• Clicky Web Analytics

    Meta

  • Madison’s Introduction to the Bill of Rights

    Richard Disney | Freedom versus Security, Guns, National Politics, U.S. Constitution, individualism | Saturday, June 28th, 2008

    Hat Tip: Op-For.com

    The recent recognition by the  U.S. Supreme Court of the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right in the DC v. Heller case was a recognition of The Founding Fathers‘ original intent. The Bill of Rights was written specifically to limit the power and scope of the Federal Government and to protect individual rights.

    Nowhere is the intent of the Founding Fathers clearer than in James Madison’s original proposed wording for the Bill of Rights:

    “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.
    The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.

    The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances.

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

    No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor at any time, but in a manner warranted by law.

    No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment or one trial for the same offence; nor shall be compelled to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor be obliged to relinquish his property, where it may be necessary for public use, without a just compensation.

    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

    The rights of the people to be secured in their persons; their houses, their papers, and their other property, from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized.

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the cause and nature of the accusation, to be confronted with his accusers, and the witnesses against him; to have a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

    The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

    No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.”

    After reading the original version of the Bill of Rights one must question the judgment of the dissenting Supreme Court Justices.


    Blogged with the Flock Browser

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

    Supreme Court: A constitutional right to a gun

    Richard Disney | Guns, National Politics, U.S. Constitution, individualism | Thursday, June 26th, 2008

    The Supreme Court ruled that an individual has the right to own a gun. With that being established, one should not need a license to exercise a right.

    Thursday, June 26th, 2008 10:14 am

    Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession.Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales.

    In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washington’s strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in one’s home, and a requirement that any gun — except one kept at a business — must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place. The Court said it was not passing on a part of the law requiring that guns be licensed.

    SCOTUSblog » Court: A constitutional right to a gun

    Blogged with the Flock Browser

    Tags: , , , , , , , ,