Quick Thoughts: Do not desire power you do not want your opponents to use against you

These past couple weeks, Washington has been rocked by numerous reports of potential improper use of power by the Government at the IRS targeting certain political ideologies, Department of Justice seizing records of the Press, the admittance that drone strikes have killed US Citizens without due process or were accidental and accusations of false reports to the People and Congress in regards to these and others events.

I am working on a couple of these and how they relate to the Constitution so I will not go into detail about them at this time, rather I do want to make a quick point about one other troubling aspect to me. It is those who are defending the accusations themselves as being "legitimate", not denying that they occurred. In other words it is "okay" for Government to target certain political positions it does not agree with or government sees as a threat, it is "okay" for government to seize records with out the required due process the press is safeguarded under by the First and Fourth Amendments because of "National Security". It is "okay" for Government to deceive or mislead the people to protect information, regardless if the revealing of that information has any actual effect in policy or safety.

My question to those who contend it IS "okay" for Government to do this, would you feel confortable to have the opposing side in power and use those same powers tactics or methods against those it opposes, being you? For me this is the simplest and most effective way to determine what the limit of ANY government power should be. Would you feel at ease, or under duress if those who oppose you had that power to use against you? If you cannot answer yes, then it is a power NO GOVERNMENT must ever have. If the power is available to Government, those in power may not use it today against the people or its adversaries, but history has proven someday someone will come along who will. The goal for a free people should be, to NEVER let government have that power in the first place, and when it tries to seize it, NOT defend those actions, but even if you oppose who it is being used against, speak out against those who wield it. Because if you do not, one day you will be on the other side of the table and by not speaking when it first happened, you have already condoned not only the power, but that acts to come at your expense.

A More Powerful Government (Quick Thoughts)

This is an article I plan on diving much more deeply into in the future. In many of my discussions I have with people about the Founding Principles of the Constitution, one of the most common things I hear is something along these lines,

“The Founders wanted a strong central government because the Article of Confederation proved a weak one can’t work”.

With the exception of one word in this context, I happen to fully agree with the statement, the word “strong” instead of '”stronger”. No matter how you word it or state it, it is this concept and the difference between Strong and Stronger in this context that makes the World’s difference in the discussion. To often in my opinion, many who favor a very strong Federal Authority are the ones who use the word strong and use it with the Founder’s in this context to justify their position of a more absolute Federal power.

Voter Rights and Checks (Quick Thoughts)

For starters I have to apologize to all for not having posted anything in some time. I do hope to post more often again, life as we all know at times can get rough. But now onto the point of this post.

Much has made the news in recent months about voting rights and voter verification as many states have adopted or are enforcing Voter ID checks to the dismay of many. This is not going to be so much as a complete Constitutional analysis or opinion but rather from the perspective of Liberty and Integrity, and is something I touched base on a couple years back.

Role of the Supreme Court (Quick Thoughts)

Today I was watching a news show, and the discussion was the potential retirement of Justice Ginsburg in 2015. During the commentary, one comment from a pundit really caught my attention in regards to the Supreme Court. He was discussing how the 2012 Presidential Election will have a significant impact on the Court pending the winner in the General Election in November. It was the comment at the end, not so much the philosophy or jurisprudence that struck me. He said, "One of the most important things an Executive will do is nominate to the Supreme Court", this I do not disagree with. It was the reasoning that I do, because he stated after this, "The Supreme Court decides who gets equal Rights", and then proceeded to state how one candidate should "Scare the hell" out of the people if he were to win, the latter being besides the point.

The role of the Supreme Court is NOT to decide who gets equal rights, this is already addressed in multiple places on who does.

The Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

14th Amendment

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.

Whose liberty comes first?(Quick Thoughts)

Much news has been made in regards to the recent policy of requiring all employers to provide health insurance covering contraception, including religious organizations who may have faith based objections to such services. This presents the question of "whose liberty comes first"? Does the Church’s freedom of religious expression come before the individual?

Fourth Amendment Victory (Quick Thoughts)

Today the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) rules law enforcement agencies may not track your privately owned vehicle with a GPS device, unless authorized by a warrant. The decision was unanimous and correct. For starters the Fourth Amendment was designed as a method to prevent the government from intruding into the private matters or property of individuals or groups unless proper cause could be justified BEFORE hand in a warrant, not the other way around.

To often the Bill of Rights has been viewed as the limit of individual or group rights, defining the limit up to what government can do, but it was not designed to do this. The Bill of Rights was designed to specifically prohibit certain actions to further limit what government may do. The Federal Government was bound by certain limits in the Constitution, and a strong argument against the Bill of Rights was that it may end up expanding Government powers, by claiming what was not specifically protected, such as this case. (see Bill of Rights or limitations).

Even though the exact specification of tracking citizens is not specifically prohibited by name in the Fourth Amendment, the concept of it being prohibited is. A person or group CAN NOT be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects if every move that person or possession is tracked. You vehicle is your effect, and you are guaranteed to be secure in it from unwarranted searches or seizures. By monitoring its every move in such a manner it is to make the effect and person unsecure from the government, effectively a search of the effect and person.

Not only is government prohibited from warrantless searches and seizures specifically in the Fourth Amendment, but this also has Ninth Amendment implications as well, that to be free from government monitoring is one of the "other rights retained by the people". This Amendment was designed to prevent such a move by the government that usurps the intention and motivation of the Bill of Rights, to protect every right retained by all people not just those specifically cited in the previous eight Amendments.

Corporations are not people, but that is irrelevant: (quick thoughts)

As we all know there is a new set of protests going on throughout the country the Occupy Wall Street movement. Now I will not get into the politics of these protests, but there is one sign in particular that caught my attention "corporations are not people". The reason this one caught my interest is the implications that it appears to be presenting, that corporations do not deserve the same protections as an individual. While they are not an individual they do have protections.

In regards to Constitutional rights  whether  we are talking about individual or corporation is irrelevant. The reason for this is the Constitution makes no distinction between an individual or a corporatio in the protection of rights. The Constitution, mainly the Bill of Rights, only list prohibited actions by government, not who or what is protected it lists  and this is what is of  importance. For example the First Amendment states the following "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the   government for a redress of grievances". The First Amendment makes no distinction or even specifically says who speech, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble or grievances are protected, it only states Laws cannot be made to limit it. tThe one thing that needs to be kept in mind is the Bill of Rights is not listing what people's rights are, it is listing additional  prohibitions to government specifically Congress. The Bill of Rights is not a list of what people's rights are, it is a list of very specific protections, it is a list of further limitations on government.

Is Speech always Free? (Quick Thoughts)

As an unapologetic proponent of Natural Rights which includes the inherent right to Freedom of Speech, it may be a surprise to learn that this is not a 100% Freedom in all situations, it does in fact have limits. But where and when those limits occur must and can only be finite and very limited themselves, and are only on location and not context.

Recently in California 10 students were found guilty of "disruptive speech" (from Foxnews.com), when they attempted to speak over the Israeli Ambassador to the United States while speaking at California University. The charge and court decision here are correct in this case. The main reason why these students did not have protected speech is the forum. Even though the Ambassadors speech was open to the public, the speech itself was not in the public domain, rather a controlled area or setting. This distinction is where the line of Freedom of speech ends, the Public Domain and NOT the Public Domain.

The Public forum is where Freedom of Speech is and ought to be absolute, the town square, parades, assemblies outside or around government facilities, the press or other writings, this is the public forum. What is not the public forum is privately controlled or reserved for another purpose, such as your house, your yard, a sports stadium, or another facility that distinctly separates it from the open public, such as a lecture room at a college. It does not matter who owns the property, it CAN be government owned but still not be in the public domain, meaning freedom of speech can be limited.

Perception should not mean a rush to judgment (Quick Thoughts)

For anybody who knows me, they would certainly know I am a huge Hockey Fan, and an avid follower of my team, the Chicago Blackhawks. In fact, I probably spend too much time following the NHL and the Blackhawks, I can routinely be found chatting about the Blackhawks or watching their games, even during the hot month of July.

But it was an incident away from the Hawks, but on the ice that catches my attention today, or really the aftermath of the event more so. On Thursday September 22, 2011 a preseason exhibition game took place between the Detroit Red Wings and Philadelphia Flyers in London, Ontario, a neutral site not uncommon in preseason action. The game was tied at 3-3 after the end of regulation and through a 5 minute overtime period, resulting in the game finishing with a shootout. The shootout consists of one skater trying to score a goal against the goalie, with no other defending players on the ice, it is a penalty shot, one shooter and one goalie. The team that scores the best out of three attempts wins the game, or sudden death if extra rounds are needed.

Original Argument (Quick Thoughts)

I really do not like endorsing or encouraging people to purchase things, I would prefer them to choose on their own, and most references I use are free on the public domain. But this one I will, Glenn Becks "Original Argument".

This book takes the Federalists or more commonly called "The Federalist Papers" and adapts them from the 18th Century to the 21st Century. The Federalists were written by James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton from 1787-1788 to the people of New York in support of the proposed Constitution. This was the first and original complete argument for the Constitution from beginning to end.

Two of the three authors, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were delegates and signers at the Constitution Convention of 1787. John Jay were New Yorkers while Madison was from Virginia and was asked by Hamilton to assist in this project. They used the pseudonym "Publius" in their writings to the people of New York, with 85 essays being printed over the course.

The Federalists explained the Constitution, its objectives, what the meaning of nearly every part was meant to be, what powers belonged to what body, the Federal or State Governments or the People. They countered arguments against the Constitution, and in the end helped persuade the New York Convention to ratify the Constitution on July 26, 1788.

The Federalists are one of the most important pieces in understanding the Original Intention AND Meaning of the Constitution during the era of ratification and the granting of power to form this Federal Government. Various papers and resources exist from the era which also contribute, but perhaps none are more widely known than those of the Federalists. They are cited in Supreme Court opinions, are cited by scholars, historians and Constitutionalists. Even though written over 220 years ago, their value has not diminished, because very documents have such a direct and complete connection to the Constitution and what it meant to the people, then the writings of the Federalists.

But the contemporary problem with the Federalist Papers is to fully understand them, it requires a lot of cross referencing or prior knowledge to understand some of their analogies or how they relate them to certain situations. With out understanding all these parts, some of the argument can easily be lost and even confusing.

This book takes the Original Argument, and adapts it using today's references and language so the cross referencing and prior knowledge is not as required, but the goal is the same. It makes the argument for supporting the Constitution as it was understood in the 1780's. This is a good read, but do not substitute it for not reading the actual Federalists, use it as a companion, and make up your own mind if the Original Argument was correct.

Amazon link to the Book

http://www.amazon.com/Original-Argument-Federalists-Constitution-Adapted/dp/1451650612

American Protections of the accused (Quick Thoughts)

A series being run by the National Geographic Channel is called "Locked up abroad". Perhaps you have seen an episode or two, and if you have not I would encourage you too. It is not necessarily the often harsh conditions seen in foreign penal systems, even by other modern western countries, but it more the stark differences between the protections we afford to the accused compared to these stories.

Whether the story is taking place in Peru, Japan, Spain or some other nation, I often find myself while watching these hour long episodes focusing on what we take for granted here in the United States, and experiences of others who are not protected like we are here. Many times the individuals the subject of the show are actually guilty of some crime, but some happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is often times too easy to condemn people we see on TV accused of heinous crimes, with what we are shown by the media. But even in these instances these people the public condemns have the same protections as any other person in our criminal system, regardless if they are guilty with massive evidence against them or the wrongfully accused.

Signing with Autopen: Quick Thoughts

Today the President signed an extension on the Patriot Act using a device called autopen (the merits of the Patriot act are not of concern here, only the circumstances of its signing). The reason for this is, the President was in Europe at the time the bill was approved by Congress and ready for a the Presidents signature. According to Article I Section 7 regarding the passage of bills into Law it states:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.

Article I Section 7 also states:

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Quick Thoughts: The Bill of Rights does not enumerate the People’s Rights!

 

On May 17, 2011 a Federal District Court Judge made a ruling that caught my interest, not the subject itself completely (though the subject still did catch my interest) but rather the rationale in the decision made. This decision was not based directly off of the Constitution itself for what it says, but rather off of previous courts decisions alone, using stare decisis. As I discuss in an article of stare decisis, stare decisis is prudent provided it used properly and in the correct manner and this is not a situation in which it was, by the Judges own admission in his opinion.

The background of this case concerns concealed weapons, the actual subject of the case is of actual little matter to my opinion here, rather it is his jurisprudence that I will examine. Yolo County CA banned concealed weapons, and a challenge was brought against the County citing 2nd Amendment protections.

The plaintiffs (contending the ban was unconstitutional) argued the same manner of interpretation should be applied to the Second Amendment as is the First Amendment (it is to protect maximum freedom of the subject). The Judges response to this was,

The Court sees no reason to analogize rights under the Second Amendment to those under the First, as plenty of case authority exists to provide a clear framework of analysis to facial challenges, without poaching precedent from another Amendment’s framework.

Quick Thoughts: Government run Anti-Rumor Agency

Recently Former President, Bill Clinton suggested their should be a United States or United Nation run agency for the purpose of debunking malicious rumors. This may sound good too some, but may also present a very troubling scenario. A Government run anti-rumor Agency would be one where the State is set up to be the sole source of “legitimate” information, and other sources or information that may be counter to this would be by default, treated as non-credible to the public. Leaving Government as the sole holder of what “truth” is regardless of the situation or scenario can only result in the State declaring what is valid and what is not. When Governments do this regardless of the motivations, this IS nothing more than propaganda.

If a story or source or information is critical of the government, and the government has declared itself as the final legitimate holder of truth, this presents a ways and means for governments to prevent and disregard potential legitimate concerns, ideas or questions of any subject. It would be nice to be able to trust a government to be prudent and proper with this responsibility, but history has a long dark history of this NEVER being the case, including the United States.

No one person, group, organization, government or nation should ever be able to declare a monopoly on what truth is. It is fine for government to present its facts or information in the public discourse, but these facts and information should ALWAYS be subject to public scrutiny, with no one place having the power to declare any questions regarding it as “rumor” and that to carry the public confidence in the form of a government agency.

The free flow and scrutiny of information from all sources and places must never be inhibited, and NONE should ever have a monopoly or the power to have a final say in “truth”. In a free society, there will be rumors, there will be misinformation, and there will be twists of what facts are to suit a specific purpose. But as long as all the information is available to all the people, with no single place having ANY authority to declare what “fact and truth” is, the people are better informed and are much better suited to decide on their own what the actual truth really is.

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpps/news/clinton-wants-internet-rumor-debunking-agency-dpgonc-km-20110514_13204832

Quick Thoughts: Free Speech must be protected, even when offensive.

Today the Supreme court handed down an 8-1 ruling that protests in conjunction with funerals is protected under the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Though what the protestors may say, and the message they convey may be of the most offensive and insensitive and done at the most inappropriate times, speech no matter how offensive, insensitive and ill-timed must always be protected. Standards of the protection speech in public must never have limits, except for the those that directly endanger the public, like screaming “fire” in a movie theater, or directly advocating the physical harm and immediate of someone. But no limits should ever be placed on the “decency” of speech because if limits are placed on it, it leaves the standards to the whim of man. If the standards of decency where left to what a person feels is “decent”, this leaves open the ability to limit speech of political nature. What one considers as essential political speech and something that needs to be brought to peoples attention, another may find indecent. Only one entity would have the ability to decide what is “decent”. By allowing government to decide what is decent, it opens the door to give government the ability to suppress or outright prohibit speech which is critical to government or policy.

The free expression of opinion should always remain absolute, subject to no test of decency. In this time of a very polarized electorate, neither side should be able to deem what of the opposing side is or is not “decent”. Only in an environment of the free exchange of all ideas can the people be the most informed, limiting any point of view is to deprive the people as whole of an avenue to, One: express their views, and Two: hear other or opposing views.

Speech can generate the full spectrum of emotions, and can be extremely powerful. We may enjoy hearing the good and what we like in speech, but remember this speech will be offensive or disagreeable to others. Wrongs cannot be righted if speech is limited, since many times when the wrongs of society are first addressed it was considered “offensive” to discuss it. A society can only be as just and free as its speech is, no matter how many it offends. When a society limits speech, it is limiting its own freedom, and also one of the most critical methods of correcting itself, by addressing the offensive things that occur in a society.

Quick Thoughts: Lawmakers abandon their post.

"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States…" an oath many have recited, whether in the Military, Law Enforcement, or Public service. The oath mean different things to all, but this phrase is clear you will follow what law tells you to do, support it and defend it. The reason it is an oath is to symbolize your support for what it stands for, it is you giving your word, your honor and your integrity that you will support, defend AND follow it.

The United States is not a direct Democracy; in fact many of the Founders considered a "true democracy" as evil and instead presented a Republic. A Republic where the people chose who will represent them in government, whether Town, county, State or National according to the governing Constitution and Law. But with this the States are required only one thing in their government, that it be a Republican system as required by Article IV Section 4, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government".

What this means, is the people chose those who will be our collective voice in the matter of the creation of Law in the Legislature. Laws must be made pursuant to the US Constitution, and State as well if a State body, but it is the legislature who has the sole role of making law, and act as the direct representatives of ALL the people collected.

Today in Wisconsin, an entire delegation of State Senators vacated not only their Chamber for a scheduled vote according to the Laws of the State, but these members left the State entirely. By doing this, the Senate cannot meet quorum to carry on ANY business at all of making, altering or cancelling law. This was done in protest to a bill they were opposed to, and successfully prevented the measure from being voted upon. But by doing this, this group of 14 people has denied an entire State its ability to carry any business into effect that awaits their action. The people of Wisconsin have properly elected their members of the Legislature, and their will is expected to be honored.

The people of Wisconsin like the rest of the United States are guaranteed a working republican government that will honor and fulfill their office. By abandoning their office, they have abandoned the people of Wisconsin, and have violated their oath.

These Senators oath is to "support…the Constitution", which includes the guarantee of a Republican government, and these Senators have willfully accepted the office for this role. By abandoning their office, they have prevented the State of Wisconsin from deciding on a measure according to law, by a violation of their oath, position and honor to both and denying the Representation of all from Wisconsin.

I understand why they did this as a sign of protest, but their official position in office does not provide for this type of protest. The type of protest they have available is by speaking on the floor of their chamber without fear of reprisal on incrimination, and by the vote they cast on a measure, NOT to prevent the lawful vote on the measure. Republicanism means one side has too lose, but it would endanger the entire structure of our Republic, if all the entire minority voting block has to do is abandon their position, to prevent a vote from taking place.

These Senators job is to represent the People of their jurisdiction in Government. This requires them to be present, to speak to persuade, and to Vote. By denying a vote, an elected official is denying the entire State population their Representative to do the same and represent their constituent's, interest and denies all their Constitutional Guarantee of a republican form of government, and the Senators in the end are violating their oath to ensure it.

At times in a Democratic Republic you will lose votes, you will lose votes on things very important to you, but it is never acceptable to deny all the people their right as well to be represented.

The integrity of the Republic and honor of Office and Oath must be paramount, it cannot be compromised. If it is compromised, it is the authority of the people in the end who is soiled. This cannot be tolerated, this shifts our form of government from one of the rule of law, to the will of man.

Nullification or Justified Defiance? (Quick Thoughts)

Being an Originalist I am flatly opposed to the traditional concept of Nullification, that being a State ignoring or dismissing a Federal Law, Statute or other act or power, because that state does not like that law, act or power. The most significant issue with nullification is, the Constitution and Federal Law of the United States is superior to that of the States. The Supreme Court has ruled that the States cannot nullify Federal Law, since it is given supremacy over State law by the Constitution.

Article VI of the Constitution States;

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land”

Idaho is preparing to pass a law which will prohibit the enforcement of the Health Care Reform act of 2010¹. What makes this interesting compared to traditional nullification is it is not because the State does not like the law (though it probably does not like it), but because the State of Idaho contends the Law in illegal or Unconstitutional. The State is contending it cannot be made to enforce an illegal law, which brings up the question, is this nullification or justified defiance and checking an abuse of power?

This will certainly quickly head to the court system, but what any decision by the courts will hinge on is this part of Article VI, “which shall be made in Pursuance thereof (of the Constitution)”. If a law is not made in pursuance to the Constitution, it cannot be enforced so it cannot be supreme. This will also a explore the order of power, since it was the States who granted the power the Federal Government has, are they also not ones to be judges an abuse of the power given? The States can challenge in federal Court, but that is both expensive for each issue, and can take years to resolve making it prohibitive for many things. Could this be an appropriate method to check federal power when laws are passed without regard to its constitutionality and just passes what it wants relying only a court to say, “your out of the box”. This concept of Idaho from first take does not prohibit a challenge and ruling against the State either, nor does it permit a State to disregard a valid law.

This is a topic that can be explored in great depth in many other aspects, but this is just a quick first impression of the most significant constitutional and power structure parts of it.

1: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/20/AR2011012005860.html

Censorship or regulating Speech is never the answer. (Quick Thoughts)

I wrote a while back about Political Venom, how the political scene is so polarized honest debate has been left behind, and the common tactics is insults to the opposing view instead of a debate on the merits of an issue.

Now there is a move to re-institute the Fairness Doctrine among other calls in some form to regulate speech some consider as “hate” or incite full”. This is NOT THE ANSWER to the problem. I am not sure what is the answer, other than stopping the insults and lets talk about the issue, but limiting speech is limiting ideas and debate where it exists.

The only way any sort of regulation can be achieved with force is by the Government, the First Amendment was designed specifically to prevent this, to NOT LET GOVERNMENT decide what can and cannot be said. If government is given the power to censor or limit speech it finds offensive, obscene, hateful, incite full or by other prescribed method, government has been given a mechanism to limit or prevent speech which may not be in its interest and prevent it in one of those names. This gives a means to prevent or limit the strongest dissent of government, which in contrary to the Constitution, American spirit and the American Founding, which were all based on the Strongest dissent of Government.

Limiting or censoring speech can only have one certain consequence, the exchange of ideas and debate will be limited, and limited debate cannot lead to the possibility of the best answers to the questions the Nation faces.

The Founders and Gun control

I read today Justice Breyer stating the Founder wanted Gun Control ( http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/12/breyer-founding-fathers-allowed-restrictions-guns/ ) His contention is regards to Madison whom he states as saying, "was worried about opponents who would think Congress would call up state militias and nationalize them. 'That can't happen,' said Madison,". Justice Breyer's assertion is that Madison was only wanting to get the Constitution ratified (Madison was very concerned about this) and he was willing to do what was needed to do it (This slaps history's senses in the face).

Their are two huge problems with Breyer's assertion.
1. Madison initially felt the Bill of rights was unneeded. So if we are to use Breyer's logic, should the whole Bill of Rights be disregarded because Madison did not believe it was needed? Madison became the Father of the Bill of Rights (with George Mason), not because he believed them necessary, but because both his State REQUIRED it for their approval of the Constitution, as did several other States.

2. One man did not Ratify the Bill of rights. Even though he was very instrumental in the drafting, it still took 2/3 of each brach and 3/4 of the States to Ratify them. It matters what THEY felt they meant, not just a sole person.
Breyer also makes one more point, the single biggest which I think leads to the dismissal of his assertion, "Founding Father James Madison was more worried that the Constitution may not be ratified than he was about granting individuals the right to bear arms". Only a pragmatist who is willing to view the Constitution not for what it is, but what he thinks it should be, would ever think for second, that the Founding Founders thought they were granting the People any Rights, instead of what they were doing, which was Granting Rights Already solely possessed by the People to Government, for the sole purpose of protecting ALL of their rights.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/12/breyer-founding-fathers-allowed-restrictions-guns/#ixzz17vmxYmCK

House of Representatives Reapportionment

With the 2010 Election winding down, and still several races still undecided. 2010 also marks the the once a decade census. How does one have to to deal with the other? Reapportionment of US Representatives to States happens in 2011 with redistricting in states happening and being finished in time for the 2012 election cycle.

If you have watched the new, perhaps you have heard about the consequences of state legislature and governorships importance in the past election, because they will deal with how districts are drawn. Typically the party in power gets to draw the districts, and it is almost a given, they will draw them to their parties advantage, that is they will choose who gets to vote for the ones they like, otherwise called a Gerrymander.

The Gerrymander [who James Madison was almost casualty of in Virginia for the 1st Congress, when his district was drawn to PREVENT him from being elected, which he still was] is an absurd idea. Politicians should not be able to select who gets to vote for them, the voters should choose who they get to vote for. Their should be no such thing as a "safe" district, the more competitive the district, the better it is for the district and the people as a whole.

The results of this election should not matter in redistricting. Districts should simply be drawn to ensure equal numbers of voters in all districts of the state, and then let the people of the district choose who they want. They should not be drawn to ensure the higher probability of a particular party being elected, by choosing who gets to vote for them. Let the Republic live up to its name, and be representative of the people, not a politicians desire.