Thanks. 1:8:1 grants the power to tax to provide for certain things, general welfare being among them. If it truly meant that congress had the power to spend what it wanted on the general welfare, then the rest of 1:8 wouldn’t really be needed. It’s academic at this point though. The USGov can claim that anything it does is legal, and who is going to be able to do anything about it.
No. They couldn't. That''s the whole point. Anyway, not a standing army that defend us against the British Army. Not sure what your point is. But this thread is about how a phrase with this structure would be interpreted (then and now) by any average educated English speaker. If you can provide an example of a phrase in English with this structure that would NOT be interpreted following the pattern that the OP contends, you are welcome to present it. I can tell you right now: there isn't any. A quick mention of peripheral facts is fine, and all. But if you want to discuss anything else in more detail, you need to open a thread. However, your post is just a compendium of useless "no it's nots" and "yes it is" with no arguments. Not very useful in ANY discussion.
The presence of the 16 grants of Congressional power between the General Welfare clause an the Elastic Clause defeat their argument - these grants of power define what falls under common defense and general welfare. They don't care. Madison: The inference from the use here made of the terms, and from the proceedings on the subsequent propositions, is, that although common defence and general welfare were objects of the Confederation, they were limited objects, which ought to be enlarged by an enlargement of the particular powers to which they were limited, and to be accomplished by a change in the structure of the Union from a form merely Federal to one partly national; and as these general terms are prefixed in the like relation to the several legislative powers in the new charter as they were in the old, they must be understood to be under like limitations in the new as in the old.... ...But may it not be asked with infinitely more propriety, and without the possibility of a satisfactory answer, why, if the terms were meant to embrace not only all the powers particularly expressed, but the indefinite power which has been claimed under them, the intention was not so declared? why, on that supposition, so much critical labour was employed in enumerating the particular powers, and in defining and limiting their extent?... ...The obvious conclusion to which we are brought is, that these terms, copied from the Articles of Confederation, were regarded in the new as in the old instrument, merely as general terms, explained and limited by the subjoined specifications, and therefore requiring no critical attention or studied precaution. https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s27.html
I wouldn't dispute that. But, then again, the main reason I wouldn't dispute it is probably because that would make my case.
This discussion is about the 2nd A. Not about infringing any rights.. real or imaginary. Please stay on topic. You would have to ask Trump. Looks to me like he infringed the right to bear arms of trans people when he refused to allow them in the military. But that isn't the topic of this thread, so...
No problem. And the point of this thread is that THAT would be the question, There might or might not be reasons to believe that a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary. But if anybody wants to debate the topic, that's THE ONLY thing that needs to be established.
Not true. You still have to get 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4ths of the State Legislatures to approve any changes to or deletions of the 2A, and considering that means 38 States must say yes.... Well, I'm not very worried about that actually happening. In 45 States (at least, as this number is several years old) open carry in some form is legal, some with no licensing requirements, just as we have now with unlicensed concealed carry in Florida, and it has not caused a single issue to date, despite the doom and gloomers like you.
See Bruen. It doesn't allow what you want, but you maintain that you want what you want. Ergo, if you want that you'll need to amend the constitution. Do the math and you'll realize a critical mass of states don't want the amendment you'll need.
No one has a right to join the military, and military service has nothing to do with a citizen's right to keep and bear arms. Trump DID wipe his ass with the 2A in other ways though and some of these folks will STILL suck his dick over it, that's true.
What are you talking about? Why would I want to amend the Constitution? The Bill of Rights is fine as it was enacted by the framers. And with all the nuts running around in the Republican Party, who knows what crazy nonsense we'd get if we were to try to change it. Leave it as it is. Just don't make up nonsense about what it DOESN'T say. And what the hell does that have to do with this thread anyway?
But as @DentalFloss has already pointed out, the constitution clearly says that a militia is necessary. As you said earlier: “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary…”
And, as I said, that's right! That's the ONLY relevant discussion related to the 2nd A that we need to have. I would say it isn't anymore, but that's topic for a different thread. This one is intended to demonstrate that that is the ONLY relevant point of the 2nd A If this is clear to everybody else as it is to you, then this thread has served its purpose.
Golem actually knows that his desire to ban guns is unconstitutional. the rest of it is mental masturbation
You cannot just declare it to be so because it suits your agenda. You have to go through the democratic process, which in this specific case, would require the Constitution to be Amended! Without that, Heller, McDonald, Bruen, and the cases to come wherein the USSC is going to tell the inferior Courts, "Did you think we were kidding on the last decision we made on this subject???", and hopefully threaten to hold lower Judges in contempt if they continue making the wrong rulings are the controlling decisions underpinning that the Constitution actually says that the right of the People (that would be us) to keep (own) and bear (carry in public) arms (bearable weapons) shall not be infringed! So, you keep it up with your weekly weak ass attempts to redefine what words and phrases in crystal clear English really don't mean what they clearly say, and I'll be standing behind you in line at Home Depot with my firearm tucked safely away in it's holster. And I no longer even need a permit, though the one I have is still good for like 5 or 6 more years. Whether or not I'll renew depends on if I'm doing any domestic travel at the time or not, since getting hurt, I have not been, but hopefully that'll change. But, you have nothing whatsoever to fear from me or my sidearm, as the only reason you'd even know it was there is if you or someone else started hurting or killing people and I was in a position to do something about it.
What kind of question are those? Whether a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state or not, of course! Are you paying attention?
It does? Wow! It's wonderful that you think that debating whether or not a well-regultated militia is necessary to the security of a free state suits MY agenda. Most gun advocates appear to believe that it suits theirs. I'll take it! If, as you say, it suites my agenda; that would likely not be necessary. But that would be a different debate. I remind you that this is about the 2nd A. If you want to discuss the Heller legislation or other legislation subsequently passed by SCOTUS (yes! legislation!), there are other threads for that. Your admission that the debate THIS thread proposes would benefit MY agenda, meets and exceeds its intended purpose.
It sure was when it was written. The absolute clause you quoted is a condition that affects the main clause. Otherwise it wouldn't be there. And, of course, the only purpose of this discussion would be to establish if Congress might one day make use of Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 and 16. It's like the other examples in the OP. If the ship hasn't docked, passengers cannot board it. If books are not necessary for the students to complete the project, then the library can now close.... etc. This thread is one of four on the topic of the 2nd A. Since we are in agreement about this
