Back in 2004 I found a particularly interesting discussion of this topic at Free Republic at:http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39388c210c1b.htm
Phil In particular: The Second Amendment, Commas, and tangofox: A Study of Asininity By tangofox I became involved with the Second Amendment-comma question last year. Some people were stating that extra commas had been surreptitiously added to the amendment in the 19th Century. This interested me enough to send an e-mail request for more information from one of the primary accusers. He never replied. Since no one else seemed interested in finding out if this allegation was true, I took up the banner. A friend, who is a government researcher, helped me get started. Thus began a research project that lasted more than sixty days, which culminated with an article titled, "Down to the Last Second (Amendment)." (See above.) The study continues... Results of this research include: - That the three comma version of the Second Amendment, which is most commonly used today, obviously comes from the parchment copy of the proposed amendments written by Clerk of the House William Lambert on September 25, 1789. The allegation that Abraham Lincoln or Andrew Johnson marked up the Constitution is unsubstantiated. - That the Senate Journal shows that the Senate removed the extra commas on September 9, 1789, and nothing suggests that the extra punctuation was replaced. - That the certified copy of the proposed amendments sent to the State of Rhode Island and the Providence Plantations contains a single comma in Article the Fourth. - That the notifications of ratification by the States of New York, Maryland, South Carolina, and Rhode Island contained certified copies of the amendments they ratified, and all of them show Article the Fourth as containing a single comma. - That, from ratification of the Bill of Rights to 1876, I cannot find a single official transcription (in the Statutes at Large, Constitutional treatises, state and federal court cases, etc.) of the Second Amendment that contains more than one comma. - That in 1876, for the first time, a two comma version of the amendment appears in the Arkansas court case, Fife v. State. (This version was rarely used.) - That the three-comma version of the Second Amendment did not appear in any official document I could find (save the parchment copy noted above) until 1902, in the Idaho Supreme Court case In re Brickey. - That usage of the single comma Second Amendment largely died out in the 1910's and 1920's. - That misconstruction of the amendment (holding that it applied only to members of the militia) first gained acceptance with the Kansas Supreme Court in 1905, in City of Salina v. Blaksley. - That anti-gunners use the three comma Second Amendment to claim that it is "ambiguous" (e.g., Robert Bork) and interpret it as guaranteeing the right of government forces to be armed. Some people think the comma question is trivial, and point out that use of commas and semi-colons wasn't set in 1789; therefore the pursuit of Constitutional punctuation is an exercise in futility (or even asininity). I earnestly agree with them, and would not waste time on the subject but for the fact that people use the parchment copy transcription to misconstruct a clearly written sentence. The most egregious example of this is to be found in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996): ...The Court's understanding follows a plain reading of the Amendment's text. The Amendment's second clause declares that the goal is to preserve the security of "a free state;" its first clause establishes the premise that well-regulated militia are necessary to this end. Thus it is only in furtherance of state security that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is finally proclaimed. (Sure, this interpretation flies in the face of the English language, the rules of grammar, the intent of the Framers, almost every Constitutional scholar (living or dead), and 150 years of jurisprudence, but that's what you get when you have a "living" Constitution.) Also note that carrying three commas in the Second Amendment renders the sentence grammatically incorrect. The first separates a restrictive participle phrase from its subject, while the third un-necessarily separates the subject of the sentence from its predicate. Now one might see why many of us insist on using the Second Amendment as it was written and ratified, and why tangofox sometimes chases windmills. Down to the Last Second (Amendment) Participants in the various debates on firearms, crime, and constitutional law may have noticed that the Second Amendment is often quoted differently by those involved. The two main variations differ in punctuation- specifically, in the number of commas used to separate those twenty-seven words. But which is the correct one? The answer to this question must be found in official records from the early days of the republic. Therefore, a look into the progression of this declaratory and restrictive clause from its inception to its final form is in order. Before beginning, one must note that common nouns, like "state" and "people," were often capitalized in official and unofficial documents of the era. Also, the letter "f" was at times used in place of the letter "s" in both print and manuscript. For example, "Congress" is sometimes spelled as "Congrefs," as is the case in the parchment copy of the Bill of Rights displayed by the National Archives. The quotations listed here are accurate. With the exception of the omission of quotations marks, versions of what is now known as the Second Amendment in boldface appear with the exact spelling, capitalization, and punctuation as the cited originals. A Chronological History During ratification debates on the Constitution in the state conventions, several states proposed amendments to that charter. Anti-Federalist opposition to ratification was particularly strong in the key states of New York and Virginia, and one of their main grievances was that the Constitution lacked a declaration of rights. During the ratification process, Federalist James Madison became a champion of such a declaration, and so it fell to him, as a member of the 1st Congress, to write one. On June 8, 1789, Madison introduced his declaration of rights on the floor of the House. One of its articles read: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.1 On July 21, John Vining of Delaware was appointed to chair a select committee of eleven to review, and make a report on, the subject of amendments to the Constitution. Each committeeman represented one of the eleven states (Rhode Island and North Carolina had not ratified the Constitution at that time), with James Madison representing Virginia. Unfortunately, no record of the committee's proceedings is known to exist. Seven days later, Vining duly issued the report, one of the amendments reading: A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms. 2 In debates on the House floor, some congressmen, notably Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts and Thomas Scott of Pennsylvania, objected to the conscientious objector clause in the fifth article. They expressed concerns that a future Congress might declare the people religiously scrupulous in a bid to disarm them, and that such persons could not be called up for military duty. However, motions to strike the clause were not carried. On August 21, the House enumerated the Amendments as modified, with the fifth article listed as follows: 5. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person. 3 Finally, on August 24, the House of Representatives passed its proposals for amendments to the Constitution and sent them to the Senate for their consideration. The next day, the Senate entered the document into their official journal. The Senate Journal shows Article the Fifth as: Art. V. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. 4 On September 4, the Senate debated the amendments proposed by the House, and the conscientious objector clause was quickly stricken. Sadly, these debates were held in secret, so records of them do not exist. The Senators agreed to accept Article the Fifth in this form: ...a well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall net be infringed. 5 In further debates on September 9, the Senate agreed to strike the words, "the best," and replace them with, "necessary to the." Since the third and fourth articles had been combined, the Senators also agreed to rename the amendment as Article the Fourth. The Senate Journal that day carried the article without the word, "best," but also without the replacements, "necessary to." Note that the extraneous commas have been omitted: A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. 6 With two-thirds of the Senate concurring on the proposed amendments, they were sent back to the House for the Representatives' perusal. On September 21, the House notified the Senate that it agreed to some of their amendments, but not all of them. However, they agreed to Article the Fourth in its entirety: Resolved, That this House doth agree to the second, fourth, eighth, twelfth, thirteenth, sixteenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twenty-fifth, and twenty-sixth amendments... 7 By September 25, the Congress had resolved all differences pertaining to the proposed amendments to the Constitution. On that day, a Clerk of the House, William Lambert, put what is now known as the Bill of Rights to parchment. Three days later, it was signed by the Speaker of the House, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, and the President of the Senate, Vice President John Adams. This parchment copy is held by the National Archives and Records Administration, and shows the following version of the fourth article: Article the Fourth. 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. 8 The above version is used almost exclusively today, but aside from the parchment copy, the author was unable to find any other official documents from that era, which carry the amendment with the extra commas. In fact, in the appendix of the Senate Journal, Article the Fourth is entered as reading: Art. IV. 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.9 Also, the Annals of Congress, formally called The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, show the proposed amendment as follows: Article the Fourth. 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.10 Further, once two-thirds of both chambers of the Congress agreed to the proposed amendments, the House passed a resolve to request that the President send copies of them to the governors of the eleven states in the Union, and to those of Rhode Island and North Carolina. The Senate concurred on September 26, as recorded in their journal: Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be requested to transmit to the executives of the United States, which have ratified the constitution copies of the amendments proposed by Congress, to be added thereto; and like copies to the executives of the states of Rhode Island and North Carolina.11 Fortunately, an original copy of the amendments proposed by the Congress, and sent to the State of Rhode Island and the Providence Plantations, does survive. Certified as a true copy by Assembly Secretary Henry Ward, it reads in part: Article the Fourth, --A well regulated Militia being neceffary to the Security of a free State, the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms fhall not be infringed. 12 And so, the proposed amendments to the Constitution were sent to the states for ratification. When notifying the President that their legislatures or conventions had ratified some or all of the proposed amendments, some states attached certified copies of them. New York, Maryland, South Carolina, and Rhode Island notified the general government that they had ratified the fourth amendment in this form: Article the Fourth. 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. 13 Articles the First and Second were not ratified by the required three-fourths of the states, but by December 15, 1791, the last ten articles were. These, of course, are now known as the Bill of Rights. Renumbering the amendments was required since the first two had not been ratified. The 1796 revision of The Federalist on the New Constitution reflects the change as such: ARTICLE THE SECOND 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.14 This version is carried throughout the 19th Century, in such legal treatises as Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) and Thomas Cooley's Principles of Constitutional Law (1898). It is also transcribed in this manner in the 1845 Statutes at Large, although the term "state" is capitalized in that text. The latter are the official source for acts of Congress.15, 16, 17 This version still appears today, as is the case with the annotated version of the Constitution they sponsored on the Government Printing Office web site (1992, supplemented in 1996 and 1998). The Second Amendment is shown as reading: 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. 18 (The Senate-sponsored GPO site does carry a "literal print" of the amendments to the Constitution showing the Second Amendment with the additional commas. The punctuation and capitalization of the amendments transcribed there are the same as those found on the parchment copy displayed in the Rotunda of the National Archives.)19 Thus, the correct rendition of the Second Amendment carries but a single comma, after the word "state." It was in this form that those twenty-seven words were written, agreed upon, passed, and ratified. Why the Commas are Important It is important to use the proper Second Amendment because it is clearly and flawlessly written in its original form. Also, the function of the words, "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," are readily discerned when the proper punctuation is used. On the other hand, the gratuitous addition of commas serves only to render the sentence grammatically incorrect and unnecessarily ambiguous. These points will be demonstrated later in the Second Amendment Series. Footnotes: 1. Amendments Offered in Congress by James Madison, June 8, 1789. The Constitution Society. http://www.constitution.org/bor/amd_jmad.htm, 16 January 2000. 2. Amendments Reported by the Select Committee. July 28, 1789. The Constitution Society. http://www.constitution.org/bor/amd_scom.htm, 16 January 2000. 3. U.S. House Journal. 1st Cong., 1st sess., 21 August 1789. 4. U.S. Senate Journal. 1st Cong., 1st sess., 25 August 1789. 5. U.S. Senate Journal, 1st Cong., 1st sess., 4 September 1789. 6. U.S. Senate Journal, 1st Cong., 1st sess., 9 September 1789. 7. U.S. House Journal. 1st Cong., 1st sess., 21 September 1789. 8. Bill of Rights, National Archives and Records Administration, 22 January 2000, http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/billrights/bill.jpg. 9. U.S. Senate Journal, 1st Cong., 1st sess., Appendix. 10. Annals of Congress, 1st Cong., 1st sess., Appendix 11. U.S. Senate Journal. 1st Cong. 1st sess., 26 September 1789. 12. A True Bill, The Constitution for the United States, Its Sources and Its Applications. http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/billofrt.jpg, 27 January 2000. 13. U.S. House Journal, 1st Cong., 3rd sess., Appendix Note: Maryland and South Carolina capitalized the "m" in "Militia." 14. The Federalist on the New Constitution, 1796. The Constitution for the United States, Its Sources and Its Applications. http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/f16b1234.jpg, 17 February 2000. 15. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution Society. http://www.constitution.org/js/js_344.htm, 18 February 2000. 16. Quotes from Constitutional Commentators. Gun Cite, 2 February 2000 http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndcom.html. 17. Statutes at Large 1845, 21. 18. Second Amendment--Bearing Arms, The Constitution of the United States of America. http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/amdt2.html, 18 February 2000. 19. Text of the Amendments (Literal Print), The Constitution of the United States of America. http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/conamt.html, 18 February 2000. The Second Amendment was written, passed, and ratified with a single comma. In order to hold the three comma version as correct, one must believe that, by enscrolling a parchment copy of the Bill of Rights, a Clerk of the House has the power to overrule a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress. How's that? http://www.sierratimes.com/03/06/11/greenslade.htm http://www.sierratimes.com/03/06/11/greenslade.htm The Second Amendment and the Preamble to the Bill of Rights By Robert Greenslade and Claude Ellsworth The modern debate over the wording of the Second Amendment could be quickly resolved if the Amendment was read through the preamble to the Bill of Rights. A preamble to the Bill of Rights? What are you talking about? You mean the preamble to the Constitution don't you? No Senators Kennedy, Feinstein, Schumer, Lautenberg and your fellow gun-grabbing buddies, we mean the preamble to the Bill of Rights. Next to Hillary Clinton's billing records from the Rose Law Firm, this little known text might be the most closely guarded secret in American History. Following the Federal Convention of 1787 and the subsequent ratification of the Constitution, the several States began submitting amendments to Congress for consideration. By September of 1789 Congress had reduced 210 separate amendments to 12. The amendments were inserted into a congressional resolution and submitted to the several States for consideration. Of these, numbers 2-12 were adopted and became the so-called Bill of Rights. A little known fact about this resolution is that it contained a preamble declaring the purpose of the proposed amendments. Most modern editions of the Bill of Rights either do not contain the preamble or only include the last paragraph. The complete preamble, which is still part of the Bill of Rights, is printed below as it appeared in the 1789 resolution: Congress of the United States, begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine. THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.t ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution. As stated in the preamble, the only purpose of the proposed amendments was to prevent the federal government from "misconstruing or abusing its powers." To accomplish this, "further declaratory and restrictive clauses" were being proposed. The amendments, when adopted, placed additional restraints or limitations on the powers of the federal government. Thus, every clause of the Bill of Rights, without exception, is either a declaratory statement or a restrictive provision. A declaratory clause, pursuant to English language dictionaries, is a simple statement or assertion. A restrictive clause is a statement that restricts or limits. If the Second Amendment is read through the preamble, it reads as follows: Article II. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, (declaratory clause) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (restrictive clause) The first part of the Amendment is declaratory, not restrictive, because it is merely an assertion or statement that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State. It does not grant the States or the people any rights. It also does not restrict the federal government from exercising any power. Thus, the first part of the Amendment has no effect on the right to keep and bear arms, "collective [State] or individual." The second clause, like the first, does not grant the States or the people any rights. Therefore, any assertion that the Second Amendment grants rights, "collective or individual," is constitutionally inaccurate. In addition, since the Amendment did not create any rights, then the right enumerated, whether it be collective or individual, had to be an existing right. This leaves us with only one option concerning the second part of the Amendment. It is restrictive, not declaratory, because it specifically places a restraint on the exercise of power by the federal government. Those groups and individuals opposed to the private ownership of firearms claim this restraint pertains to the State militias. According to the Brady Campaign, the Second Amendment was adopted "to prevent the federal government from disarming the State militias." The U.S. Constitution established a permanent professional army, controlled by the federal government. With the memory of King George III's troops fresh in their minds, many of the "anti-federalists" feared a standing army as an instrument of oppression. State militias were viewed as a counterbalance to the federal army and the Second Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from disarming the state militias. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence claims the Amendment was adopted to "ensure the right of the states to maintain their own militias." The Second Amendment was adopted to ensure the right of states to maintain their own militia to protect themselves against foreign and federal encroachment. The Second Amendment, as shown by the preamble, does not place any restraint on the powers federal government concerning the States or their militias. Consequently, any assertion the Second Amendment restricts the powers of the federal government concerning the State militias is patently false. There is another way to use the preamble to prove this fact. In a sentence, a non-restrictive clause gives information that is not essential to the meaning of a sentence. This information can be removed without changing the meaning of the sentence. A restrictive clause gives information that is critical to the meaning of a sentence and cannot be removed without changing the meaning of a sentence. If the Second Amendment is read through this sentence structure, the declaratory clause in the first part of the Amendment is the non-restrictive clause because it does not restrain the exercise of power. Thus, the Amendment reads as follows: Article II. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, (non-restrictive clause) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (restrictive clause) This sentence structure triggers a question. Is the existence of a State militia essential to a people's right to keep and bear arms? The answer is no because people can have a right to keep and bear arms without the existence of a State militia. In the alternative, since the word militia, as used in the Second Amendment refers to an armed citizenry, not a State organized army, you cannot have a State militia unless that same people has the right to keep and bear arms. From a constitutional standpoint, State militias exist because the individual citizens who make-up those militias have the right to keep and bear arms. Thus, the individual right to keep and bear arms is essential to the existence of a State militia--not visa versa. Since the phrase--"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is the non-restrictive or non-essential part of the Amendment, then, as stated above, it can be removed without changing the meaning of the sentence. In addition, this phrase is an incomplete thought and cannot stand alone as a sentence. Thus, it needs addition information to give it meaning. Conversely, the phrase--"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," is the restrictive or essential part of the Amendment. It cannot be removed without changing the meaning of the sentence. This phrase is a complete thought and can stand alone as a sentence because it does not need additional information to give it meaning. If the non-restrictive part is removed and the Amendment is read in a manner that allows the verbiage to stand alone as a complete thought, then the Second Amendment can be reduced to the following sentence: [T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Those groups and individuals who advance the militia interpretation of the Second Amendment have failed to grasp the significance of this verbiage. If the purpose of the Second Amendment was to prevent the federal government from disarming the State militias as organizations like the Brady Campaign claim, then this sentence structure accomplishes that goal. By denying the federal government the power to infringe the existing right of the people right to keep and bear arms, the State militias could never be constitutionally disarmed because the people of the individual States are the militia referenced in the Amendment. Thus, the States would retain the so-called right to maintain armed militias. Irrespective of how organizations like the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence attempt to twist the sentence structure of the Second Amendment, it is the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms that ensures the existence of the State militias contemplated by the Founders. In conclusion, the preamble to the Bill of Rights shows that the purpose of the Amendments was to prevent the federal government from abusing its delegated powers. To accomplish this, further declaratory and restrictive clauses were being added to restrain the exercise of power by the federal government. Thus, the preamble negates any assertion that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to grant the States the right to maintain armed militias. It also negates the claim that the Amendment granted the people an individual right to keep and bear arms. The sole purpose of the Second Amendment was to place an enumerated restraint on the powers of the federal government concerning the existing right of the people to keep and bear arms. Robert Greenslade focuses his writing on issues surrounding the federal government and the Constitution. He believes politicians at the federal level, through ignorance or design, are systematically dismantling the Constitution in an effort to expand their power and consolidate control over the American people. He has dedicated himself to resurrecting the true intent of the Constitution in the hope that the information will contribute, in some small way, to restoring the system of limited government established by the Constitution. http://www.sierratimes.com/03/08/07/greenslade.htm Another Look at the Wording of the Second Amendment By Robert Greenslade and Clause Ellsworth As shown in a previous article "The Second Amendment and the Preamble to the Bill of Rights," the wording of the Second Amendment is easily understood if it is read through the preamble to the Bill of Rights. Since the publication of this article, some groups and individuals have attempted to assert that the preamble to the Bill of Rights does not reflect the intent of the Amendment. After laughing ourselves silly from this absurd assertion, the authors decided to humor these individuals and examine the wording of the Second Amendment without resorting to the preamble. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence claims the only purpose the Second Amendment was "to limit the ability of Congress to interfere with the states' right to keep and maintain armed militias." If this statement was an accurate description of the intent of the Founders, then the Amendment would have been worded as follows: Article II. A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to maintain Armed Militias shall not be infringed. If the purpose of the Second Amendment was "to limit the ability of Congress to interfere with the states' right to keep and maintain armed militias," then why mention the people in an Amendment that applies to the States? Not only would that have been confusing and misleading, but unnecessary as well. Apparently, this organization believes "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," as used in the Second Amendment, actually means "the states' right to keep and maintain armed militias." It appears from this statement that George Orwell's newspeak is the lexicon of choice for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. Another problem with their statement is the assertion that States have "rights." This infers that the States get these so-called "rights" from the Constitution, the Amendments, or the federal government. Contrary to this innuendo, the States exist independent of the Constitution or the federal government. They do not acquire any rights or derive any powers from the Constitution. If the above statement was correct, then it would be the only place in the Constitution, or the Amendments, where the Founders attempted to protect the so-called "rights" of the States from the federal government. In reality, the several States do not have rights, as the term is commonly understood, they have powers. When they entered into the Union with their fellow States, they delegated, not surrendered, a portion of their sovereign powers to their agent, the federal government. Every power not delegated is known as a "reserved" power. The power to disarm or interfere with the State militias was not one of the powers delegated to the federal government. Thus, the power of the States to maintain armed militias has never been surrendered to the federal government. Therefore, the above interpretation of the Second Amendment has no constitutional basis in fact because the power to maintain armed militias was one of the powers reserved by the States when they adopted the Constitution. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, in their zeal to re-define the words used in the Second Amendment through a linguistic slight of hand, has lost sight of a very important fact. When the States ratified the Constitution, seven States ratified the document with a stipulation that their delegates in Congress push for amendments to the Constitution. Although only two of these States specifically requested a bill of rights, all seven requested an amendment that would reserve, to the States, every power not delegated to the federal government. The proposed amendments would reserve powers, not rights. These proposals would lead to the adoption of the Tenth Amendment. Since the States did not surrender the power to maintain armed militias, the Tenth Amendment, in the words of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, "limited the ability of Congress to interfere with the states' right to keep and maintain armed militias." Thus, the comprehensive reservation of state power through the Tenth Amendment made any so-called "States' right militia amendment" totally unnecessary. The above statement by the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence can also be disproved through a linguistic analysis of the Second Amendment. In the authors' opinion, the modern confusion concerning the wording of the Amendment can be traced to what appears as irregular language in the first part of the Amendment. From a grammatical standpoint, the Amendment has two components. It contains a dependent clause and an independent clause. A dependent clause is a subordinate clause while an independent clause is the main clause. This triggers a question concerning the structure of the Amendment: does a state militia depend on the existence of the right of the people to keep and bear arms or does the right to keep and bears clause depend on the existence of a state militia? The Second Amendment reads as follows: Article II. 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. Standing alone, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is an incomplete thought. By itself, it does not express an idea and needs additional information to give it meaning. This part of the Amendment is the dependent or subordinate clause. Thus, the militia clause depends on the existence of the right of the people to keep and bears arms. In the alternative, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," standing alone, is a complete thought. This part of the Amendment is the independent or main clause. By itself, it does express an idea and does not need any qualifying information to give it meaning. Thus, the right of the people to keep and bear arms does not depend on the existence of a State militia. There is another way to make the Amendment easier to understand without changing its meaning. If the word "being" with replaced with "is" and the word "because" added to the beginning of the sentence, the Amendment would read as follows: Article II. Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. In grammar, the word "because" can be used at the beginning of a sentence to introduce a dependent clause. As shown above, the first part of the Amendment is a dependent clause. Therefore, it is, and would have been acceptable to use the word "because" at the beginning of the Amendment. The word "being" means to exist. (It exists therefore it "is") This change maintains the intent and sentence structure of the Amendment but makes it read in a manner that is more in tune with modern sentence structure. Opponents of the individual right are attempting invert the sentence structure of the Second Amendment and make the militia clause the independent or main clause. This explains their assertion that the right to keep and bear arms is a "collective right" that pertains to the State militias. Organizations like the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence are attempting to make the right of the people to keep and bear arms dependent on the existence of a State militia. Since the States had the power, not the right, to maintain armed militias prior to the adoption of the Second Amendment, the assertion that the purpose of the Amendment was "to limit the ability of Congress to interfere with the states' right to keep and maintain armed militias" has no constitutional basis in fact. Irrespective of how organizations like the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence attempt pervert the original intent of the Second Amendment, the principle of limited government and sentence structure of the Amendment negates their militia interpretation. Robert Greenslade focuses his writing on issues surrounding the federal government and the Constitution. He believes politicians at the federal level, through ignorance or design, are systematically dismantling the Constitution in an effort to expand their power and consolidate control over the American people. He has dedicated himself to resurrecting the true intent of the Constitution in the hope that the information will contribute, in some small way, to restoring the system of limited government established by the Constitution. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Peter Boucher Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 6:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ucla. Edu Subject: RE: COMMAS OF THE SECOND Make it workforce instead of population, so that it reads "A mobile workforce, being necessary to the prosperity of a high tech State, the right of the people to keep and drive Automobiles, shall not be infringed." Then ask them if only people with jobs have the right to a car under that language. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.17/730 - Release Date: 3/22/2007 7:44 AM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.17/730 - Release Date: 3/22/2007 7:44 AM _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
