View Single Post
Old 03-06-2018, 10:00 PM   #134
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers View Post
Well you have twisted that around for sure, but no if Trump goes off the rails and wants to suddenly proclaim himself the next coming and the military isn't in his pocket, I suspect our neighbors, friends and relatives serving will right the ship and kick his ass to the curb, so no I'm not worried.

So you and I agree on that, as I stated in the first paragraph of my post to which you're replying here: "If not, then per your assumption about the good men and women in the military, we can assume that we don't need to be concerned about the oft proffered scenario of F-22's and the massive firepower of the federal military devastating the militia.


But if you have added a third alternative, where DJT goes off the rails, the military stop him, but then hungry for power decide to declare military law, that's my alternate #2; we are screwed and all your 38 magnums, 12 ga, deer rifles and AR-15s aren't going so save your butts.

I guess I missed this third alternative in either of your two previous posts, still don't see it in them probably because I may not fully understand what you were saying. But if there were some military coup that took over the federal government, then we would very well want the 2A to mean that individuals and militias would have the right to own and use the same weapons of war that the military has. 100 to 200 million militarily equipped combatants vs. the approximately 2.7 million in the federal military would pose a very formidable, probably an insurmountable threat to such a coup. Anywhoo, the extreme notions of individuals owning WMDs or the government sending F22's to mow down citizens is beside the primary reason for the 2A. It is meant, as is the rest of the Constitution, to be part of its structural deterrent to any thought that those in government might have to tyrannize the people. It is not meant to be some whacko saber rattling of the people in order to make government officials daily quake in their boots.

So, even if the government had to oppose 100 to 200 million armed not with military grade weapons but with AR15's and a good supply of ammunition in the combined militias, it would still be a formidable task for the federal armed forces to cover the entire U.S. loaded with 100 to 200 million armed civilian militia. And what would be left in the aftermath, if somehow the federal military "won" would be worse than a mere pyrrhic Victory. That's even provided that all in the federal forces would side with their commanders. It would be highly likely, if the people did resist and fight back, that many, if not most, would not obey their commanders and desert to join the militias, carrying and taking their tanks and planes, etc., with them. So the notion of such a coup is silly. At least at this time. That is what a tyrannically minded government would have to think about. An armed citizenry should give such a government the conclusion that stripping the people of their constitutional rights would have to be done by a political transition rather than a military one.

However, given some more "evolving" toward our acceptance of central power over individual freedom, who knows?


If the constitution were written in stone 300 years ahead of when it was written, I suspect you would still be interpreting it literary as you see those early people meant it to be interpreted.
The Constitution is not a codex of civil or criminal laws which can often become obsolete under new technological or social/cultural conditions. It is merely a structure under which the federal government works. It is a political structure, not meant to respond to specific technological or cultural advances per se, but only if they fall into the one of the broad categories of power (enumerations) that the Constitution gives the federal government the right to regulate.

It is a system designed to constrain government from oppressing individuals. It is designed to promote optimal individual freedom, not to promote or regulate individual or collective, or scientific behaviors. It is based on human nature, human proclivities to desire power to rule others by coercion. It is meant to be the most viable blueprint for protecting natural rights as well as the freedom to express those rights, to fully achieve individual potentials, to protect the market place of ideas and the marketplace of commerce. It is meant to be a means toward equality for all before the law. And it provides the means to change the structure if needed.

Human nature has not changed in 300 years. Human proclivities have not changed. What is there to be interpreted differently in our structure of government in order to still protect natural rights and the expression of those rights? And why, if the people demand it, couldn't the Constitution be amended to address a better way instead of doing so by fiat?

Difficult problems of "interpretation" usually arise when government wishes to impose regulation for which the Constitution does not give it the power to do so, and it wants to get around and beyond those constitutional limitations. In most of those cases it is a question of government reaching beyond the power granted to one of its particular branches. Honest constitutional judges would resolve such disputes simply by determining if the government claim actually fits into one of its enumerated powers which are few, but broadly worded so that any issue could be determined whether or not it fell into the purview of government power to regulate. If not, the regulation should be struck down as unconstitutional. If so, it should be allowed as constitutional no matter how unpopular it might be. The government has no rights outside of its enumerated powers. But it has plenary, basically unlimited, power within those enumerations. What more does it need unless it desires to deny individual rights in favor of gaining more power to itself?

But judges who believe that government should not be constrained, especially if it purports to do what they personally consider social good, regardless of how it affects the structure of the Constitution, and therefor how it affects individual liberties, such judges, in liaison with Progressive politicians, over time and with compounded precedent, corrupt and destroy the constitutional structure. And what is left is not a framework that protects individual rights, but a government that determines what your rights are. And those rights, under such an unstructured and basically unconstrained system, will constantly and frequently change.

So, yes. If the Constitution was written 300 years earlier and had the same structure, I would interpret it in the way it was originally composed.

Last edited by detbuch; 03-07-2018 at 09:44 PM..
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote