail in all or any part of his duty, of fifty pounds, to be recovered as aforesaid, and applied in diminution of the county levy. Provided always, that where muskets and bayonets have been by order of government placed in any county on eastern or western frontier for defence against incursions of the enemy, it shall be lawful for the Lieutenant or commanding officer to return such muskets and bayonets to the militia, taking a receipt from each person for what shall be so returned.

"A Collection of All Such Public Acts of the General Assembly, and Ordinances of the Conventions of Virginia, Passed since the year 1768, as are now in force; With a Table of the Principal Matters" (Richmond: Thomas Nicolson and William Prentis, 1785); "The First Laws of the State of Virginia" (Willmington, DE: Michael Glazier, Inc., "The First Laws of the Original Thirteen States," 1982), Compiled by John D. Cushing, at 176.
_____

In short Sir, I believe you are wrong. The Second Amendment has EVERYTHING to do with the individual.
_____

The subect of the amendment is well regulated militia -- which is not an individual. "People," as in "We the people," is not individual. The only "individual right" debated concerning the amendment -- exemption FROM militia duty -- was voted down. Those being the facts, the Second Amendment has nothing whatever to do with "individual" ANYTHING.

And the Constitution itself is dispositive on the issue:

Art. I., S. 8., C. 16. The Congress shall have Power To provide for . . . ARMING . . . the Militia.

That being the fact, the militia did not and does not need the guns of private individuals.

And see "United State v. Millier" (1939). Millier was busted for possessing an illegal gun: a sawed-off shotgun. He claimed his possession of it was protected by the Second Amendment.

The SC did its homework, finding the fact that the various Militia Acts, state and Federal, defined the gun required of the militia. As that gun was not a sawed-off shotgun, and a sawed-off shotgun is not a militia weapon, the Court correctly held that possession of the gun was not protected by the Second Amendment.

Nor -- to take it one step further -- does the Second Amendment "protect" FROM regulation whatever gun-nuts -- and ideologue Wills -- claim it "protects". This brief chronology is sufficent to sustantiate and settle that question:

12/15/1791: Ratification of the Bill of Rights -- Second Amendment -- completed.

5/2/1792: Congress enacts a Militia Act regulating the militia of the Second Amendment:

Chap. XXVIII.--An Act to provide for calling fourth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.

5/8/1792: Congress enacts a Militia Act regulating the militia of the Second Amendment:

Chap. XXXIII.--An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defence by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.

7/6/1798: Congress enacts a Militia Act regulating the militia of the Second Amendment:

Chap. LXV.--An Act providing arms for the Militia throughout the United States.

3/2/1803: Congress enacts a Militia Act regulating the militia of the Second Amendment:

Chap. XV.--An Act in addition to an Act entitled, "An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States."

In other words: the Second Amendment does not protect FROM regulation whatever one wants to claim is "protected" by the Amendment.

Reread that until you understand it.

And while your at it, understand what "The Federalist" is -- an advertising campaign, as said by its authors, intended to "sell" the Constitution. That means it is BIASED.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›

Review Details

Item

Reviewer


Location: MI

Top Reviewer Ranking: 27,603,381