On what grounds does the constitution legally exist?

John Grant 1276

Answer 1: As I understand it, the government during the time of the Civil War, decided that it was illegal to secede from the Union, as there were laws stating that once you were in, you were in for good. I agree with what David Leber said; history is written by the victors.

Answer 2: The United States of America is not a confederation of states. It is a federation of states. There's a slight difference in definition, mainly in the fact that we have a single, powerful federal government. That's what I was taught in history class.

Answer 3: The other 4 states ratifying the constitution, was it an agreement between states, or between the federal government and those 4 states? It wasn't like Delaware and Rhode Island came to an agreement on their own, for example.

I have one general response to your statements about the second amendment and rebellion. The second amendment, as you know, is to protect our homes, protect our country from foreign invaders, and also to defeat tyranny in our own country. However, like you did state, there are plenty of laws that state that rebellion is illegal. Unless you win.

Bryan Thomas 1381

the constitution (as i have learned it to be) is a set of rules and guidelines for running the perfect society. Remember America is the youngest country besides the countries that were made after WWII. Our founding fathers were great thinkers and philosophers, and studied great thinkers and philosophers. Our Constitution is the by product of there lengthy debates on how to stay a country and not be overthrown, from with out or from within. The second amendment give the people the right to defend themselves in all situations. Some people may not like guns and say they kill people. Well people enslave and conquer people. Africa didnt have guns. Most of the those countries are now own and controlled by foreign countries. The right to form a militia is the right to stop any for of overthrow if out established government or corruption of government that we deem beneficial to the society as a whole i.e. the British enslaving us with their taxes and not letting us print our own money. Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure." Guns as deadly as they are, are an effective way to make your opinion heard. Tyrants can easily take control of the military. When that happens, what are the people to do? They people of a democracy stand up and defend their home against all comers. So the 2nd Amendment is for the last line of defense when all else fails. When all else fails the people can legally stand up and defend their homes to try and restore order. The 2nd amendment is protecting self preservation. There might not be any previous cases to site, but time travel back to the 1770's and see that with out that amendment we would be a part of Britannia and not America.
Thank you and good night.

Brooke Rhodes 1749

oh dear...... well here is where it all falls down of course lol.... Ok alot needs to be said here......
A. The constitution exists because the articles of confederation....welll sucked: each state wanted to be its own country and have varying currencies which made a big mess when it came to trade and such things.....However, each state wanted to band together when it came to war, but(at that time) how were you supposed to be successful at war if no one on your side can agree whats worth what? So the founding fathers eliminated the articles of confederation and created the constitution. Then they realized "hey. this is a government of the people, shouldnt they have rights?" Hence the bill of rights.... So it want so much of an overthrow of the Articles it was more like tossing out an old used kleenex

B. Now the founding fathers greatest triumph was also their greatest mistake. They knew that society and civilization would advance(not how much nor how fast but they knew). They also knew that the constitution would have to adapt to these changes so they put in the elastic clause which was supposed to basically make those adaptations less complicated for future politicians. However, the elastic clause is misused and abused far too much. Basically, greed for $ and lust for power have corrupted a high percentage of current politicians along with the disgraceful practice of lobbyists.... The elastic clause is God to all of them. And all the constant twiddling about has caused alot of confusion as to what the constitution means...

C. Federal Government = Lust for power.... LUST LUST AND MORE LUST.... they want to have major power however how do they look to the rest of the world if afew of their states want to leave?

"article 1Section 8 clause 15 says that congress can call upon the militia to "suppress insurrections" "...... yes but that means the national guard not billy-jo and his friends from the hunting club imagine obama calling them and saying "Hey billy-jo we need some help up here"

"Article 1 Section 8 clause 17 actually provides for the "Cession of Particular States" and that session can be accepted by congress as a district"..... keyword particular.....which was undefined....which means none are in particular.... however before the civil war broke out it was basically like a boyfriend-girlfriend argument they break up and one gets vengeful.


Now to answer question 1: Timeline- Articles created, articles destroyed, constitution created....
they are seperate documents, one of which is defunct therefore niether have an affect on the other. Youre comparing apples to crackerjack boxes.

Now to answer # 2: understand where youre trying to come from but youre a wee bit confused. A confederation is a loose connection between 2 or more groups. in this case states which have all the power over the federl gov which is there mainly for show.

and # 3: they didnt impose the others just joined in bandwagon type deal.....and they probably thought nothing of it cuz they were expanding the nation....

Omair Malek 1176

jnjnbjaga

Jay Hubbard 1316

1. You know what else is a crime? Suicide! But if you commit the crime, the only way you'll be punished is if you get stopped before you complete it.

2. No, it's not 'an agreement between the states.' It's an agreement between the people within the states. The states are only divisions-of-responsibility. (You'll recall that the rebel South was known as a Confederacy.)

3. Same way Barack Obama is President over Oklahoma, even though McCain won all of Oklahoma's votes.

David Leber 1224

I love this, simply because I get to rant about how everyone is a hypocrite...

1. History is written by the victors - the American Revolution was okay, because we won and we were therefore "morally right". We won, were allowed to keep our beliefs, and therefore consider them sacred and true. Similarly, the Civil War was won by the North - therefore the North's beliefs are now canon. The militia clause does not apply because the North clearly did not feel the South was being "oppressed". Really, it's all about two different viewpoints: the South saw the Civil War as a righteous revolution, while the North saw it as a rebellion without worthy justification. I'm sure that, had the South won, we would not consider it a crime - we would consider it just as legal as the American Revolution.

2. I think that, since the Constitution was adopted by Congress, it is not technically a compact between the states. I guess this is just one of the weird little oddities that having two, semi-overlapping systems of government brings with it. Personally, I think it's just a poor choice of words, it's clear what they meant. The Supreme Court often interprets the intention of the words as well as the direct meanings - especially in Second Amendment cases.

3. This is something the drafters fudged over a little bit. According to the constitution of the time, the Articles of Confederation, all 13 states had to approve an amendment to the Constitution. The new Constitution, however, only required 9 states to ratify an amendment. So, as far as I understand it, the drafters just assumed the Constitution was already passed...in order to get it passed. However, once the drafters began work on the Bill of Rights, all the dissenting states ratified it too - the last being Rhode Island in 1790, about two and a half years after the Constitution was passed.

Jim Williams 2367

Basing my response upon the Canadian taught version of American History....

Question #1

If I recall correctly it was only the British Parliament, and its supporting militia groups, that considered the Civil War a crime. The original intent of the second amendment was to allow the people to police their own districts as well as be at the ready to support their Government if the need arises. Until the Federal Government established an unlimited Federal Military and Navy, in 182...something ( I'm may be wrong on the date) , the militia was the countries military and Police.

Question #2

Since the Constitution was/is designed for the entire nation as a universal policy I'm not certain it was considered to be an agreement or compact. Would it not be Federal policy? and if you wanted in.. you went along.

Question #3

I believe the "contract" would be with the United States and not an individual State which would nullify the preventing clause(s). This one I definitely can't answer factually as I did not know all the States were not involved in the ratification of the Constitution. It could simply be that the 4 other States were eager to comply with what ever was decided as long as they were part of the whole. Just a thought.

On a personal note, as with every thing the militia had its purpose and time. That time has passed with the formation of State and Federal agencies that have taken the roles of the militia. Americans will hold onto and fight for their rights under the second amendment...lets face it... it's kind of a trademark ideal that is internationally known. The right to bear arms gives the people the feeling of personal security even if their obligation under the second amendment could have them drafted into service...but highly unlikely.

Once again, just a Canadian's opinion. :)