The Two Clause of the Second Amendment are Wedded

The Second Amendment of the Unite States’ Constitution contains two clauses that are by their nature and their presence in the same amendment, connected.

The Second Amendment is as follows:

“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.”

The first clause states that a well regulated militia is important to the security of a free state. 

Militia, in context of the early years of the forming of the nation, is a quasi-military organization of able bodied people that can be expected to either supplement a standing army in time of need or act as a defensive army against the power of the national government in an attempt to control a state.

Under the Articles of Confederation, a passage instructed individual states to identify and retain able bodied men to be part of the individual state militia and that they were to be minimally equipped with tents, field pieces and arms.

The Articles of Confederation included this line because the authors found that the length of the Revolutionary War had a damping effect on individual state militias. 

The militias lacked in able leadership, became undisciplined, individuals tended to go awal and state and local communities preferred their militia to stay either close to home or at the very least stay within the state.

During the writing of the Constitution the near catastrophic experience from the Revolutionary War and the attempted solution to the problem in the Articles of Confederation was not overlooked or ignored. 

James Madison and many legislators in the 13 colonies noted that the original Constitution that was being considered before them did not support a well regulated and properly equipped militia. 

In their own attempt to shore up the state militias, James Madison and the legislators of the colonies demanded and indeed did place in the Constitution the first clause of the second amendment, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.”

Which, of course, brings to light the definition of a “state.”     

First, the term state did not refer to individual states in general.

States, being a geographically defined area of land, were the primary organization of the country at the time and still is today.

The individual states were expected to be a balancing fulcrum for the power of the national government.

But, in this context, the term state in the time period of the country was meant to mean a political organization, that is, a country as we define it today. 

At the time “states,” meaning government, were either of two kinds; a state where the power rested in the people or were the power rested in a monarch.

A “free state”, in this context, was a country where the power rested with the people.

So, for the first clause of the Second Amendment, its meaning is that a militia that is able to muster men that are properly armed and trained is important to a free country, therefore, it must be maintained.

As for the second, it is less complicated but still connected to the first clause.

Again, back to the meanings during the Revolutionary times.  

Money was tight and the burgeoning government at the time could not always be relied on to provide the funding necessary to equip the troops properly that were fighting the English. 

It was accepted, unlike our military now, that if you had your own guns, you were encouraged to bring them for your use.  This alleviated some of the pressure on the short supplies and enable someone who doesn’t have access to their own weapons to have one.

All the guns used by the individual at the time were not military style in the way we know of them now. 

Most guns were used for hunting, or on the frontier of the country to defend against Native American’s whose land was being stolen from them by the European invaders. 

All military style weapons, cannons, mortars and howitzers, were retained by the Army and the state and local militia.

Even the guns that were owned by the military were taken back by the army or the state and local militia for storage to keep them maintained and available.

Here is the important point on this part of the second clause. 

The Constitution at the time, forbid keeping a national standing army. 

There was an understanding that the country in time of need would rely on the state and local militia to fill the void of having no army at ready till a regular army could be mustered. (going back of course to the first clause in the amendment)

So, those that were part of the militia and under its direct control were encouraged to own and maintain their weapons for use in any conflict that might arise.

So, the meaning behind the second clause of the second amendment.  That individuals that are part of the regulated militia are not only encouraged to own their own weapons, but states and local governments must not restrict their ownership for those that are part of the militia.

In my opinion, the two clauses of the second amendment are wedded. 

Weapon ownership can be restricted for those that do not belong to a well-regulated militia organized by the state or local government and the right of the federal government to set standards for the organization and regulation of the militias are not only Constitutional, but necessary.

The First Obligation of Government is the Safety and Security of its People

Governments are formed to do any number of things from mere defense to the total control of the lives of the people that fall under its jurisdiction.

The government of the United States was formed for the reasons stated in the preamble of the Constitution:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Many of the items in the preamble imply that it was formed for the safety and security of the people that live within its borders.

In fact, the Constitution was written because the legislatures of the 13 colonies sent representatives to Philadelphia to find a solution to the chaos that was developing within each state and between the states under the Articles of Confederation.

The safety and security of the states and the people living in each state was in jeopardy.

At the very beginning of the Constitution, to make the point about providing for the safety and security of the people living with in the United States’ borders, Article One establishes the lawmaking bodies; the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Also, in Article two, the executive branch was formed whose job it is to enforce the laws passed by the House of Representatives, the Senate and signed into law by the president.

In addition to the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence also clearly states that the safety and security of the people under its jurisdiction should be the primary functions of government.

It states in the opening of the second paragraph, that, “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are the primary goals of humans. 

The order of the words in the phrase are not in suspect.  It is clear, that the authors meant that their lives were of primary importance to them and to their posterity.    

What ever rights are stated in the Constitution or in the Declaration of Independence, from religion, privacy, press, voting and the right to bear arms, the primary function of the government of the United States is to enact laws that protect people from harm.  

The obligation stated in the preamble of the Constitution that the United States government provide for the safety and security of the people, translates to a right of safety and security by the people living under its jurisdiction.

Safety and security are rights greater than any other of the rights, expressed or implied, in the Constitution. 

Challenge the Courts About Restricting Guns

There are those that say we can not enact stricter gun laws because the Constitution and the Supreme Court have clearly expressed that any of these laws would not be Constitutional.

The best of these people and legislators’ site numerous cases and portions of the Constitution to support their claim.

But the same people that claim they cannot enact gun restrictions are the very same people that keep passing legislation restricting or forbidding abortions.

The Supreme Court has ruled more than a generation ago that abortions are Constitutional.

It has not stopped the various governing bodies around the country of passing legislation to find “wiggle” room in restricting abortions.

Their attempt is to challenge Roe v Wade and restrict abortion everyway possible and allow the courts to decide the law’s fate.

So, why don’t the very same legislative bodies also try to find “wiggle” room in the Supreme Court’s decision on weapons?

My thoughts are that it must be because the NRA has serious money invested in these legislators that makes it difficult to impossible for them to attempt passing legislation.

Gov. Whitmer Statement on MPART Director Steve Sliver Testifying Before Congress

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE   July 24, 2019   Contact: BrownT56@michigan.gov    Gov. Whitmer Statement on MPART Director Steve Sliver Testifying Before Congress LANSING – Today Gov. Gretchen Whitmer released the following statement commenting on Steve Sliver, Executive Director of the Michigan PFAS Action Response Team, testifying beforethe U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Environment:   “I’m pleased to see the committee focusing on this critical issue and I appreciate the continued leadership from Michigan’s congressional delegation on this evolving issue. Michigan has and will continue to be a leader in identifying PFAS contamination and holding responsible parties accountable, but we need additional federal resources to support continued testing and cleanup of PFAS in Michigan.   “Michigan has long called for the federal government to establish national standards to protect the nation's drinking water from PFAS contamination, but we can no longer wait for the Trump Administration to act. That’s why I have directed MPART to establish enforceable MCLs for PFAS in our drinking water.  "My main priority remains to protect public health by finding real and permanent solutions toensure that all Michiganders know that they can trust the water coming out of their taps.”   Gov. Whitmer Directs MDEQ To File a Request for Rulemaking to Establish PFAS Drinking Water Standards

Tariffs Are an Indirect Tax on Consumers, Not China

Tariffs are an indirect tax on consumers, despite what Trump and the GOP tell you.

When there are tariffs in place, consumer goods coming into the United States are charged a tariff. 

The tax received from the tariff goes to the United States treasury.

The retailer who purchases the consumer goods pays the additional cost that the tariff caused.

The retailer then will raise the price of the product to cover the cost of the tariff.

When the consumer purchases the product, the price includes the cost of the tariff. 

Therefore, as simple as this is, the consumer is paying for the tariff tax. 

There should be no increase in taxes, direct or indirect, without specific approval of the voters.

Since the Constitution specifies that all revenue bills are to be introduced in the House of Representatives, it is the House and only the House that should be able to raise revenues.

The Right to Know

The Right to Know

• It is vitally important to a democracy to enable all people to research the issues and receive opinions from a wide variety of sources as well as their elected officials.
• Only by knowing the details of our elected official’s position on the issues can citizens of a democracy make the very best decisions in the voting booth.
• When elected officials state their positions on the issues, everyone should be able to read, view and listen to them.
• When this position is published by a media outlet that is a paid subscription only it limits the amount of citizens that are able to be aware of the position.     
• It is my position that all publications, announcements and other statements on any issues be fully available to all citizens.

Socialism is Not a Failed Economic Policy

One of the big myths in politics today supported by the right is that socialism is a failure and that it has failed in every country that embraced it.  They give many examples of countries that a have failed in a big way.

What the right doesn’t talk about are those countries were socialism has been successful.  Take for example just a few, The Netherlands, Ireland, England, Sweden and Norway.  In any list of successful socialist countries, you must also include Israel, even if the right says it is not a socialist country.

They make sure their supporters focus on Venezuela, Cuba and a host of other failed countries. Those countries didn’t fail because their economies were based on socialism but because of the politicians and despots that managed those countries. 

The managers of those failed socialist countries were despots that were looking to increase their own wealth and the wealth of their supporters.  They were also just giving the citizens anything they wanted to win their support as opposed what is needed, that which the country was able to provide and they failed to manage their systems in an honest and practical manner. 

Another reason for their failure was the United States’ policies toward socialist countries in general and some specifically.  We cut off not only aide but also trade and business relationships. 

Cuba is a great example of the United States policies that forced the countries to fail.  Not only did we stop trade with them by preventing American citizens and businesses doing business with them, we also worked with small countries in the hemisphere that depended on the United States for a large share of their economies from doing business with Cuba.

In the end, there are successful socialist countries.  They are countries that don’t feel the wrath of the United States policy toward them and that have managed their economies in a responsible manner.

Don’t forget that when you hear the right talking about how socialist countries fail, because they don’t fail.

Note:  It should be stated here that I didn’t provide a definition for socialism.  The point of the blog post was not to provide the clearest and most precise definition of the economic theory but provide an example of the deceit of the right when it comes to socialism.