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

June 11, 1776 the Committee of Five

June 11, 1776 is a significant date in the path toward the Declaration of Independence. On this date a Committee of Five was formed to prepare a draft declaration for the Continental Congress to vote on.

Earlier on May 15 Virginia voted to declare itself Independent of Great Britain. This ultimately set the stage for a similar vote in the Second Continental Congress which was seated in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On June 7, 1776 Richard Henry Lee of Virginia submitted the following resolution to the Congress.

"Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances.

That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their consideration and approbation."

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.

British Tyranny, the Fourth Amendment The Origins of the Bill of Rights (Part 3:)

Much like the first three Amendments, the Fourth Amendment can be directly related to the conduct of the British during Colonial Rule. Through much of the Colonial time warrants from a judge were required to search a person or their property, similar to today. But this was not always the case, at times a broad warrant would be issued not specifying a person, place or even subject matter for the reason of a search or seizure. The Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent this.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures , shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue , but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

British Tyranny, the Second and Third Amendments, The Origins of the Bill of Rights (Part 2:)

The Origins of the Bill of Rights (Part 1: British Tyranny, the First Amendment)

During Colonial rule, the British Crown and Colonial Governors were not shy about using the British Army or Navy against the Americans. The British Army was used to intimidate, seize property, enter homes or be quartered among the populace to present a posing threat. It was not only the Army that was used against the Colonists, but other Government forces or powers that were used against the Colonists, but Police, Tax Collectors, Justice of the Peace and on. The British Army or the other British Government Forces use against the populace is not short or limited even if not by direct force, just intimidation, and eventually led to the fighting to begin in 1775. This use of the Armed Forces directly led to two Amendments to the Constitution, the Second and Third.

Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

No one instance can be pin pointed as the need or desire for the Second Amendment, rather it is the entire scope of the American Revolution itself. The abuse of power by government against the people, the use of the military against the people, and the desire and unalienable right of the people to control their own destiny are at the root of the Second Amendment. This view is expressed in the Declaration of Independence;

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.