Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: john9001 on March 04, 2003, 04:42:53 PM
-
US appeals court rules it is against the constitution to say the pledge of allegiance to the flag but it is ok to burn the flag.
the late great USA
-
Ummm... its not that its unconstitutional to say the pledge of allegance, its that it is unconstitutional to require others to say it.
MiniD
-
Bout time the Appeals court got their head out of their rears!
:p
-
Just waiting for 'em to declare it unconstitutional to force anyone to pay income tax.
-
I agree john, we should just throw out the Constitution and be done with it. It's so confusing!
-
I heard that is scheduled in 2 weeks.
Originally posted by AKIron
Just waiting for 'em to declare it unconstitutional to force anyone to pay income tax.
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
I agree john, we should just throw out the Constitution and be done with it. It's so confusing!
Hehehe...damn, that's funny.
F.
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
I agree john, we should just throw out the Constitution and be done with it. It's so confusing!
wow
-
Next thing you know they'll be throwing out the Dred Scott decision too!
-
they ruled it unconstitutional to force people to say the pledge of allegiance with the words "under god" in it, and rightfully so. Switch it back to what it was before the 1950s and it would be fine. Our country is based on freedoms and forceing people to pledge their alliegance to the the state kinda counteracts its principles. our country is so great because we the people are constantly challengeing our leaders and officials.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Just waiting for 'em to declare it unconstitutional to force anyone to pay income tax.
It is unconstitutional to force someone to say the pledge just as it is to force them pay taxes. :p
-
Homerun for the court, IMHO.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Just waiting for 'em to declare it unconstitutional to force anyone to pay income tax.
Why should it be?
Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
-
A quick note, while burning the flag is repugnant on one side, please consider that the freedom to burn a US flag is part of what makes this country great.
Most of the people who think flag burning should be illegal don't seem to have a great grasp on how important it is that liberty apply to everyone, not just the people you agree with.
-
Anyone have a clue what happened on this day in 1789?
-
On the 4th of March, 1789, the day which had been fixed for commencing the operations of Government under the new Constitution, it had been ratified by the conventions chosen in each State to consider it, as follows: Delaware, December 7, 1787; Pennsylvania, December 12, 1787; New Jersey, December 18, 1787; Georgia, January 2, 1788; Connecticut, January 9, 1788; Massachusetts, February 6, 1788; Maryland, April 28, 1788; South Carolina, May 23, 1788; New Hampshire, June 21, 1788; Virginia, June 25, 1788; and New York, July 26, 1788.
-
Americans are so cute.
Who the fediddle cares if you burn a flag.
Pledging allegiance to a piece of cloth like you would a human being doesnt make sense to me.
I dont want to insult any of my southern neighbours. But it is a flag.
Pledge allegiance to yourself, your friends, and family. (in reverse order.)
-
Maybe I'm just an oddball here...
but to me the flag is a symbol of the ideas behind America.
You know.. those same ideas that had the FD/PD folks climbing stairs while everyone else was descending them on 9/11. The same ones that brought folks out to ground zero with food and drinks for the people who were digging through the rubble. The same ones summed up in the words "Let's roll" in an airliner over PA.
Yeah... our flag is just some strips of red, white, and blue cloth sewn together, with white thread used to stitch the stars. But 'fore ya go knockin it, pause a few seconds to think about everything those bits of cloth represent. Mayhap that's why some folks get so bent out of shape when someone decides to burn it, or when others say "It's just a flag."
-
CNN - Lawmakers blast Pledge ruling (http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/pledge.allegiance/)
The 9th Circuit is the most overturned appeals court in the country and is considered by legal scholars to be the most liberal.
Don't know about this one, but would be interesting to research. Have heard similar comments on the various "news" infotainment shows.
RE: Update on Pledge (http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-chat/0206/msg01179.html)
The problem is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the most
controversial and most overturned court in the nation, indeed in all
of our history. 1 of the two judges on this panel who made this bad
ruling has had >>5<< of his cases reviewed by the SCOTUS just this
year, 4 of them overturned, 2 of those by a unanimous court!
Considering the number of cases the court hears per year is about 80,
and that there are over 45 judges just on the 9th Circuit ALONE, to
have that many decisions by one judge reviewed, and overturned, like
that, is a real sign that there is a problem in this court. His cases
alone make up for 20% of the reviewed cases from the 9th district this
year.
The entire court's track record is bad, going back many years.
Well, it'll probablyl make the SC. That's what it's there for. Not a life and death issue.. we got plenty of time.
-
A quick note, while burning the flag is repugnant on one side, please consider that the freedom to burn a US flag is part of what makes this country great.
Most of the people who think flag burning should be illegal don't seem to have a great grasp on how important it is that liberty apply to everyone, not just the people you agree with.
well said, Chairboy
-
yup
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
A quick note, while burning the flag is repugnant on one side, please consider that the freedom to burn a US flag is part of what makes this country great.
Most of the people who think flag burning should be illegal don't seem to have a great grasp on how important it is that liberty apply to everyone, not just the people you agree with.
I really can't understand why burning a flag is such a great freedom. Is it really necessary for everyone to have the freedom to express their utter contempt for their nation?
I really don't have strong feelings on the subject but I'd like to hear an explanation on why this particular freedom is so important to anyone. I'm not talking about the freedom to dissent in general, just the flag burning.
-
FWIW I think burning the American flag should be viewed as an expression of denouncing and renouncing one's citizenship. Doesn't that seem appropriate?
-
I'm pretty sure I know why many do it. That wasn't my question though. And I disagree that the flag isn't a symbol for the nation.
-
Not to belabor the point Oedipus, but why? Perhaps you already answered with your response regarding defiance of the govt and I missed it?
-
our country was founded on decent, burning your own country's flag is a sign that you are really pissed off at its current policy's. Sure there are other ways to do it, but this simple act has far more meaning then anything i could say in words. If i were to go out into the street and burn a flag alot more people would stop and pay attention then if i went onto the street and started whineing on a loud speaker. Because the flag stands for so much is the reason we should have the ability to do what we want with it. It is a tangable piece of american society that we all should have a little piece of.
and in soviet russia flag burns you!
-
Well, one problem I see with your approach to expressing your pissed offedness is that by burning the flag rather than "say in words" that which grieves you, you piss off a lot of other people for reasons you didn't intend.
Better to express yourself clearly, not only if you hope to gain support for your perceived wrong, but to avoid creating animosity against your cause you didn't intend.
Originally posted by Frogm4n
our country was founded on decent, burning your own country's flag is a sign that you are really pissed off at its current policy's. Sure there are other ways to do it, but this simple act has far more meaning then anything i could say in words. If i were to go out into the street and burn a flag alot more people would stop and pay attention then if i went onto the street and started whineing on a loud speaker. Because the flag stands for so much is the reason we should have the ability to do what we want with it. It is a tangable piece of american society that we all should have a little piece of.
and in soviet russia flag burns you!
-
your right akiron, but its a right i would fight to the death to not have taken away. Just like alot of people would with having guns taken away from them. The founders of this country faught and died for us to be able to have these rights, it would be a same if we started passing laws revokeing them.
-
Oedipus, I just thought that the ruling, if done yesterday, was ironic in relation to the date the Constitution was ratified in 1789. Coincidence? I think not.
-
Frogman, I too would fight to the death for freedom, generally speaking. But not just any freedom, I'm not interested in using women's restrooms at theaters for example. The right to voice my dissent against my government is an important one. I can do this without burning my flag which I feel stands for more than just my government.
-
when hillery is elected president , i'm going to burn the flag
-
Originally posted by john9001
when hillery is elected president , i'm going to burn the flag
I'll just quietly move to Mexico, where the government won't be as corrupt.
-
I already told you, I don't have strong feelings about it. You're the one getting "worked up" over it. But if the flag has no value then what would you hope to gain by burning it?
Originally posted by Oedipus
"but why?"
Because the flag is superficial. It's literally nothing. Burn it and it harms the US none. The very real ideals and hopes that are the basis of what the US was founded on are matter. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights are real. Guess what thoug? Burn them and the US still exists unchanged for it. IMO it's the intangibles that are more important and aso are the memory and ideals of the thousands of citizens and friends who fought to make this country what it had been which. Not a colored cotton or silk symbol.
Too bad people like you can't get as worked up about those who submit and pass sham legislation like the "Patrioit Acts." Or if you need something materialistic to get worked up over then get mad and do something about the poor state many of our monuments and memorials, to people more worthy than, us lay in. Go out and restore a plaque. Go rake up and clean the garbage around a monument.
Oed
-
it starts with flag burning laws and it ends with people being locked up for discent towards the rulling party.
-
Folks that get stuff free rather than earning it, kinda have a different viewpoint eh?
-
USA was build on ideas, such as Bill of Rights rather then symbols. Most nations on this planet don't understand the difference, but it is huge.
Symbols are meaningless, they are supposed to be a representation of the idea not an idea itself.
Thought of personal freedom is far more important then any symbol on this planet. If you don't agree with that, you should reevaluate your ideas about personal freedoms.
-
Originally posted by fd ski
Symbols are meaningless, they are supposed to be a representation of the idea not an idea itself.
Then they are not meaningless if they represent the idea. The are meaningful. Many men died for that flag that represents our ideology...its a matter of respect, a concept that is lacking in your generation of immigrants.
Edit, spelling.
-
I agree about freedom being more important than a symbol. But if the symbol is so meaningless then why burn it? Do I have the right to burn my underwear in public? (discounting the toxic fumes)
BTW, I disagree with the flag being an insignificant symbol.
Originally posted by fd ski
USA was build on ideas, such as Bill of Rights rather then symbols. Most nations on this planet don't understand the difference, but it is huge.
Symbols are meaningless, they are supposed to be a representation of the idea not an idea itself.
Thought of personal freedom is far more important then any symbol on this planet. If you don't agree with that, you should reevaluate your ideas about personal freedoms.
-
That flag, as a peice of cloth may be insignificant, but the ideas and actions that it represents are not.
These people are not burning an insignificant flag in my eyes, however. They are burning those ideas.
-
NO ONE IS FORCED TO PLEDGE ALLIEGENCE (SP?). If you don't want to, for whatever reason, and everyone else around you is, simply remain silent. No one's gonna arrest you if you do. Or, you could omit the words "...under God." if you're offended by that. But the flag of one's country is definitely symbolic of the best things about that country, and it should be honored as such. To say it's "...just a piece of cloth." misses the point, entirely. When I look at the flag of the USA I am reminded of the sacrifice made by others (some of them my kin) so I can live free in the greatest country on earth, and also so that others in other countries can have the opportunity to bash us with impunity.
-
Originally posted by Rude
Folks that get stuff free rather than earning it, kinda have a different viewpoint eh?
Huh?
The Flag does represent something..... it represents a Country with the basic idea that freedom matters. Freedom matters for everyone. EVERYONE.
Freedom don't mean squat if you only dole it out to the people who make you feel all warm and fuzzy!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Huh?
The Flag does represent something..... it represents a Country with the basic idea that freedom matters. Freedom matters for everyone. EVERYONE.
Freedom don't mean squat if you only dole it out to the people who make you feel all warm and fuzzy!
There's no freedom if we don't respect each others rights, correct? So why is it so important that someone have the right to crap on a symbol (which may be insignificant to them) that represents, among other things, that very freedom earned and kept by the sacrifice of so many?
-
So are you going to be the one who decides what is acceptable and what is not?
Or should we leave that up to Congress?
Maybe the SC?
riiiiggghhhtt.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So are you going to be the one who decides what is acceptable and what is not?
Or should we leave that up to Congress?
Maybe the SC?
riiiiggghhhtt.
You think I don't have a say in what Congress does? I'll go so far as to say that not only do I have the right to influence, if not control Congress, but I have the responsibility to do so. Of course I understand my voice is but one among millions, nonetheless, Congress should be making laws based on what we want and think to be right. Isn't that how democracy works?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
You think I don't have a say in what Congress does? I'll go so far as to say that not only do I have the right to influence, if not control Congress, but I have the responsibility to do so. Of course I understand my voice is but one among millions, nonetheless, Congress should be making laws based on what we want and think to be right. Isn't that how democracy works?
Yes it does. Which is exactly the reason the founding fathers insisted on those first 10 amendments. Too easy for the ijits in DC to vote away our rights without those 10 little rules.
-
thats the reason why we dont have a flag burning rule, because the majority of americans want to have that right even if they dont do it. just like i think we should be allowed to own guns yet i dont own one myself.
-
The constitution has been amended many times, 27 I think. So, are you saying then that the right to burn the flag is constitutional based on the right to freedom of speech? Isn't it illegal to use certain language that would incite a riot?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
The constitution has been amended many times, 27 I think. So, are you saying then that the right to burn the flag is constitutional based on the right to freedom of speech? Isn't it illegal to use certain language that would incite a riot?
You mean language like "Lets riot" ?
-
It's simple...
How do you properly dispose of a flag? You burn it.
The only difference between this and burning it on the courthouse steps is the state of mind of the person doing the burning.
So... if the only difference between the two events is attitude, we're looking at a first amendment issue.
-
How about profanity then. Are you guys aware that it is illegal in most public places? Is this any different?
-
Political "speech" is protected. The flag is obviously a political symbol.
Nuff said.
-
"Political" speech that is profane isn't protected. Many see the desecration of the United States flag as very profane.
-
Many think a mosque is profane nowadays, many think communism is profane, many think Clinton was profane. Luckily our rights are protected from what "many think".
-
Originally posted by AKIron
How about profanity then. Are you guys aware that it is illegal in most public places? Is this any different?
Things like profanity in public places are strictly state/local ordinaces/issues, as provided for in the Constitution. If a state or local municipality wants to allow profanity, it can. So, no, it's not the same.
-
How about if a state delcares it public profanity and outlaws it to publicly desecrate the national symbol?
Nice side step there MT, looks well practiced.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
How about if a state delcares it public profanity and outlaws it to publicly desecrate the national symbol?
Nice side step there MT, looks well practiced.
Not well practiced, but thank you just the same.
A strict interpretation of the 1st Amendment would actually allow a State to restrict free speech, since the 1st only disallows the federal govt from passing such laws. Luckily most States have similar Bills of Rights within their own State Constitutions.
-
Oh well, perhaps there never was any value in national pride anyhow, time (and not much of it) will tell.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
A strict interpretation of the 1st Amendment would actually allow a State to restrict free speech, since the 1st only disallows the federal govt from passing such laws. Luckily most States have similar Bills of Rights within their own State Constitutions.
Almost exactly like the 2nd!
:)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Oh well, perhaps there never was any value in national pride anyhow, time (and not much of it) will tell.
You must understand that national pride is the reason we don't want any law protecting the flag.
Once respect for the flag is mandated by law, I think few would truly respect it.
I certainly wouldn't. The day they make it illegal to desecrate a flag is the day I wipe my bellybutton with one.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
A strict interpretation of the 1st Amendment would actually allow a State to restrict free speech, since the 1st only disallows the federal govt from passing such laws.
But then the south lost and they added the 14th Amendment, so now states can't do that.
-
Just in, Aznar is rumored to decree a flag change for the Kingdom of Spain:
(http://cts.usal.es/~axis/bandera.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
You must understand that national pride is the reason we don't want any law protecting the flag.
Once respect for the flag is mandated by law, I think few would truly respect it.
I certainly wouldn't. The day they make it illegal to desecrate a flag is the day I wipe my bellybutton with one.
Don't worry Sandman, with guys like you on the job, I'm sure it will never be mandated by law.
Les
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Oh well, perhaps there never was any value in national pride anyhow, time (and not much of it) will tell.
What does national pride have to do with you being selfish?
SOB
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
But then the south lost and they added the 14th Amendment, so now states can't do that.
Thank You,
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
-
Originally posted by SOB
What does national pride have to do with you being selfish?
SOB
Are you calling me selfish SOB? You need to elaborate, I don't think I so witty as you.
-
You guys act like we don't have all sorts of restrictions governing our behavior. Furthermore, many of you that want to preserve the right to burn the flag would gladly trample a right clearly spelled out in the constitution, the right to bear arms. If it weren't so sad it'd be funny.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Are you calling me selfish SOB? You need to elaborate, I don't think I so witty as you.
I'm not trying to be witty. It just seems pretty selfish to want to take away someone else's right to protest by burning the flag just because it makes you feel bad.
SOB
-
I'm not the one that branched off into the burning of the flag being a constitutionally protected right, furthermore I don't agree that it is. As I stated, not all speech is protected by the constitution and I pointed out that obscenity and profanity in public are not guaranteed rights.
I classify burning the flag as an act of contempt in the same category as marching down main street with a sign filled with profanities. It isn't allowed, why, because it is offensive and most people (democracy remember) don't want it to happen.
If you're gonna use the constitution to defend your rights you can't be selective about it.
-
That's how you classify it. I'm not sure I'd classify it with obscene language, but I don't condone the act either. That doesn't mean it should be illegal. I doubt either of us are going to change our minds on the subject tho', so it's probably not adventageous to continue.
SOB
-
actually most people dont want an anti flag burning law akiron.
-
Like I said when I entered this conversation, I don't have strong feelings about it, same as I don't have strong feelings when I hear someone loudly say "motherdiddlyer" in a public place. Though I have told a few to watch their language if there were women or children around.
So long as I have the right to tell any amazinhunk that would burn the flag what I think of them in whatever colorful language I might choose I guess I can live with it.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Furthermore, many of you that want to preserve the right to burn the flag would gladly trample a right clearly spelled out in the constitution, the right to bear arms. If it weren't so sad it'd be funny.
SHACK!
Iron.
(Oed, that's not a "gun control" thread hijack argument, it's a highlighting of hypocrisy.)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
So long as I have the right to tell any amazinhunk that would burn the flag what I think of them in whatever colorful language I might choose I guess I can live with it.
Well, of course! :)
SOB
-
Originally posted by Oedipus
"..... we should just throw out the Constitution and be done with it. It's so confusing!"
Where have you been? That's been underway for some time now. The lack of resistance to the gutting of the Bill of Rights is thier testing the water. It's just the opening act.
Oed
These Patriot Act(s) are very scarey. It BREAKS the constitution in many ways. Yet very few show worry... Cambridge Mass. fought it, so did Portland OR.... So did many cities that still think we shouldn't allow Big Brother into our home; or allow the sniffing of our packets. Becareful not to have thought crimes .... the water these days kinda feels like 'The Commite for Un-American Activites'.
Remember it's guilty until proven innocent now!
Burning the flag and throwing a guy in jail... you'd be arresting him for a 'thought crime'.... but this is proably smoke and mirror's made to distract from the patriot act
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Not well practiced, but thank you just the same.
A strict interpretation of the 1st Amendment would actually allow a State to restrict free speech, since the 1st only disallows the federal govt from passing such laws. Luckily most States have similar Bills of Rights within their own State Constitutions.
Actually Federal Courts since 1900 have been applying more of the amendments to state governments as well, as requirements of "due process" which states must follow under the 14th amendment. Effectively these days the constitutional restrictions on state and federal governments are identical. In addition state courts are free to interpret their constitutions differently than a federal court would dealing with identical language in the US Constitution.
-
I dont understand the use of the Term "SHACK"
Can someone explain it to this dumb communist Canuck?
-
"shack" = "direct hit"
Supposedly from bombing range slang, where a small wooden shack might be the target and pilots were given their hit location by reference to the "shack", as in "6 o'clock, 100" which would be 100 feet low of target. "Shack" means... you hit the shack.
That's the way I heard it anyway.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
It's simple...
How do you properly dispose of a flag? You burn it.
The only difference between this and burning it on the courthouse steps is the state of mind of the person doing the burning.
So... if the only difference between the two events is attitude, we're looking at a first amendment issue.
Attitude and midset do matter when it comes to legal issues, otherwise there would not be stiffer penalties towards "hate crimes". Same goes to every other crime, motive is taken into account. So your argument is false.
-
Most states have laws against flag burning. But Texas V Johnson (a 1989 Supreme Court decision) ruled that those laws are unconstitutional. Now, the states haven't taken them off the books, so I guess it's still "illegal." After the Johnson decision, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which was also overturned in a Supreme Court ruling (US vs Eichman). It, as well, is still on the books. But prosecuting attorneys aren't likely to enforce those laws, so police probably won't arrest you for flag burning. But -- cops still might harass you and hold you in jail for 24 hours for being an Anti-American person. That ought not to happen, but it does.
-
Thank you Sir Toad
-
Originally posted by Toad
SHACK!
Iron.
(Oed, that's not a "gun control" thread hijack argument, it's a highlighting of hypocrisy.)
Never once advocated the overthrow of the 2nd. And legal minds seem to find plenty of gray area as to the "clearly spelled out" rights in the 2nd.
So who exactly is the hypocrit? The 2nd advocate that wants to outlaw political speech, or the 1st advocate that wants gun control?
Hello Pot?
-
MT,
Check the thread thouroughly and see if I called anyone in particular a hypocrite.
What I said was, Iron is quite right. "many of you that want to preserve the right to burn the flag would gladly trample a right clearly spelled out in the constitution, the right to bear arms".
I feel I've seen that attitude in this BBS more than once. But I did not mention any names.
If you feel it applies to YOU, well, then that would be your judgement.
As far as flag burning, I did not mention my personal views. You are making assumptions based on........ no evidence whatsoever. Which, unfortunately, does not suprise me in the least.
Toodle-pip, old chap-person.
-
Originally posted by Toad
MT,
Check the thread thouroughly and see if I called anyone in particular a hypocrite.
What I said was, Iron is quite right. "many of you that want to preserve the right to burn the flag would gladly trample a right clearly spelled out in the constitution, the right to bear arms".
IMHO... the 2nd isn't clear... It probably would be except for the "well regulated militia" part.
-
It's every bit as clear as the first and there's the historical writings of the Founder's to back it up.
But hey, that's how come lawyers drive BMW's and Benz's. They make a living twisting the meaning of words into something entirely different.
-
. Which, unfortunately, does not suprise me in the least.
And here I used to think you were even handed and non judgemental..
I guess I jumped to the wrong conclusion again.
Funny Toad how you felt the need to point out you were not the one against a flag burning law..... I didn't have you in mind at all when I wrote:
So who exactly is the hypocrit? The 2nd advocate that wants to outlaw political speech, or the 1st advocate that wants gun control?
It was really just a rhetorical question.
BTW, what exactly leads you to believe that I jump to conclusions without evidence or merit?
-
I believe the "hello, pot" would be it.
-
Originally posted by Toad
It's every bit as clear as the first and there's the historical writings of the Founder's to back it up.
That may be true of history... where is the well regulated militia today?
-
Glad you asked. However, this is the last 2nd post here. I'll gladly participate in one you start but it's not fair to deny flag burners their place to proclaim their right to flame the flag. ;)
US CODE
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > Sec. 311.
Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia
Well Regulated
Of all the words in the Second Amendment, "well regulated" probably causes the most confusion. The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989):
1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.
3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.
4) To put in good order.
The first definition, to control by law in this case, was already provided for in the Constitution. It would have been unnecessary to repeat the need for that kind of regulation. For reference, here is the passage from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, granting the federal government the power to regulate the militia:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Some in their enthusiasm to belong to a well regulated militia have attempted to explain well regulated by using the definition "adjust so as to ensure accuracy." A regulated rifle is one that is sighted-in. However well regulated modifies militia, not arms. That definition is clearly inappropriate.
This leaves us with "to adjust to some standard..." or "to put in good order." Let's let Alexander Hamilton explain what is meant by well regulated in Federalist Paper No. 29:
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- See The Federalist Papers, No. 29.
"To put in good order" is the correct interpretation of well regulated, signifying a well disciplined, trained, and functioning militia.
This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:
Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.
The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, (1989) defines regulated in 1690 to have meant "properly disciplined" when describing soldiers:
[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.
1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.
The text itself also suggests the fourth definition ("to put in good order"). Considering the adjective "well" and the context of the militia clause, which is more likely to ensure the security of a free state, a militia governed by numerous laws (or just the right amount of laws [depending on the meaning of "well"] ) or a well-disciplined and trained militia?
(From Guncite.com)
There ya go!
Now.. that IS the last 2nd stuff I'll deal with here. But I'll play in another ballpark, if ya like. Not like we haven't done this before though. ;)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
And here I used to think you were even handed and non judgemental..
I guess I jumped to the wrong conclusion again.
Funny Toad how you felt the need to point out you were not the one against a flag burning law..... I didn't have you in mind at all when I wrote:
It was really just a rhetorical question.
BTW, what exactly leads you to believe that I jump to conclusions without evidence or merit?
Suppose you meant me MT? No need to beat around the bush about it. I prefer plain speaking even if it means you calling me an ignorant moron. We're more likely learn something from someone when we are honest and say what we think/believe even at the risk of being thought stupid.
Thanks for the support Toad
-
Iron - When I said it was just a rhetorical question I meant it.
In the future I promise to take what you say at face value, if you will do the same.
And Toad, if 2 little words caused you to jump to the conclusion that I continually post without valid backup or thought than my writing skills must be incredible.
Imagine what 3 words would have accomplished?
-
Will do MT.
-
MT: I didn't have you in mind at all when I wrote:
That's what I was referring to, sorry I wasn't clear.
As to jumping to conclusions, I merely said it did not suprise me. I didn't say you continually do it, never do it or sometimes do it. Any other inference you take from there is... yours.