tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post263352645768062674..comments2024-03-28T04:26:30.557-05:00Comments on Boston 1775: The Constitution, the Post Office, and the FutureUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-78028323222094541432011-12-10T01:19:20.148-05:002011-12-10T01:19:20.148-05:00Mr. Bell, true, the militia clause of the 2nd Amen...Mr. Bell, true, the militia clause of the 2nd Amendment clearly shows the importance of the militia system in the minds of the Founders, and true, America "gave that system up" a while ago, but only in practice or in their faith in such a system. Legally though, as provided for in the Constitution, particularly Section 1 Article 8, the militia system still exists and can be called up and into service at any time, lawfully of course, even though we don't necessarily frequently drill in militias or have normally formed militias, and even though many Americans don't even know what a militia is anymore. Thus, if the second part of the 2nd Amendment relating to arms is read solely in the context of the militia system, while the militia system is still provided for in the Constitution and is not amended out of it, even though we don't practice the militia system in modern times, the fed. gov. can't abridge the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Thus, in order for the right to keep and bear arms clause to be null and void, again, if read solely in the context of a militia system, and for Congress to then have the authority to abridge the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the militia system must be legally abandoned by the US and amended out of the Constitution altogether. Abandoning the practice of the militia system, even on the federal level, does not equate to legally abandoning it. As long as the militia system exists within our laws and Constitution, the "right to keep and bear arms" clause remains relevant as well, and the grammaticality of the word "arms" must be considered. Here in the small city I live in in UT, the militia system hasn't been entirely abandoned in practice; we still has a city armory.<br /><br />I too can see the right to keep and bear arms present in the 10th Amendment as well, particularly if one reads the 2nd Amendment to be solely in the context of the militia system. For there are obviously and historically other uses of arms, including firearms, like hunting and sustenance, protection of property and self, sport, etc. And some of these uses of firearms are enumerated in some of the state constitutions, like in the UT constitution or the Kansas constitution for example, which state the following: <br /><br />"A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for any other lawful purpose;"<br />http://www.kslib.info/constitution/rights.html<br /><br />"The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms."<br />http://le.utah.gov/~code/const/htm/00I01_000600.htm<br /><br />In terms of whether the militia portion of the 2nd Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms applies only to those actually called into service of the militia or if it applies to every private individual as potential militia members, I tend to agree with the latter side of this debate, laid out persuasively and clearly by Leonard Levy in chapter 6 of his "Origin of the Bill of Rights."<br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Bill-Rights-Yale-Contemporary/dp/0300089015Pacificushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12058712719235762139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-11736751228704801312011-12-09T20:58:45.819-05:002011-12-09T20:58:45.819-05:00I also believe that fundamental rights aren’t limi...I also believe that fundamental rights aren’t limited by technological development, or national origin for that matter. <br /><br />I think the Second Amendment expresses the Founders’ faith in the <a href="http://boston1775.blogspot.com/search/label/militia" rel="nofollow">militia system</a>, however, and America gave that up decades back. Grammatically, that calls into question the second half of the clause. But I think an individual right to own firearms is still present under the Tenth Amendment.J. L. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15405157000473731801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-1588001926337771352011-12-09T12:50:09.802-05:002011-12-09T12:50:09.802-05:00"By the same logic, the clause of the Constit..."By the same logic, the clause of the Constitution quoted above empowers Congress to establish the service and infrastructure for Americans to exchange messages in the modern fashion—electronically and digitally. By analogy to the Postal Service, that service should reach nearly everyone and come at a minimal cost."<br /><br />One way of doing this would be to provide a number of computers with internet and email service within the post offices themselves. Of course, you have to pay for postage now as the system is, so the question is whether or not the postage charge would be "forwarded" over to the use of these computers and email services, so as to pay for the purchase, provision and maintenance of them. When I was in the Narita, Japan airport, they had computers with internet access that you could use for 100 yen per certain period of time (I can't remember the exact period of time though...). You would put a 100 yen coin into a slot, much like a video game, and the computer would allow you access for that certain period of time. This could be one way of paying and collecting the postage charge for use of the computer and internet if such a system was used.<br /><br />Also, I am one of those who not only believes that the word "arms" in the 2nd Amendment extends to today's modern firearms and other arms, as well the arms of the past, as logic and reason would have it, but I have written an article that seeks to prove such by explicating the word "arms" and giving a historical analysis of the use of the word "arms" through out history. I must note too that I myself possess no firearms, so I am not necessarily a biased individual seeking to defend my possessing of firearms. Rather, I seek to defend the right of others to acquire and possess firearms and my right to possibly acquire and possess firearms in the future if I ever deem it necessary. If any are interested in reading this article, you may do so by consulting the following link to my blog:<br /><br />http://kumozarusan.blogspot.com/2011/04/right-to-keep-and-bare-all-arms.htmlPacificushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12058712719235762139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-33420716708231002792011-12-09T09:02:29.203-05:002011-12-09T09:02:29.203-05:00Thanks for this post; I agree wholeheartedly. The ...Thanks for this post; I agree wholeheartedly. The fact of the matter is that the discussion around the post office focuses on the wrong question (i.e., how to make it profitable). As I've been trying to argue over at Publick Occurrences, and as you say here, we should be focusing instead on the public's interest in safeguarding communication in the public sphere. Government has almost entirely excused itself from this area of its responsibilities (see the FCC's view of its own role).<br /><br />I've been saying this to people for a week now, but one of our duties as historians and one of the primary ways in which we can be of use in public policy debates is to help frame the questions that policy makers ask. I'm a realist, but perhaps we can move the needle just a bit with the post office and the issue of free and open communications.Joseph M. Adelmanhttp://josephadelman.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com