Rafael Schuly Mendoza Annotated Bibliography: Reflections on Rights - The Second Amendment Articles of Confederation. Art. III. Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States. Government Printing Office, 1927. House Document No. 398. Selected, Arranged and Indexed by Charles C. Tansill http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp “The security of their liberties… against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them …on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.” These phrases for the paragraph will be useful to my paper because gun control is a liberty but so is life. People argue guns take lives so on the basis of both arguments, they are both against law. US Constitution. …show more content…
Dye, Harmon Zeigler, Louis Schubert, The Irony of Democracy, 15th ed.(Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2012), p.385 Article IV, Section 4 of the constitution states that the government will protect against “domestic violence.” This includes people killing people with guns. Brutus. VIII, January 10, 1788 http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus08.htm The anti-federalist papers read: “to raise a body of troops… men be impressed from the militia” if there is not enough troops in the army they must be necessary that we recruit from the militia. Brutus. X, January 24, 1788 http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus10.htm This page is about how armies should not be actively prepared at all times, especially in times of peace because of historical facts. The paper remarks that having an army in times of peace gives the rulers the ability to employ them for their own personal benefit. Later in the document militia is not used to describe the US’ army, “no standing army, or troops of any description whatsoever, shall be raised or kept up by the legislature provided that no troops whatsoever shall be raised in time of peace.” This further leads one to believe that militia was a word used to refer to arms wielding
fter the Treaty of Paris formally ended the American Revolution and recognized the United States of America as an independent nation, the Founding Fathers were made responsible for creating a government for the United States of America. They initially founded the Articles of Confederation, a weak government, out of fear of a strong, powerful one like Great Britain. Shortly after, however, the Founding Fathers noticed that the Articles of Confederation were failing. An enduring issue that connects to this time period is the enduring issue of conflict because the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation were the root cause of many conflicts between and in the states, as shown in Documents 1 and 2. Documents 1 and 2 both summarize the major flaws of the Articles of Confederation and the many conflicts they sparked.
Summary: The creation of the Article of the Confederation took place in Pennsylvania, which was created on November 15, 1777 after the Revolutionary war. This was when the members of congress noticed that they should have a rule that will help them be organized and be stablized. The purpose of the confederation was to get a government that can be in union after the Revolutionary war. Analysis: There were several of reasons why confederation was created and the purpose was mainly to give authority to the government and the citizens went along with how they ruled and followed the rights. Some of the purpose was to expand America and Great Britian motivated Confederation so that they can individually govern themselves.
“The very idea of a ‘standing army’ struck most members of the Continental Congress and the state legislatures as a highly dangerous threat to republican principles” (Ellis, 2013, p.32). There were other problems in this infant nation that were yet to be addressed such “the slavery question, even though most delegates were fully aware that it violated the principles they claimed to be fighting for” (Ellis, 2013, p.xix). Even though the states had much work still to do after winning their independence, the new United States was “the land of opportunity, where credentials mattered less than demonstrated ability” (Ellis, 2013, p.39). This illustrates the motto I learned the first time I learned about the
“Richard Henry Lee’s Objection to the Constitution” and James Madison’s “The Federalist No. 51” contend about the positive and negative effects of the Constitution. Both essays are important documents for early American history, and both contain valid points. James Madison, however, presents the better argument with his diplomatic, content, and logical approach. “The Federalist No. 51” begins with a question about how America can properly divide government power (Madison 1). Madison believes the Constitution is the answer because it gives the foundations and tools to keeping the power of the government for the people.
The first constitution of the United States was called the Articles of Confederation, ratified on March 1, 1781. These articles gave supreme power to the states, followed by a weak central government. The central government was unicameral, meaning there was no executive or judicial branch and all federal power came from Congress. Congress was made up of two to seven members per state and each state contributed one vote each. members Congress were appointed by state legislatures and held a term of one year.
This past week, the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia. They addressed the problems of the weak central government that exists under the Articles of Confederation. Both our fellow Federalists and the Anti federalists, were present at this meeting. The Anti federalists are continuing to fight against the Constitution, claiming that they don’t want a bigger government than the States. However, they do not have a set plan like us.
As a new republic, we cannot afford to make the same mistake twice when establishing the law of the land for our government. The weaknesses and flaws in the Articles of Confederation were evident when Shay’s rebellion arose not long ago in Massachusetts. How do we protect the law-abiding citizen from enemies, both foreign and domestic, who seek to disrupt the Liberty of the United States and jeopardize our security? The Constitution of the United States Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12 state, “The Congress shall have Power To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.” We the people of the United States must ratify the Constitution in order to create a Standing Army that provide security against both internal and external threats of America.
“Why are we here?” , You might be wondering. Well, I will tell you. As my good friend and colleague, Mr. Edmund Randolph, had introduced earlier in the Convention, the situation at hand is “preventing the fulfillment of the prophecies of the American downfall.” Our mission during the duration of this Constitutional Convention is to correct any issues pertaining to the Articles of Confederation that no longer are effective in running the federal government.
“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”. While maintaining a militia to protect the country, every colonist can own a gun for protection of themselves and their families. We want to ensure the basic right to bear arms we enjoyed as Englishmen remains because we were denied this right when we began to rise up against British authority in the colonies. It is important for us to be equally as armed as the government so we can rebel against the government if they overstep the boundaries in place by the Constitution. It is the right of the people to alter or abolish the government if it becomes
This is a second and deeper reason that the defense of the 2nd Amendment is essential to the defense of liberty. Advocates of banning guns think we can substitute material things for human self-control, but this approach will not wash. It is the human moral that will save us from violence, not the presence or absence of
The topic of gun control and firearm regulation has been subject to heated debate for a long while. Both sides have potent arguments, however the core of this issue ultimately boils down to the constitution itself. More specifically the second amendment. This argument quickly becomes quite complicated because gun control and firearm regulation concerns not only the right of citizens, but more importantly the safety of citizens. The second amendment helps to guarantee an imperative right belonging to all citizens.
and they are within their rights. (Brackemyre, n.d.) Although Congress was given the power to declare war, it was not given the power or right to assemble a militia. Having to rely on the states’ militia severely impeded the response time required to address both foreign and domestic situations that arose. For example, when the British began to encroach on America’s fishing rights and
For advocates of the second amendment, the right to bear arms applies to all Americans for self-protection against dangerous criminals. Criminals will always have access to weapons, therefore citizens need self-protection using firearms. John Lott, in “More Guns, Less Crime,” explains that crime fell by 10 percent in Texas in the year after a law had passed letting citizens carry weapons ( Martin 10). This evidence shows that if more citizens were armed for example, the citizens in Texas, less crime would occur in America. Although those in favor of the second amendment believe that arms are used in self-protection, they also believe it is an individual right and oppose strict gun control laws as
One of the most controversial issues our nation faces today is gun control laws. This controversy has been created due to the different interpretations of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution which states the right of citizens to bear arms; “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” (Cornell Law School). Anti-gun control laws believe that the amendment guarantees the right to bear any kind of firearms. On the other hand, we have does that believe that more controls laws should be implemented since the 2nd amendment was for the right of States to have an armed militia during wartime. Both sides have strong point, however, the safety of our children comes first, and a firearm means death in the wrong hands.
Since the begining of America, the Founding Fathers wrote the strong-standing Bill of Rights with amendments to protect the country that had just recently won their freedom, but one amendment has been the top theme of controversies for centuries. Gun laws offend the Bill of Rights in so many ways and they prove ineffective. Gun Laws are relevant due to thousands of deaths and self-protection. The argument goes on but without guns there is militia, one of the main intents of the Second Amendment. These simple rules can reduce deaths, proven by millions of influential people.