Bill of Rights As Intended?

Question

Was the the Bill of Rights intended to apply to each state just as it is intended to apply to every citizen?

Maybe a well regulated militia coudl be a State armed force under regulations of the Federal government as a sort of checks and ballance thing. Has it been missused?

Answer 1

The bill of rights was added because the Founders feared that those items not specifically being enumerated could theoretically allow the Federal Government to usurp the sovereignty of the individual people and states. See the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Interesting that the Founders fears were right on. Unfortunately they didn't see how the Commerce Clause could be abused in the way it has.
The intent of the way the system was supposed to work was the people are the ultimate sovereigns, with the States having less power though with their own sovereignty, and the Federal government having the least amount of power and only serving in a general national interest capacity and mediator between states.
It was generally accepted that the US Constitution was/is Supreme Law. Though it's been debated in the courts as to whether the amendments are a restriction on the Federal Government or do they also apply to States. More recently this argument has been settled by citing the 14th Amendment.

As to the militia, the intent was that the people were/are the militia as another fear of the Founders was a standing army under direct Government control. Today it is argued that the State National Guard is the militia. This would considered, I believe, in the wording of the founders as the regular militia. Though maybe not strictly as the control of a regulated militia would be by the State, not Federal Government. The philosophy was that the people should be armed and there should not be a standing military force under the control of the Federal Government. Thus the people could effectively defend themselves against the government or retake their own government by force if necessary due to the government becoming it's own creature and operating outside the best interests of the people.
That philosphy hasn't seemed to work too well apparently. Do you think the government is afraid of the people or is it the other way around?


"The Constitution shall never be construed ... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
-Samuel Adams

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people"
-Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

"The practical and safe construction is that which must have been in the minds of those who framed our organic law. The intention was to embrace the 'arms,' an acquaintance with whose use was necessary for their protection against the usurpation of illegal power - such as rifles, muskets, shotguns, swords and pistols. These are now but little used in war; still they are such weapons that they or their like can still be considered as 'arms' which the [the people] have a right to bear."
-STATE v. KERNER; 181 NC 574, 107 SE 222, 224-25
(North Carolina Supreme Court, 1921.)
"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."
-Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session (February 1982)

Answer 2

That is how it was originally. There was fear of a standing army. States had militias, and in times of need these forces were call together by Federal Government. Best part when the threath was over the Federal srmy was disbaned. Interesting description of system in book America's Constitution by Akhill Reed Amar.

Answer 3

Why would you believe that the word "PEOPLE" means one thing in one section of the Bill of Rights and something else in another?

The 1st Amendment states in part "Congress shall make no law abridging the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO PEACIBLY ASSEMBLE" and we know that PEOPLE means individuals.

Why would you think that, in the 2nd Amendment "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means a militia or a government. Did the word PEOPLE change meaning between 1 & 2? or are you just another straw-grasping anti-gun-nut?

PS: Use the spell checker.

Answer 4

No. All of the amendments in the bill of rights apply directly to the rights of individuals. I suggest you do some follow-up reading on the subject. However, I will leave you a grammatical illustration of the Second Amendment:

A well educated populace, being necessary to the success of a free nation, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.

From this, who would suggest that only well educated people had the right to keep and read books???

Answer 5

actual...The rights of privateness are defined interior the rights of movements and property by ability of the bill of Rights. privateness does no longer needed mean, although blanketed, the appropriate to disguise in a nook and not be afflicted by ability of every person. The rights of privateness is defined as to what and how the government insures your rights of movements taken by ability of you as a individual. the appropriate to elect your guy or woman morals or faith, speech and the click are as lots a top to privateness as somebody locked in his abode with the door close. As John Stewart Mill, member of British Parliament interior the 1860's as quickly as exclaimed, "your rights end on the top of my nostril". And that top of privateness and the exercising thereof has been the philosophy of the U.S. superb courtroom for a large style of the twentieth century formerly. with out that "top of privateness", we'd be living under a dictatorship and not a central authority "of the individuals, by ability of the individuals and for the individuals".

Answer 6

it was intended to apply to the whole U.S. At that time it was only applying to white males because that's wehn people were ignorant and lessened people's value because of stupid things.