Deliberately different. - Reader comments at The New York Sun

77F

Hi 85F
Lo 70F

Recent Blog Posts

Reader comment on:
Clue for the Court?

Submitted by Professor Joseph Olson, Nov 26, 2007 12:22

The Second Amendment is deliberately different from the Massachusetts constitution regarding the very phrase you mention. On September 9, 1789, the US Senate specifically rejected a proposed amendment that would have added the words "common defense" into the Second Amendment after "arms." This rejection precludes any reading that the right of the people was restricted to those acting in "common" by serving in the militia or otherwise under government control.

As James Madison repeatedly made clear, the Bill of Rights, if adopted, would thwart the passage of proposals aggrandizing state powers, not reengage the battles won by the Federalists in the original Constitution. The Second Amendment therefore does not restrict the military power fully allocated to the Congress (and removed from the states) as set forth in the militia clauses of Article I, section 8, clauses 15 and 16. The Second Amendment doesn't re-empower the state militia, it merely preserves the infrastructure from which a citizen militia can be drawn, the armed citizen. The "right of the people" to own and use weapons was preserved, there is deliberately no mention of any new "right of the state." Like all the other "right[s] of the people" in the Bill of Rights, it is a meaningful individual right. Yours, mine, and ours but not the state government's.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.

Other reader comments on this article

Comment	By	Date
Of course, the state and federal constittions are not the same document, but Maine's would be hard to misinterpret with... [MORE]	isirajo	Nov 27, 2007 20:54
John Adams, author of the Massachusettes Constitution, and its included Declaration of Rights, wrote in Article 1: "... the right... [MORE]	jcr	Nov 27, 2007 15:41
As a Jewess in the US, I just want to ask: Shouldn't we ALL put our precious 2nd Amendment FIRST?... [MORE]	Wendy Weinbaum	Nov 27, 2007 13:20
Ultimately,the Supreme Court gains nothing by re-reading the Massachusetts State Constitution. Their source document for consideration in this case is... [MORE]	terry albertson	Nov 27, 2007 09:59
i've pushed the answer on every person i know,the n.r.a.,glenn beck and my state's elected offices.i found the answer.this case... [MORE]	scott cockrell	Nov 27, 2007 04:35
I believe the Founding Fathers meant, "What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them... [MORE]	John Ebanks	Nov 26, 2007 23:04
The U.S. Senate actually debated adding "for the common defence" to the Second Amendment, and chose not to do so.... [MORE]	Clayton E. Cramer	Nov 26, 2007 13:32
If the framers of the constitution wanted to protect only an armies right to bear arms, there would be no... [MORE]	brokenbarrel	Nov 26, 2007 12:34
The Second Amendment is deliberately different from the Massachusetts constitution regarding the very phrase you mention. On September 9, 1789,...	Professor Joseph Olson	Nov 26, 2007 12:22
Everywhere in the articles, people means just that, PEOPLE. There were no standing militias, only farmers and storekeepers running to... [MORE]	chuck higgins	Nov 26, 2007 08:53