Madison himself asserts the meaning. Are you accusing him of it?
Madison had an OPINION about what it meant, AS. Several of his contemporaries disagreed with him. To some degree, those differences of opinion are what precipitated the Hamilton/Burr duel. I have several books and pamphlets written by Professor Samuel Engels Burr, Jr., professor emeritus at American University and a direct descendant of Aaron Burr, which CLEARLY indicates that very fact. Dr. Burr had a superb archive of Aaron Burr’s papers which were tragically lost when the family plantation house, Tremont, burned to the ground in the late 70’s, killing Dr. Burr’s wife and eventually killing him, too. I spoke with Dr. Burr by phone shortly after the fire while he was in hospital at Bethesda.
Eventually, Dr. Burr died from the after-effects of smoke inhalation and the bone fractures he sustained jumping off of the 3rd floor balcony…which is why his wife died almost immediately while lying in the snow. He’d been my “History of the Frontier” professor and we’d formed a friendship while he was teaching at Weatherford College in Texas while he and his wife looked after their grandchildren following the death of their son and DIL in a car accident on I-20. He was an excellent history teacher and the President of the Aaron Burr society–dedicated to correcting the historical record about his ancestor.
At some point was he annoited god- king, such that his every word became the LAW FOR ALL TIME, or were his thoughts graven into stone tablets by the finger of the Almighty?
No one disagreed with him about what it meant, that’s why the Anti-Federalists wanted the language altered.
That’s why Patrick Henry didn’t want the Constitution.
But the Federalists held the line, and got what they wanted.
Nope, you’re talking in general specifically, no one at the the founding asserted the Constitution made room for the right to secede unilaterally, hence why those opposite of Madison wanted it changed.
To assert this is Confederate revisionism; there’s no historical basis for it. Sorry.
The Supreme Court ruled on it several times qix, and you still don’t have anyone who wrote the 10th amendment or Constitution asserting this right existed.
Instead, they all asserted the opposite, specifically, so as to stop the Constitution from being replaced the same way the Articles were replaced by the Constitution.
They thought allowing this right would create instability, a change over in Government every few years.
Clearly, they had reason not to want that fate.
Now, States have an extra-constitutional right/duty to revolt when oppressed, and they can still censor the Constitution through a convention. But the former, or anything else, is acknowledged to be illegal under the system the Constitution embodies.
And Illegal, is illegal. That can’t be changed.
However, whether the act in question is right or wrong is a different matter, and General Lee himself separated the two, the morality vs the legality. As did the Founders.
So too did Andrew Jackson when he was looking at probable secession by South Carolina in the 1830s, in the open letter he wrote to them.
Then why is it written that way? If the founders had said black means white would it have changed the definitions in the language? Would the absence of all color then be white, and the presence of all colors be black? Does the language mean what it means or do the powerful get to alter it’s meaning at will?
It has no bearing on the right existing.
The Articles state that we are a perpetual Union, and the Constitution built upon that language by stating it was seeking “A More Perfect Union”.
Thus, a right to break from it was not reserved.
Nonsense…but what ELSE is new with AS.
Dave? Go read the court case. They’re saying the same thing I did.
The more you throw these comments out, the more you expose that you have never read any history on this.
And it achieved that when the constitution lasted 1 second longer than the articles. Note that it said “more perfect” not “completely perfect”.
Note also the use of the word “union”, which is strongly implicative of voluntary participation, as opposed to “dominion” or “principality” or any of a dozen different words that could have been used to denote the compulsory power you say has been granted to the federal government. The framers of the constitution could not, in my view, have used such language even if it had been their intent to completely subjugate the states under the national government, because the people had recently fought a revolution against such an intrusive power and would not have stood for it, at least not in the numbers needed to get the constitution ratified.
The law says what it says, not what any authority figure you care to name says it ought to say, or says some other authority figure said he intended for it to say. The words are clear, unequivocal, and, I believe, absolutely deliberately chosen to say exactly what they say as written to act as a counterbalance against central authority becoming overpowerful and overbearing.
Not according to the Founders.
And again, Textualism: “what the words meant at the time it was written.”
Funny how you cite “textualism” when it suits your argument and pooh-pooh it when it doesn’t, AS. What do you think “well-regulated” meant in 1789?
Nope, I’ve championed textualism from the very start. You can find posts of mine from 2014 talking about it.
Andrew Napolitano himself is a textualist, and you know how much I love to quote him.
Sound like “who cares”? There isn’t a militia system anymore, so it doesn’t matter what it meant. There’s nothing to enforce that provision on.
“Shall not be infringed” means the same now as it did then, so that’s all that matters.
Nonsense, of course, AS. There most assuredly IS a “militia system” in the US. Just because YOU know nothing about it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Some States refer to it as the “State Guard” such as in Texas. Part of the “militia system” is called the NATIONAL Guard, by the way. There are dozens of rump organizations that can rightly be called “militias” as well. There are millions of people in this country who are seriously, and rightly, concerned with the direction D.C. is headed and are preparing for conflict. Back to the point…“well-regulated” in 1789 meant to be made REGULAR. It did NOT mean to be CONTROLLED as the term seems to mean today.
The National Guard is not the militia. Certainly not in verbiage the Constitution is using.
The National Guard is a system we created in the early 1900s, and receives Federal support, as an Auxiliary force to supplement the rest of the military.
The very fact it receives Federal support, is integrated into the rest of the military, and answers to Federal authority ahead of the States, means it is no militia. It is far too regularized.
My father served half his Army career in a National Guard bureau, active duty. Pretty sure I know more here.
The fact you just tried to call the National Guard “the militia” equal to how the Founders would understand it, pretty much verifies it.
Read the legislative ACT that created the National Guard, AS. It REFERS to the NG as one leg of the “militia.” The other two are the State Guards and the “unorganized, volunteer militias.”
BTW, for seven years in the early 90’s, I was the Chief of Staff of the Oklahoma State guard organization–known here at the time as the “Oklahoma Reserve Forces,” so I seriously DOUBT that you “know more” about this issue than I do.
I have; you’re still wrong. This is not a militia as the Constitution used the term.
If it were, they wouldn’t answer to Federal authority before the States. Federalization completely screws with the definition.
And I know more about the National Guard than you do. Sorry, but you’re wrong about it.
And, you’re wasting my time here Dave. There is no challenge here on textualist grounds; you’re blowing smoke to hide the fact you also backed the wrong horse as to what the Constitution meant.
Changing the meaning of the Constitution; you’ve attempted to do this 3 times over. You can’t hide it.
Revisionism is BS, and can go hang.
BS. You don’t know what you’re talking about. The militia is DEFINED in the act creating the National Guard as consisting of (1) THE NATIONAL GUARD, (2). Various STATE Guards, and (3) The volunteer, unorganized militias. ALL three “legs” are parts of the national “militias.” Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 15 gives Congress the power to call forth THE MILITIA to execute the laws of the United States, suppress insurrections and repel invasions. If the militia can be called forth by the feds, what makes you think that their ability to “call forth” the National Guard makes it any different?