From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing military?
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 01:49:03 GMT

In article <84097@bcsaic.boeing.com>
rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:

>In article 6814@transfer.stratus.com, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes
>>In article <83662@bcsaic.boeing.com>, rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,sake) writes:
>>> yet.  As far as I can tell, the Antifederalists tried to use the 2nd as a
>>> vehicle for cancelling out some federal powers in Article I, and they failed
>>
>>But given that you're such a big proponent of re-interpreting the
>>Constitution in light of the contemporary meaning of the words, perhaps
>>they DID succeed, and the language just hasn't evolved far enough yet.
>>Think about that while you're trying to sleep tonight.
>
>I'm not such a "big proponent" of reinterpreting the Constitution as you think.
>What I've said is that the courts do not (and should not) apply "original inten"
>as the sole (or even necessarily major) criterion of interpretation.

     If we ignore the "original intent" then any interpretation of the
Constitution must be based on the opinion of whatever judge on current
political/social situations.  The is no possible way, given this, for
the Constitution *not* to undergo continuous re-interpretation.

>In fact,
>our present system of government has been based on a lot of questionable interpe-
>tations and reinterpretations of law.  Witness the current situation in which
>women have a legal right to abortions, by Supreme Court interpretation, and the
>are probably going to lose it, also by Supreme Court interpretation.  What the
>Court giveth, it taketh away.  Despite all of this, you are not going to get a
>better system by rushing to amend the Constitution every time somebody disagree
>with whatever the Court majority thinks Madison or Elbridge Gerry meant in some
>speech delivered in the 18th century.

     I believe the whole point was to have a relatively stable system of
government by making amendment difficult.  This purpose is defeated if
interpretation can basically change the meaning.  The idea was not to
amend the Constitution "wheneve somebody disagreed" but only to amend
it in extreme cases.  The Constitution was *designed* to be difficult to
change.

>If you were to follow "original intent"
>to its logical conclusion, applying it consistently across the Constitution, thn
>you would produce chaos in our current system, which has evolved over two centuies.
>And civil libertarians would be among the loudest complainers at the changes.

     It would be impossible to change the system overnight.  It would produce
chaos.  This does not mean change in that direction is bad, or can't be
accomplished slowly and reasonably.

>>> What kind
>>> of militia training do you envision for this militia and who should be
>>> responsible for organizing it?
>>
>>What's wrong with us being responsible for organizing our own?  Are you
>>still waiting on the local parish priest to do it?
>
>I understand that it is illegal in most (all?) states to train private armies.
>I personally think that the practice, on a small scale, smacks of vigilantism.

     I believe you are correct that it is illegal in most areas to train
para-military forces.  How you equate organizing and training to vigilanteism
is beyond me.  Being organized and trained does not mean a group is going
to suddenly start taking the law into its own hands.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns