In 1253, the armed population was expanded beyond freemen to include serfs, individuals bound to the land and the land's owner. 17, serfs were required to procure a spear and dagger. 18, inclusion of serfs in the citizen army was related to the mustering of men and arms which occurred early in 1253 for purposes of crossing the sea to gascavy and supporting the realm against the king of Castile. 19, another general levy occurred in 1297, which directed all men possessing land to a value of twenty pounds to provide themselves with horses and arms and to come to london for purposes of service in France. 20, the citizen-army concept continued to develop through the tudor period. Henry viii decreed that fathers must purchase longbows for sons between seven and fourteen years of age and teach them to shoot.
Outline of The, federalist, teaching American History
7, blackstone observed that professional soldiers endangered liberty. 8, in free states, the defense of the realm was considered best left to citizens who took up arms only life when necessary and who returned to their communities and occupations when the danger passed. Standing armies were viewed as instruments of fear intended to preserve the prince. 10, blackstone credits King Alfred, who ruled England from 871 to 901. D., as establishing the principle that all subjects of his dominion were the realm's soldiers. 11, other commentators trace the obligation of Englishmen to serve in (p.1010)the people's army to 690. 12, regardless of the beginning date, an Englishman's obligation to serve in a citizen army is an old proposition. Coupled with best this obligation to defend the realm was the obligation to provide oneself with weapons for this purpose. 13, king Henry ii formalized his subjects' duties in 1181 by issuing the Assize of Arms. 14, the arms required varied depending on the subjects' wealth, with the poorest freemen obligated to provide the least-an iron helmet and a lance. 15, the Assize required not only arms to be possessed, but precluded the possessor from selling, pledging, or in any other way alienating the weapons.
My really purpose is much narrower. I will address the history of the second Amendment and attempt to define its original intent. I will not suggest that original intent is controlling. On this point, i am reminded that george washington once suggested, "Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must (p.1009)depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained." 6, the purpose of this Article is only to define those shares of liberty the Framers intended to retain and those given up in the. By way of preview, this Article will contend that the original intent of the second Amendment was to protect each individual's right to keep and bear arms, and to guarantee that individuals acting collectively could throw off the yokes of any oppressive government which might. Thus, the right envisioned was not only the right to be armed, but to be armed at a level equal to the government. To determine the original intent of the second Amendment, this Article will examine the history of armed citizens in England, the federalist and Antifederalist debates, the meaning of the word "militia the constitutional ratification process, and the various state constitutions in existence at the time. Eighteenth-century commentators frequently discussed the evils of standing armies.
Similarly, criminals can count on a vigorous defense of the fourth amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches as well as the fifth amendment right not to incriminate oneself. All of this is true even though most of us would (p.1008)agree that nazi hate language is of no utility, and a criminal's confession, absent coercion, and the fruits of a search of his or her house are among the best indicators of actual guilt. Yet, we zealously defend these rights on the premise that governmental abuse of power is a greater evil than that posed by individual hatemongers or criminals. In the context of the second Amendment, civil libertarian instincts are overcome by our fear of one another. As a consequence, we find civil libertarian organizations, such as the American civil Liberties Union (aclu acting as participants in such groups as the national coalition to ban Handguns. 5, indeed, the aclu, summary typically at the forefront of defending individual rights against an encroaching government, takes the position that the second Amendment protects only the state's right to an organized military-a well-regulated militia. It rejects any suggestion that the second Amendment protects an individual right. While this phenomenon is interesting, it is not the subject of this Article.
The printed edition remains canonical. For citational use please obtain a back issue from William. Hein., 1285 main Street, buffalo, new York 14209;. Long overlooked or ignored, the second Amendment has become the object of some study and much debate. One issue being discussed is whether the second Amendment recognizes the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms, 2 or whether the right belongs solely to state governments and empowers each state to maintain a military force. 3, the debate has resulted in odd political alignments which in turn have caused the second Amendment to be described recently as the most embarrassing provision of the bill of Rights. 4, embarrassment results from the politics associated with determining whether the language creates a state's right or an individual right. Civil libertarians support the individual rights recognized in the first, fourth, fifth, and Sixth Amendments and defend these rights against governmental abuse. Civil libertarians insist that each citizen be accorded the right to free speech, even if the citizen is a nazi hatemonger.
Federalist essays - el mito de gea)
But here their interests would have minimal support from representatives from maine, texas, and everywhere else other than nc because the representatives from all other states considering the liberty of their constituents and the good of the rest of the country would never approve such. Therefore a large republic will defeat the will of a faction if it is detrimental to the whole because of the merit of the representatives, the founders thought. Party Unity at the congressional level will defeat our form of representative government as it did with Obamacare. . If literature representatives vote with the party interests over the interests of the people then a representative form of government will fail in the protection of the liberty of the people. . If our representatives, house and Senate, are of the people, meaning one of us, by the people, meaning elected by us, and for the party instead of for the people, then our country may indeed perish from this earth. . we know why they do it, a bribe to help with future elections, personal gain, a chairmanship or membership on a particular committee, fear of reprisals from the leader and/or to enhance the power of their party. There is nothing in the constitution preventing this behavior nor should there. .
It is this form of Party politics that is wrong, not the constitution, and it should be disgraced and every politician behaving this way should be shamed and ridiculed until it stops. . we are beginning to see some hope with the representatives that have been elected to uphold tea party principles turning against their party leaders when necessary to vote for the people. Summary Written by donald Mellon. Federalist Papers Summaries Index Page, read The federalist Papers. Copyright 1994 Valparaiso Univ. Originally published as 28 Val. For educational use only.
So how does a republic differ from a pure democracy and solve the problem? There are two great points of difference in favor of the republic, the delegation of the government to representatives elected by the citizens and the greater number of citizens and area over which it may be applied. . In a republic it is favorable to have representatives elected with a greater number of citizens to protect against the election of unworthy candidates and to elect the people with the most attractive merit. . A large republic with many representatives is necessary to guard against the cabals of a few but should not be so large as to create the confusion of the multitude. . The argument is extended to favor the larger Republic formed by the union of the states as opposed to republics for individual states which would not be of adequate size to thwart the action of factions. .
A pure democracy cannot be an effective government if the governed occupy a large area with many citizens and diverse interests because the requirement for every citizen to assemble and vote on every issue would be impractical and unworkable. It is mentioned without proof at this time that the federal Constitution under consideration balances all of these issues with a republican government. This concludes the summary but if the reader will permit this humble summarizer I will briefly address the following issue: If our form of government was designed to protect the liberties of the minority and the good of the country as explained in Madisons paper. Is there something wrong with our constitution? . Is our electorate operating unconstitutionally? Before answering these questions let me give an example of the thinking in 1787 as i understand it from Madisons paper of how a republic encompassing the Union would protect the liberties of the people and preserve the good of the country. . Suppose tobacco farmers in North Carolina through thought or corruption or whatever gained sufficient support in their state to pass a law requiring all individuals over 13 years of age to smoke tobacco. . They then brought this desire to the federal Republican government. .
5 Tips for Creating a photo Essay with a purpose
he spends some time on why factions exist among people and the possibility of eliminating them while yet preserving liberty and concludes they exist because of human nature and they cannot be eliminated thus one must control their effect. . If the faction is in the minority then republican government clearly controls this writers situation by regular vote of the majority. . But what if a majority, how are the rights of the minority and the public good protected? . The answer to this is the primary object of this paper. . Another purpose proposal is to continue the argument begun in the last paper that even though the Union of States would be large with many diverse economic and social issues a republican government would be the preferred form of government. Democracies have a poor track record because the majority eventually tramples on the rights of the minority and often does not protect the public good. . Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths.
States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects. The last issue that of amendments is neither wholly national nor wholly federal. . The fact that States votes are required makes it federal but since a unanimous vote is not required that is a national characteristic. . so in summary the proposed Constitution is neither a national nor a federal constitution but a composition of both. . Ratification is federal, sources of power are both, operation is national, extent of powers is federal, and amending authority is both. Summary Written by donald Mellon Federalist Papers Summaries Index Page read The federalist Papers. James Madison, the federalist Summary no 10: Madison, november 22, 1787, this paper is considered an important document in American history for it lays out how the writers of the constitution defined the form of government that would protect minority rights from organized and united. The paper should be read in its entirety rather than in short summery if that is of interest. Madison describes how the proposed Republican government mitigates the problems caused in popular governments both ancient and modern by factions of the population whether amounting to a majority or minority that are united and actuated by some interest adverse to the rights of other citizens.
The establishment of the government is through a ratification process where decisions are made at the State level by officials elected by the people for that purpose. . The ratification is made by a single vote from each of the independent sovereign States that desired to be part of the new Union so that is a federal act. Any State not ratifying the constitution would not be a member of the Union. If the whole of the people voting a majority to ratify was required that would be a national act but that was not the case thus a federal act. The next relation is to the sources from which the government derives its powers. . The house of representatives derives its powers from the people and the people are represented in the same proportion as they are within each State, thus a national position. . The senate derives its power from the States whose legislatures select the senators with two from each States, which is federal position. . The presidents powers come from a compound source where the State legislatures chose Electors to cast votes equal to the sum of senators and representatives which are counted by the president of the senate, and if no majority is reached by any candidate the house. From this aspect of the government, it appears to be of a mixed character presenting at least study as many federal as national features.
Development Report 2016: Digital dividends
James Madison, the federalist Papers Summary no 39: Madison. January 16, 1788, madison begins the candid survey of the plan of government reported by the convention by defining a republican form of government and then answering critics concerning whether the proposed plan is federal or national, that is, a confederacy of States. This important last point is the difference between States maintaining their sovereignty if federal. A union with direct control of the people if a national government. . A definition of republicanism is necessary because history has confused the issue. . A republic is a government that derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people; and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period or during good behavior. . A comparison of this definition to the individual State constitutions shows that for the most part States have a form of republican government. But critics claim that they should also have preserved the federal form of government as in the Article of Confederation. . to determine if the character of the proposed government is federal or national we must look at three objects; what is the foundation of its establishment, what are the sources of its powers and the operation and extent of them, and by what authority are.garden