Madison's Introduction of the Bill of Rights

[wingrider]

we all or most of us know that James Madison is considered the father of the American Constitution. I came across this when I was doing some research, it is the original speech made by madison to the Congress.
compare what he says in it and his proposals on the bill of rights to what we have today. it is amazing how one change of a word or miplaceent of a phrase can make such a difference.

http://www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html

especially this one.. if it had been inserted in the Constitution as origionally drafted there would be no confusion today on its meaning or its importance

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.

[MMC]

Religiously scrupulous?

[Mister D]

Pacifists like the Quakers

[Conley]

Pacifists like the Quakers

So if that had made it in, could people have used that defense to avoid being drafted into service during Vietnam?

[Mister D]

So if that had made it in, could people have used that defense to avoid being drafted into service during Vietnam?


I think they did, actually. I know Quakers were not required to serve in combat roles historically. I'd have to look it up though. Not sure,

[Mister D]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector#United_States

[Mister D]

Currently, the U.S. Selective Service System states, "Beliefs which qualify a registrant for conscientious objector status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims."[46] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-45) In the US, this applies to primary claims, that is, those filed on initial SSS registration. On the other hand, those who apply after either having registered without filing, and/or having attempted or effected a deferral, are specifically required to demonstrate a discrete and documented change in belief, including a precipitant, that converted a non-CO to a CO. The male reference is due to the current "male only" basis for conscription in the United States (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States).
In the United States, there are two main criteria for classification as a conscientious objector. First, the objector must be opposed to war in any form, Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437. Second, the objection must be sincere, Witmer v. United States (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Witmer_v._United_States), 348 U.S. 375. That he must show that this opposition is based upon religious training and belief was no longer a criterion after cases broadened it to include non-religious moral belief, United States v. Seeger (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/United_States_v._Seeger), 380 U.S. 163 and Welsh v. United States (http://thepoliticalforums.com/w/index.php?title=Welsh_v._United_States&action=edit&redlink=1), 398 U.S. 333. COs willing to perform non-combatant military functions are classed 1-A-O by the U.S.; those unwilling to serve at all are 1-O.

[Conley]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector#United_States

Interesting, I hadn't heard of the CPS. I had heard of some being able to use the CO to avoid but thought it was limited to those like Quakers and was wondering if say, a guy who just goes to church every Sunday could use that. If not, maybe Madison's original language would have made such a thing possible?

[Mister D]

I'm not sure how this works but it looks to me (and I thought so) like it's difficult. You can't just make something up. They will scrutinize your life pretty closely. I think Madison's langauge would have been clarified by legal precedent if that makes sense. For example, they would have dismissed the claims of people who suddenly became Quakers when war broke out.

[MMC]

The other it excludes is American Indians. They can take the oath and get out at any time they choose to. Even during war! No if ands or buts about it!

[Mister D]

That's probably because they aren't citizens of the US.

[MMC]

Actually it's the other way round. It's because they are Native Born Natural American Citizens.

[Mister D]

Actually it's the other way round. It's because they are Native Born Natural American Citizens.

So am I.

[CoLibertarian]

I will never understand why some people place so much emphasis on the 2nd amendment. Yes it is important in my mind. However I find other amendments much MUCH more important than the 2nd. Some of those amendments have been basically legislated or judicial review out of the Bill of Rights, yet nary a whisper from those that love the 2nd so much.

Let me use, as an example, wingrider's link:

Madison clearly stated, " It is true, the powers of the General Government are circumscribed, they are directed to particular objects; but even if Government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse to a certain extent, in the same manner as the powers of the State Governments under their constitutions may to an indefinite extent; because in the constitution of the United States, there is a clause granting to Congress the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the powers vested in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof; this enables them to fulfil every purpose for which the Government was established."

Madison also clearly stated,"It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution."

This gives very clear meaning to the 9th and 10th amendments - which are in my opinion our most important amendments and are very clearly impotent in our society today. The 9th and 10th amendment should never have to be used in "conjunction" with other amendments to be proven that they apply (as in the idea of the right to privacy or in the right of a certain state to establish air quality). The federal government should have to prove through other parts of the constitution that it has the power to rule over the 9th and 10th amendment.

Your guns mean nothing if the federal government can take away the 9th and 10th amendments through the commerce clause or the necessary and proper clause (which Madison was also very clear about).