|
|
|
| Authored by: myNym on Monday, December 24 2012 @ 12:38 PM EST |
You've seen lawyers with agendas, so that should be no
surprise.
To start with, he doesn't even quote the second correctly.
He is missing commas, capitalization, and a hyphen.
Sorry, my bad. The hyphen was in earlier drafts, including
this draft:
"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the
people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe
defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of
peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that
in all cases the military should be under strict
subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
You will find that "draft" in the Virginia Constitution of
1776, which pre-dates the 2nd, and upon which the 2nd was
modeled.
Don't believe me, read the original documents of debate.
They are available in the Federalist Papers.
A "history" of the "interpretation" of the 2nd that doesn't
even include one quote from the Federalist Papers? Not one
reference to what the people who _wrote_ the thing were
saying about it? No quotation of the Virginia constitution
from which the 2nd derived?
The 2nd doesn't need "interpretation". It's quite simple.
It says what it says.
Ah, wait. "The courts had found..." Ah. There's the
mistake.
"Your honor, I'd like to call my next witness, Dred Scott."[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
