What if the USA went into 50 states sharing an army and a ..

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It sounds terribly ineffectual, slow and otherwise inefficient. For example, wouldn't your diplomats not only have to consult with the outside party but every member state on every significant, or maybe every, detail of every negotiation?

For internal affairs it doesn't sound so terrible, but on the world scene you'd be less effectual than the UN.

Balkanizing the US is the wet dream of the folks who can't see past their own pocketbooks. They don't even consider the damage to every citizen, just so long as they can keep what they got and get some more.

[Tero]

Seth, I think there would still be federal projects. Otherwise the states that own and control water win. Deal with the great lakes, for example.

[Seth]

It sounds terribly ineffectual, slow and otherwise inefficient. For example, wouldn't your diplomats not only have to consult with the outside party but every member state on every significant, or maybe every, detail of every negotiation?

Well, it's supposed to be slow and inefficient, which is the purpose of all the checks and balances built in to our government. This is because the Founders recognized that in most cases, hasty, precipitous and ill-advised action by the President needed to be slowed down and given careful and sober deliberation by the Senate in order to reduce the chances of a President making treaties based on the whims and caprices of the public, to whom he must pander for votes. It was felt that the President, being the single voice of the nation before other nations, must be constrained by the Senate, which looks to the interests of the states in it's deliberations.

That's precisely why the President has the Treaty Power, subject to ratification by the Congress, who represent the People. In the original form, before the 17th Amendment was passed providing for direct election of Senators by popular vote in the states, Senators were appointed (according to original intent) by the state legislatures, whereas the House of Representatives was elected directly by the People. The point of this system was to provide one house that was a direct representative of the people of the states (the House) and one that was appointed to represent the interests OF THE STATES (which is to say the interests of the elected legislatures of the states) at the federal level, particularly as regards treaties and other things that might affect the individual states.

This system of checks and balances, which worked quite nicely for more than 150 years (the 17th Amendment was passed by a Progressive Congress in 1909 and ratified by the states in 1913), has been skewed, to the severe detriment of the powers of the states, by the amendment, which makes Senators more interested in pandering to voters than looking after the interests of state's rights at the federal level. Repealing the 17th Amendment would be a huge step back towards the proper and intended balance of powers between the states and the federal government.

In such a system, a treaty signed by the President would be subject to ratification by the Senate, which would have the responsibility to ensure that the treaty did not infringe on the rights and powers of the states themselves. They would not have the power to nitpick the treaty, because it's an "all or nothing" proposition. This encourages the President to consult with the Senate carefully before negotiating a treaty, which is highly desirable, since he is merely the chief administrative officer of the nation, not it's King or Dictator.

For internal affairs it doesn't sound so terrible, but on the world scene you'd be less effectual than the UN.

It's not functionally different than it is today. The difference of the original pre-17th Amendment system was that a Senator appointed by the state legislature, and subject to recall BY that state legislature, was beholden to the interests of the state as a political entity and was accountable to the elected representatives of the state, and thus to the people, albeit more indirectly than by direct vote. This was felt to provide a better balance of power in that a popularly-elected Senator, such as we have now, is more likely to look towards getting votes from the public in his/her district rather than being interested in obedience to the legislature as a whole, and therefore the state as a whole.

[Seth]

Seth, I think there would still be federal projects. Otherwise the states that own and control water win. Deal with the great lakes, for example.

Well, yes. But since the power of the Congress under the Commerce Clause is (even today) to mediate and resolve disputes between the states, it's no different than how it is now. Interstate waterways are already the subject of interstate compacts (not federal mandates) over allocation of the waters. These compacts were made with the assistance of Congress, but they were primarily negotiated as a result of court claims filed by downstream states who thought they were being treated unfairly. That's the proper recourse for such complaints. Where a court-approved compact does not meet with the approval of one or the other parties to it, then recourse to Congress is the appropriate path of resolution, and Congress' decision in the matter would be final.

The Founders had faith that the elected representatives of Congress had the capacity to act fairly in the best interests of the nation in resolving such disputes, which is why it gave Congress that authority in the first place. Unfortunately the original intent of the Commerce Clause, which was, in the parlance and understanding of the times in which it was written, intended to provide Congress with limited authority to prevent one state from imposing imposts and duties (taxes) on goods traveling through in order to FACILITATE free and open free-market commerce "among" the several states, has been severely debased by the Supreme Court. It's been turned wrongfully into an all-but-plenary power of the Congress to regulate literally every aspect of commerce, whether intra-state or inter-state, something that was NEVER INTENDED by the Founders.

This is a huge issue, and it's coming to a head with Obamacare, which for the first time in our history, proposes that Congress not only has the power to regulate what and how people buy things, but also to regulate whether they MUST buy things at the command of the government.

Constitutional originalists (and frankly anyone but a Progressive or a leftist) are horrified at the notion that the federal government might be granted (not have) the authority to require people to buy something by government order, because once that snake leaves the cage, the whole nation will be consumed by federal government central planning, which is Socialism (and Marxism) made manifest. Such a power was never contemplated by the Founders, but was contemplated by the Progressives and Marxist-influenced leftists as far back as 1912, with Woodrow Wilson, and it was brought far down the road to reality by FDR's tyrannical and unconstitutional acts, some of which the Court overturned, and some of which it did not, in a display of cowardice and partisanship.

If Americans can be ordered to buy private health insurance on pain of being fined (and potentially imprisoned) by the government, there is quite literally NOTHING that the Congress cannot command citizens to buy, or do, from commands to buy and eat vegetables to commands to buy a particular brand or type of car. There is literally no end to the power Congress can exert over commerce if Obama's rewriting of the Commerce Clause withstands Supreme Court scrutiny. If that happens, our only recourse will be a constitutional amendment, Congressional repeal of Obamacare, or armed rebellion.

[Tero]

I would be OK with not buyung into Obamacare, or insurance. But you would then have to wear a bracelet: do not apply healthacre if found unconscious. Would you wear one, for the freedom?

[Warren Dew]

Unfortunately the original intent of the Commerce Clause, which was, in the parlance and understanding of the times in which it was written, intended to provide Congress with limited authority to prevent one state from imposing imposts and duties (taxes) on goods traveling through in order to FACILITATE free and open free-market commerce "among" the several states, has been severely debased by the Supreme Court. It's been turned wrongfully into an all-but-plenary power of the Congress to regulate literally every aspect of commerce, whether intra-state or inter-state, something that was NEVER INTENDED by the Founders.

I think this is being unfair to the supreme court. It was Congress that constantly abused the commerce clause, and the supreme court was only gradually worn down by those abuses.

[Warren Dew]

I would be OK with not buyung into Obamacare, or insurance. But you would then have to wear a bracelet: do not apply healthacre if found unconscious. Would you wear one, for the freedom?

I would.

[Seth]

I would be OK with not buyung into Obamacare, or insurance. But you would then have to wear a bracelet: do not apply healthacre if found unconscious. Would you wear one, for the freedom?

I would.

I would wear one saying "provide no publicly-funded healthcare, I'll pay my bill for what you do provide."

[Seth]

Unfortunately the original intent of the Commerce Clause, which was, in the parlance and understanding of the times in which it was written, intended to provide Congress with limited authority to prevent one state from imposing imposts and duties (taxes) on goods traveling through in order to FACILITATE free and open free-market commerce "among" the several states, has been severely debased by the Supreme Court. It's been turned wrongfully into an all-but-plenary power of the Congress to regulate literally every aspect of commerce, whether intra-state or inter-state, something that was NEVER INTENDED by the Founders.

I think this is being unfair to the supreme court. It was Congress that constantly abused the commerce clause, and the supreme court was only gradually worn down by those abuses.

I'll continue to blame the Supreme Court, thanks. It's their duty to be the bulwark against unconstitutional expansions of federal power, and they have been exceedingly remiss in fulfilling their duty of obedience and fidelity to the Constitution rather than personal ideology.

The fact that four Justices of the Supreme Court believe that the 2nd Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms is just one of the more recent and egregious examples of the lack of judicial qualification and ethics in the Court.

If a Justice can fail to understand the plain meaning of the words of the 2nd Amendment as the Founders intended it, then they have no business being justices of ANY court, and should be impeached and removed.

[Tero]

I think the founding fathers could use better punctuation to say things more plainly. We can just ignore them since they were too stupid to use professional editors.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

But people are mentioned. A CONFUSING TERM. It's like the Biblical stonings. You the individual are not supposed to kill, but with a couple of friends you can stone to death the breaker of Biblical laws.

[Ian]

The fact that four Justices of the Supreme Court believe that the 2nd Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms is just one of the more recent and egregious examples of the lack of judicial qualification and ethics in the Court.

If a Justice can fail to understand the plain meaning of the words of the 2nd Amendment as the Founders intended it, then they have no business being justices of ANY court, and should be impeached and removed.

The 2nd Amendment discusses the right to bear arms. Grenade launchers, flamethrowers and nuclear ballistic missile submarines are also arms; that doesn't mean that private citizens with the financial means to buy them should be allowed to do so.

And as long as "the intent of the founders" is the foundation of your principles regarding how justices should interpret the constitution, we should also discuss how liberal activists had no right to do away with the idea that votes from black men are worth 3/5ths the votes of white men - as the founders intended. Along with several other things which have strayed from the constitution as it was originally written.

Or, maybe we could just admit that 1) the founders didn't share some grand unified vision for how the country should be run in perpetuity; they compromised and played politics as they do today, 2) the founders were intelligent enough to know they didn't have all the answers and that times change, hence they made the constitution flexible enough to be amended and subjective enough to be open to interpretation by jurists hundreds of years later, and 3) the 2nd amendment was written at a time when there were no professional police forces, or even much of a standing army, and when there were wild frontiers out west. I wouldn't argue that it should be abolished, but it's certainly not as useful as it once was.

[Seth]

I think the founding fathers could use better punctuation to say things more plainly. We can just ignore them since they were too stupid to use professional editors.

You might want to download an e-book copy of "The Original Constitution - What it actually said and meant" by Robert Natelson. Available at Amazon.

In it you will find the answer to your questions. The fact is that the authors of the Constitution, who were mostly lawyers, were extremely meticulous with their use of punctuation, it's just that over the last 230 years, usages have shifted in both punctuation and language, and today most people do not understand the social, legal and lexicological context that the Founders lived in. Natelson has done substantial research on the historical roots and contemporary usages and understandings of the Founders and the Ratifiers (those who ratified the document at the state constitutional conventions) and carefully lays out a case for original intent based on the understandings of the people of the time. In doing so, he resolves all of these sorts of disputes, and does so quite authoritatively.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

But people are mentioned. A CONFUSING TERM. It's like the Biblical stonings. You the individual are not supposed to kill, but with a couple of friends you can stone to death the breaker of Biblical laws.

The operative phrase is the second clause, which states that "the" (preexisting, not granted) right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The final comma is merely a lexicological usage of the time, not determinative of the right protected.

As for your confusion, all the niggling over commas in the 2nd Amendment has (finally) been resolved by the Supreme Court, which stated conclusively that the right protects an INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms not only for militia duty, but also for personal defense.

I recommend Natelson's book most highly for further understanding of the original meanings of the Founders.

[Seth]

The fact that four Justices of the Supreme Court believe that the 2nd Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms is just one of the more recent and egregious examples of the lack of judicial qualification and ethics in the Court.

If a Justice can fail to understand the plain meaning of the words of the 2nd Amendment as the Founders intended it, then they have no business being justices of ANY court, and should be impeached and removed.

The 2nd Amendment discusses the right to bear arms. Grenade launchers, flamethrowers and nuclear ballistic missile submarines are also arms; that doesn't mean that private citizens with the financial means to buy them should be allowed to do so.

Yes, actually, it does. At the time, citizens owned rifles, pistols, swords, knives, cannon, grenades, explosives, and armed merchant vessels, all of which were protected as "arms" by the Constitution. And with the sole exception of nuclear, biological and chemical "arms," which are not "individual" arms suitable for militia or self defense use and are considered "weapons of mass destruction" and therefore outside the ambit of the 2nd Amendment, it is still completely legal to own grenade launchers (and grenades), flamethrowers, machine guns, artillery field pieces and ammunition, tanks, aircraft and boats armed with weapons and quite literally any other "arms" you can think of. The only requirements are that for "class III" arms defined under the National Firearms Act (which is dubiously constitutional and needs to be repealed), is that you file the appropriate paperwork, go through a background check, and pay a $200 tax stamp for the transfer of each machine gun or destructive device, and $5 for the transfer of "any other weapon" such as a short shotgun or short rifle. That is a TAX LAW, not an "arms prohibition" law. The .700 "dinosaur rifle" that was posted here is a classic example of the right of any person to manufacture their own arms for their own use.

And as long as "the intent of the founders" is the foundation of your principles regarding how justices should interpret the constitution, we should also discuss how liberal activists had no right to do away with the idea that votes from black men are worth 3/5ths the votes of white men - as the founders intended. Along with several other things which have strayed from the constitution as it was originally written.

Ah, but that's what the amendment process is for. The "3/5th" provisions of the Constitution were removed by the 13th Amendment.

But the 2nd Amendment has never been amended. If anti-gun proponents want to amend the Constitution to remove the right to keep and bear arms, then that's what they should propose, a constitutional amendment, which will then be ratified, or not ratified. That's the ONLY way that they can do it, however, and they have not done so. And they cannot infringe upon our gun rights using federal, state or local laws as a substitute for amending the Constitution to achieve the same objective, which is what they have been and are trying to do. At the moment, they are attempting to use the Treaty Power of the President to bind the US to international gun ban treaties that they think will make an end-run around the 2nd Amendment and effectively ban guns, or severely restrict them, without having to put it to a vote of the People.

They think this will work, but it won't, because they are relying on an erroneous interpretation of the Constitution which says that international treaties are "supreme the law of the land." Problem is, no "supreme law of the land" can override the Constitution itself. This is because the laws formulated UNDER the authority of the Constitution can never BIND the Constitution itself or the rights protected by it. The legal theory at work is that a delegated power may never be used against the power that first delegated the inferior power. In the hierarchy of US law, the Constitution, and the right of the People to amend that document, is actually the supreme and highest law of the land, and no inferior law, like an international treaty, can presume to bind the People, or the Constitution, to anything that the Constitution itself forbids or allows, or prevent the People from amending the Constitution to correct a wrong. Therefore, should such a treaty be signed, it would have no legal effect on the rights of the People of this nation to keep and bear arms, and even if the Court ruled it did, the People could simply amend the Treaty Power, or the treaty itself, out of existence, because their power to grant or revoke any authority wielded by the government is absolute and plenary.

Or, maybe we could just admit that 1) the founders didn't share some grand unified vision for how the country should be run in perpetuity; they compromised and played politics as they do today, 2) the founders were intelligent enough to know they didn't have all the answers and that times change, hence they made the constitution flexible enough to be amended and subjective enough to be open to interpretation by jurists hundreds of years later, and 3) the 2nd amendment was written at a time when there were no professional police forces, or even much of a standing army, and when there were wild frontiers out west. I wouldn't argue that it should be abolished, but it's certainly not as useful as it once was.

They certainly made it flexible enough to be amended, but they did NOT make it a "living document" that can be warped and twisted by either Congress or the Courts through "interpretation." They very clearly did NOT do so, and nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court granted any authority whatsoever to "interpret" away a fundamental right written in the Constitution or an Amendment. They DID however understand the concept of judicial review, and it is not true that, as some say, that the Supreme Court arrogated power under Marbury v. Madison that it did not have to review the constitutionality of laws promulgated by Congress. They absolutely did understand, and relied upon the Court to strike down unconstitutional LAWS that Congress passed, as a check and balance on Congress. What they likely did not anticipate is a Court that would depart from its duty of fidelity to the original intent and meaning of the Constitution in upholding clearly unconstitutional laws, like the Slaughterhouse Cases or some of FDR's Progressive intrusions on federalism.

Or perhaps they did, but assumed that the People would resist such tyranny by amending the Constitution as necessary to rectify such wrongs, since they always saw the People as the ultimate arbiters of the propriety of legislation.

But what the Court CANNOT do is to overrule an amendment to the Constitution that is duly ratified by the states. And that includes the 2nd Amendment.

[Tero]

Seth, you are a good debater, you reminds me of my college son there. But I actually don't hate any level of government so it is kind of a waste of time for me to debate.

[Seth]

Seth, you are a good debater, you reminds me of my college son there. But I actually don't hate any level of government so it is kind of a waste of time for me to debate.

How kind. Thank you. But, I feel it's rarely ever a waste of time to debate, it always ends up with me learning something new, which is always a good thing.