Judicial Interpretations of Commerce, C. The Meaning of "among the several States" 1.
Originally published as 82 Mich. For educational use only. The printed edition remains canonical. For citational use please obtain a back issue from William S. Among those which this Article will not cover in any depth are: 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.
The individual right view is endorsed by only a minority of legal scholars,  but accepted by a majority of the general populace who, though supporting the idea of controlling guns, increasingly oppose their prohibition, believing that law-abiding citizens may properly have them for self-defense.
While the New York Times editorializes that "[t]he urban handgun offers no benefits,"  its publisher is among the few privileged to possess a New York City permit to carry one at all times. By concentrating attention on the state's right position, the gun-owner organizations have been able to avoid the details of their own individual right position, which seems inconsistent with the kinds of gun controls the organizations have themselves endorsed.
Why not of artillery, flame-throwers, machine guns, and so on, to the prohibition of which gun-owner groups have readily acceded?
The evidence to be examined must include: This Article will then consider the amendment's subsequent judicial interpretation, and the question of its incorporation against the states, before returning to constitutional limitations on the right to keep and bear arms.
The Original Understanding of the Second Amendment The two opposing camps naturally rely on different interpretations of the origins of the second amendment.
Proponents of the exclusively state's right view  see the amendment as responding to p. Those clauses give Congress the power to call out the militia and "to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining" it.
According to the state's right interpretation, the amendment was motivated by fear that Congress might order the states' organized militias disarmed, thereby leaving the states powerless against federal tyranny.
Thus, this view sees the amendment as a response to concerns that time and the course of American history have rendered anachronistic.
During the Revolution, and the subsequent period of the Articles of Confederation, the states loomed larger than the federal government and jealously guarded their prerogatives against it. While the Constitution itself heralded a decisive though limited repudiation of those attitudes, they remained strong enough to assure two precatory admonitions a place in the Bill of Rights.
These became the second and tenth amendments. The purpose of the second amendment was simply to place the states' organized military forces beyond the federal government's power to disarm, guaranteeing that the states would always have sufficient force at their command to nullify federal impositions on their rights and to resist by arms if necessary.
Though the federal government could not be denied authority to maintain a small army, the basic military defense of the country would rest in the states' reserved power to maintain their own organized military forces.
These could be joined together to resist foreign invasion in time of need. Thus, the philosophy underlying the second amendment not only guaranteed the states' right to keep armed forces, but obviated any need for a massive federal military which might defeat them if they found it necessary to revolt.
Though it yet lingers in the Constitution, it does not for it was never p. Rather, it guarantees an exclusive right of the states, which only the states have standing to invoke. This they need not do today when any value the amendment might presently have for them is satisfied by their federally-provided National Guard structure.
Advocates of the individual right position, on the other hand, rely on the fact that the natural reading of the amendment's phrase "right of the people" is that it creates not a state right, but one which individuals can assert. This is how the identically phrased  first and fourth amendments are interpreted.
Indeed, the evidence suggests it was precisely by protecting the individual that the Framers intended to protect the militia.
To demonstrate that no individual right was intended, he must show not just that there was a desire to protect the states, but that there was no desire to protect individuals--despite the most natural reading of the amendment's phraseology. As we shall see, this is a particularly difficult burden to bear.
Such debate as the amendment received is sparse and inconclusive, while other legislative history strongly supports the proposition that protection of an individual right was at least one of the amendment's purposes. Parsing the Language of the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights In general, the text of the second amendment, and of the Bill of Rights as a whole, provides a series of insuperable obstacles to an exclusively state's right interpretation.
State's right analyses have tended not to come to grips with these obstacles; if they focus on the amendment's wording at all, it is only on the word "militia," assuming that the Framers meant "militia" to refer to "a particular military force," i.
The Militia Throughout their existence, the American colonies had endured the constant threat of sudden attack by Indians or any of Britain's Dutch, French and Spanish colonial rivals.
Instead, they adopted the ancient practice that was still in vogue in England, the militia system. The "militia" was the entire adult male citizenry, who were not simply allowed to keep their own arms, but affirmatively required to do so. In the pre-colonial English tradition there had been no police and no standing army in peacetime.
~I+ ON SAVING TIME. Greetings from Seneca to his friend Lucilius. CONTINUE to act thus, my dear Lucilius - set yourself free for your own sake; gather and save your time, which till lately has been forced from you, or filched away, or has merely slipped from your hands. Two weeks later, we received a brief email from Bill Gothard requesting a meeting with us for the purposes of “reconciliation.” What followed was a day-long exchange of emails in which we would ask specific questions of him in an attempt to discern whether this was a sincere effort towards repentance. Do keep in mind that terms like "To Whom It May Concern" may seem dated, so the best options may be either to use "Dear Hiring Manager" or not to include a greeting at all. Simply start with the first paragraph of your letter.
It was adopted perforce in the colonies, which were thousands of miles by sail from any succor the Mother Country might provide. With slight variations, the different colonies imposed a duty to keep arms and to muster occasionally for drill upon virtually every able-bodied white man between the age of majority and a designated cut-off age.
Moreover, the duty to keep arms applied to every household, not just to those containing persons subject to militia service.Aug 06, · "To whom it may concern" should only be used when writing a letter and the identity of the person reading it is not yet known.
A classic example is a reference when you leave a job that you can present to a prospective employer. Two weeks later, we received a brief email from Bill Gothard requesting a meeting with us for the purposes of “reconciliation.” What followed was a day-long exchange of emails in which we would ask specific questions of him in an attempt to discern whether this was a sincere effort towards repentance.
To access the new Vendor Information Pages (VIP) you must select one of the options available through AccessVA login: Veteran Small Business Owners: DS Login: Veterans (including Veterans Small Business Owners (Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB) or Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) or their business representatives who are also Veterans.
RADICAL INNOCENCE: The Romantics valued innocence as something pure, wholesome, fulfilling, natural, and individualistic. They saw it as antithetical to the corrupting influence of civilized conformity and the heartless, mechanized, industrialized, materialistic society of the Enlightenment.
The First Letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians follows his Letter to the Romans in the New Testament of the barnweddingvt.com then wrote a Second Letter to the Corinthians, again in response to issues that arose with time.
St. Paul visited Athens and then established a Christian community in Corinth, a seaport in Greece, about the year 51 AD, on his second missionary journey from Antioch, as. A Sample Cover Letter with "To Whom It May Concern" The cover letter is a necessary document when applying for a job.
It is how you sell yourself to a potential employer and request an interview.