On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 08:12:54 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Congress has broad latitude in determining what is in the
What would be the point of the rest of the constitution if the
congress can violate all the other constitutional limitations by
simply claiming there is a "general welfare" reason behind it.
Can the congress eliminate free speech because it's in the
General Welfare of the nation?
The Fist Amendment: "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging
the freedom of speech"
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
2A: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
Out of context quote... the 2nd referred to the right of a state
militia to be armed.
No, it didn't. It gave *a* reason for arming the people. Heller said it
in very simple language:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp.
(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's
interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males
physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The
Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the
people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized
standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny
Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and
bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved.
Airspeed, altitude and brains....two of the three are always
required to complete a mission.
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.