In the UN/Keld thread, I posted a comment to rifleer that stirred some controversy (though not from rifleer). I find that the thread in question has been locked, so I will start a new one. [:)]

Here is my offending statement:



To which darm441 responded:



and:




Lets examine this "silly" idea.

[b][red]Soveriegnty.  1. Supreme dominion, authority, or rule.[/red] - Blacks Law Dictionary[/b] In short, Soveriegnty is [i]who the boss is[/i].

[b]Who are Soveriegns?[/b]

In most forms of government, there is only one Sovereign...the government itself. It may be in any of a myriad of forms (Nobility, Democracy, etc), but in the end all power is said to derive from the rulers themselves. The people have no power and no real voice.

In our [b]Republic[/b], as outlined by The Founders, there are [b]three[/b] Soveriegns : The Federal Government, The Several States, and The People (as Individuals). The most powerful of these is The People. The job of the other two is to protect the Liberty of The People. Thats it.

In 1913, by taking from the Several States the ability to elect their own representatives (Senators), Congress decided it would [b]strip the Several States of their representation as Soveriegns[/b]. That most certainly did take from them that which should not be taken, and it was one more step towards a vile democracy. In effect, it placed yet one more chain upon the Soveriegn entities of the Several States, and pushed them further towards serfdom within a Federal system.

The Senate [b]was not[/b] intended to be a second House of Representatives. In our system, it was supposed to be a check/balance against the representative of the Federal government (The President), The People (the House), and the Several States (the Senate). As with the sepration of powers in the Judicial, Legislative, and Executive branches, so to was there a seperation of powers between the three classes of Sovereigns. (Yes, I realise that the President is in the Executive branch, however he still represents the Federal government when sending legislation to Congress)

See part 2, below....

Part 2....


In 1913, Congress upset that balance. That is indeed UnConstitutional, as it alters or Republican form of government and creates a conflict of interest within Congress. It is one more chip away at the 10th Amendment as well.

Simply saying "..well, it was a ratified amendment" is missing the point. There are those who believe that the Second (and in some cases the First, Fourth, and others) should be repealed.  If this was done, would you accept it because it was "ratified"??

The Constitution does indeed have a process for change. That process, however, is to be used like the rest of The Constitution...[b]as a limit on the power of government[/b]. Anything that grants government (especially Federal) more power should be viewed with suspicion, and scrutinized in light of the intent of the Founders.

[b]Democracy vs. Republic[/b]

The Founders most certainly knew what a [i]democracy[/i] is, they were learned men who were quite familiar with the history of governments up to that point. Notice that nowhere in The Constitution does the word [i]democracy[/i] appear. There is a reason for that...democracy is vile, it is a tyranny of the majority, and it strips away the Rights of the smallest minority (the Individual). The Founders put forth a system wherein all power of government is derived by the consent of the governed. In 1913, some of the governed lost their ability to have a say in that process.

Thoughts?

G2

The Founders, those most knowledgeable of Beings, set up a system of government inspired
by the Divine Creator.
Any later alteration of the System serves only
to destablize the harmonic balance of all the
parts that make up the whole and cause ultimate destruction.
The Founders are the Fountain Head, the Word,
the Alpha and Omega.
It is all there in their Original Creation.
There has never been and there will
never be a better system of Government.
We must return to the original premise and forgo
all alterations.

Great argument Grenadier2. Just, you might want to add another part: That some believe that the 17th amendment violates the last clause of Article V(which provides for amendment), which being:

"and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

What are your thoughts on this?

This could get interesting[smoke]

Interesting post Grenadier2.  

pro-Republic lib

>>In 1913, by taking from the Several States the ability to elect their own representatives (Senators), Congress decided it would strip the Several States of their representation as Soveriegns.<<
Sorry, Congress didn't take anything from the States, the States gave the right to select their Senators to the people of the State as a whole, rather than vesting it within the narower confines of the State Legislature.  No force, no unlawful act, nothing unconstitutional---a perfectly legal and constitutional action according to the Constitution itself.
>>Simply saying "..well, it was a ratified amendment" is missing the point. There are those who believe that the Second (and in some cases the First, Fourth, and others) should be repealed. If this was done, would you accept it because it was "ratified"??<<
Whether one would accept it or not was not the issue.  The issue was one of Constitutionality.  And yes, by definition, if those amendments were repealed according to the rules established by the Constitution, the repeal would be Constitutional.  The ability to amend is as important a part of the Constitution as all the other parts.  You don't get to pick and choose, it is one document that is accepted in it's entirety.  The Founders were wise men, and they gave us a very specific method for amending the Constitution. When that method is followed, you cannot say it is unconstitutional.  

Lets examine this. Article IV, section 4 guarantees every state a Republican form of government. If the states "give away" their right to elect their Senators via their own State Legislature, and put it to a direct vote of the people, the States have moved to a democratic form of government. In addition, it deprives each of the Several States their equal suffrage in the Senate (as pointed out by Libertyof76).

The Senate is not there as another House of Representatives, its function is to represent the [i]Several States[/i] as Sovereigns.

In the Constitution, those Rights which apply to the Several States are distinct from those which apply to Individuals, and are clearly stated as such. Its not ambiguous, its quite clear.




Those are not entirely seperate issues. You, as a member of The People, must give your consent. If there was an amendment that the US was to become an openly Socialist nation, be assured it would not be Constitutional, no matter what legal rules were followed. The Constitution is not a living document, it is a contract. When one or more parties alters a contract to be contrary to its original intent, that contract is void. A new contract is needed...and it is one most of us will not be a party to. [b]We The People[/b] are the ultimate masters of our government, not the other way around.


More on this later, Im late getting back to work [:)] BTW, Libertyof76, I will think about your question in the meantime...that does pose an interesting dilemma.

G2

>>Lets examine this. Article IV, section 4 guarantees every state a Republican form of government.<<
Yes, but again you are being selective about which parts of the Constitution you want to look at.  For example, Article I, Section 4 gives the Congress the right to make or alter the regulations concerning election of Senators and Representatives ("...may at any time by Law...").  "By Law" is the amendment process, as presented in Article V, which says that once the amendment is ratified by the States it "... shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution...."
>>In addition, it deprives each of the Several States their equal suffrage in the Senate (as pointed out by Libertyof76).<<
While some have taken that position over the years, it has been continuously (and I believe unanimously) rejected by the courts and by most constitutional scholars, as it does not deprive any State of equal suffrage.  Each State still has 2 votes, each vote of the same weight and authority as the other.
>>Those are not entirely seperate issues. You, as a member of The People, must give your consent. If there was an amendment that the US was to become an openly Socialist nation, be assured it would not be Constitutional, no matter what legal rules were followed. <<
Sorry, but that is just flat wrong.  By definition, anything that is authorized by the Constitution cannot be unconstitutional.  It might not be fair, it might not be right, it might not be moral or just, but it would be constitutional.
>>The Constitution is not a living document, it is a contract. When one or more parties alters a contract to be contrary to its original intent, that contract is void.<<
Again, you are wrong.  When a contract includes within it a mechanism for change, and the parties have agreed to that mechanism, invoking the mechanism does not void the contract.

Thats interesting.

Im being selective?? [b]You left out the last line of the first paragraph[/b] of Article I, section 4....[red]..but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, [b]except as to the Places of chusing Senators.[/b][/red]

Since Senators were chosen by the [b]legislatures[/b] of the Several States, apparently those behind the 17th Amendment couldnt read??



Thats a spurious argument. If instead of direct election of Senators, the Congress had decided to remove [b]your[/b] suffrage in choosing your Representative, would that be alright? Especially if it were done "legally"?? Using the theory you present, it would be Constitutional...after all, your "vote" would still count as a vote, right?? One vote carries the same weight as any other, I suppose [;)]

The Several States are [b]Sovereign entities[/b] who have the same right to Suffrage as any qualified Individual citizen. Ever notice that in Congress the Senate has two votes per State, and that the People have one vote per "x" number of population? Its called a check and balance. It protects the smaller States from populist movements of the People in larger ones, while at the same time putting every State on an equal footing as Soveriegn entities.

In 1913, the balance was upset. Now, the States do not get to choose their Senators, and as we have seen over the last 90 or so years, this has turned the Senate into an even worse cesspool of populism than it was previously.



Anything that reverses both the letter and intent of the Constitution is indeed UnConstitutional. The Founders didnt build a Republic that would then become a vile democracy and expect it to stand. They unfortunately misjudged the apathy and ignorance of later generations when they expected that The People would stay awake. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. It still doesnt make anything "Constitutional", either. Anything that violates [b]original intent[/b] is wrong. Its no secret what that intent was, either...its just that many people are content to rely on the opinion of jurists who are unable to read English (or who willfully disregard it).
             




Except when the contract violates the intent of the original. If those who desire a vile democracy wish to see it, they need to start over with another contract. If we lived in a democracy, you would be correct...but this is supposed to be a Republic. Anything that moves us away from that voids the contract.

The intent of Amendments was to allow changes...but in the same spirit as the rest of The Constitution. The changes are supposed to be [b]limits upon Federal power[/b], not changes that strip rights from Soveriegns.

G2

Everyone seems to be overlooking WHY Senators were appointed by the states and WHY that system was changed.

The primary original purpose of the Senate was to veto or approve bills raising revenues, which is why all such bills, to this day, must initiate in the House of Representatives. The Senators knew that taxes would have to be supported back home to be collectable and that the state legislatures would have to implement them. When Amendment XVI, allowing the collection of income tax, was ratified in 1913 the Congress passed Amendment XVII to allow direct election of Senators since Congress had effectively eliminated the function of the Senate as a sanity check on rampant Federal spending.

Look at it this way - once the Feds could pick your pocket directly, they figured they might as well let you choose which thieves you wanted to do the picking.

>>Im being selective?? You left out the last line of the first paragraph of Article I, section 4......but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.<<
The places have not changed.  The places of chusing are still defined by the boundaries of the State.
>>Thats a spurious argument.<<
Uh, there is no argument at all, simply a statement of fact.  If you choose to disregard the findings of the courts and of the scholars, tha tis fine, but it doesn't change that facts at all.
>>Its called a check and balance. It protects the smaller States from populist movements of the People in larger ones, while at the same time putting every State on an equal footing as Soveriegn entities.<<
The method of selection of Senators does not change any of that in the least.
>>Now, the States do not get to choose their Senators,<<
Of course they do.  They have simply agreed to choose through the process of direct vote.
>>Anything that reverses both the letter and intent of the Constitution is indeed UnConstitutional.<<
Nope.  If it is done according to the rules established by the Constitution, it is considered to be constitutional.
>>Anything that violates original intent is wrong.<<
Not arguing that.  However, tight or wrong is not the same as constitutional or not.
>>Except when the contract violates the intent of the original.<<
Sorry, but there is no statutory or common law support for that statement.
>>The intent of Amendments was to allow changes...but in the same spirit as the rest of The Constitution.<<
Again, there is no requirement or support for that to be found anyplace, statutorily or constitutionally.  

???? So, then the Representatives can be chosen from [i]outside[/i] the boundaries of the State, if Congress so chooses?? LOL. Note that [b]only[/b] the place of chusing Senators isnt supposed to change, it doesnt address Representatives. Where do you get the "States boundaries" theory from?



You are avoiding the fact that the States are [b]themselves[/b] Soveriegn entities. The People are [b]seperate[/b] and [b]distinct[/b] Sovereiegns. You have one Sovereign choosing in place of another. Thats wrong. If the shoe was on the other foot, I suspect you wouldnt like that too much. But, it would be "Constitutional" so thats Ok, I guess. [:)] Hmmm...maybe the Soviets had the right idea after all...

As to the rest of the post, you are again relying upon jurists who are incapable of comprehending written English. It boils down to the fact that we dont agree.

The Founders themselves were quite plain about what it was they created. For anyone to abuse the process of change, and then say its "Constitutional" may be a technical legality, but it violates the intent of the law and its creators.

Technicalities be damned...this is our Republic.  Those destroying it from within are breaking the law in a very real sense, whether the Nine Robed Destroyers want to admit it or not...perhaps they can "discover" something new to help us, like they have discovered so many other [b]non-existant "rights"[/b] while ignoring Rights that are plainly stated??? LMAO.

The argument you advance sounds very much like the condition of the last dayus of the Weimar Republic. That was all "legal" too.....

Ooops...late for work again [:)]

G2

Very interesting. How can the States and the "federal" government properly compete with and check each other's power if the States no longer have any handle on the goings-on in Congress?

This nation got off to such a promising start, how'd we let things get so screwed up?

>>???? So, then the Representatives can be chosen from outside the boundaries of the State, if Congress so chooses??<<
Theoretically, I would suppose so, if all other impediments were legally removed.  Not too far fetched when one realizes the many Senators and Representatives are citizens of their respective states in name only, and actually spend most of their time and make their living outside of the the state.
>Where do you get the "States boundaries" theory from?<<
That is one (of several) interpretations provided by some of the researchers. I ran across it years ago and it seems to make more sense than some of the more convoluted explanations.  
>>You are avoiding the fact that the States are themselves Soveriegn entities. The People are seperate and distinct Sovereiegns. You have one Sovereign choosing in place of another. Thats wrong.<<
Again, it doesn't matter if it is right or wrong.  The only thing that matters is if the amendment was properlay ratified.  At that point it becomes legal, constitutional, and binding.
>>As to the rest of the post, you are again relying upon jurists who are incapable of comprehending written English.<<
Strange how all of them are wrong and you are right, isn't it?  Perhaps you would care to provide us with your years of experience and study that make you so qualified and all those judges and lega and constitutional scholars wrong.
>>For anyone to abuse the process of change, and then say its "Constitutional" may be a technical legality, but it violates the intent of the law and its creators.<<
We are not a nation of intent, because once a person is gone we can longer know what their intent would be in a given situation.  We are a nation of laws.  That way if you don't like something, you can change the law.  If the Founding Fathers didn't want the law (Constitution) to ever be changed, they would not have given us the amendment process.
>>Technicalities be damned...this is our Republic.<<
It is those technicalities that keep the Republic from falling into anarchy.  
>>Those destroying it from within are breaking the law in a very real sense, whether the Nine Robed Destroyers want to admit it or not.<<
Very simple solution. If you don't like it, all you have to do is change the law.  If you get enough people to think like you do, great.  I doubt it will happen, but you are free to try.
>>The argument you advance sounds very much like the condition of the last dayus of the Weimar Republic. That was all "legal" too....<<
Oh gee, and things were going so good.  I have found that a good general rule of discussion is that whenever someone has to resort to dragging out that old Nazi dog that they are running out of real arguments and getting desperate.  Here, let me do a quick race and gender counter and then we can get back to reasonable discussion if you wish.
>>perhaps they can "discover" something new to help us, like they have discovered so many other non-existant "rights" while ignoring Rights that are plainly stated???<<
You mean sort of like the "right" to own slaves, and to prohibit women from voting?  Those plainly stated rights that we now ignore??

Sounds like an argument for term limits [:)]



LOL. Ok. I keep forgetting, those who make the laws are lawyer/liars...ethics, morality, and [b]clearly written and documanted intent[/b] have no bearing on law. You do have a point there, I will grant that. We live in a sorry world [:)]  



Hmmm..funny how you readily accept the [b]opinions[/b] of those who have (in many cases) a [b]stated agenda[/b] that is totally out of synch with what The Founders [b]stated and documented[/b] what it was they created.

I can read English, the language that The Constitution was written in. There are some glaring examples of courts being incapable of doing the same. [i]US v. Miller[/i] (1939) is a good one to start with.

Heres a question...what happens when these esteemed legal experts are [b]wrong[/b]?? Or are they only wrong when [b]they[/b] say so?? Perhaps we "common folk" are too ignorant to know the difference? [:p]

The Constitution [b]wasnt written for lawyers[/b]...it was written to be a plain language "rulebook" for We The People.



Many of the Founders made their intent quite plain...they [b]wrote it down[/b]. There is a plain language record of a very large body of expressed thought that exists in commonly available printed form. Some of the Founders, like Jefferson (among others) were quite prolific in their writings.



Funny, they gave us very several plainly worded things in the Constitution that are routinely violated in ways that are distinctly UnConstitutional. The 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments come to mind.....

I had this thought....it is common thought among liar/lawyer lawmakers that "nothing is UnConstitutional until its [i]challenged[/i]." When something is finally declared to be UnConstitutional, it is as if that law had always been null and void. Hmmm. Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled post...

Ahhh...the "A" word. Funny how that eventually comes up in any discussion of the Constitution, as if a return to the Founders stated intent/ideas would plunge us into a new dark ages. LOL. Its Law and its Intent, not its Abuse that prevents Anarchy.



I doubt it as well. 80+ years of public education have made that nearly impossible. Most people believe we live in a democracy, just for starters. Perhaps we are done for....



The only person mentioning the Nazi boogyman is you. I made reference to the Weimar Republic (actually a democracy), and its willingness to allow itself to be used as all democracies are, to the advantage of the plunderer. I do not wish to see this nation go down the same path, by allowing things that are supposedly legal, but that violate the (stated) intent of the Law. Read what I posted, not what you see others posting. The Nazis were Socialists, and as such were (and the showed it) the enemy of all free people. Objection overulled, counsellor. [;)]



Hmmm, speaking of dragging out the same old dogs...

You are comparing apples to oranges. The Constitution is a [b]limit upon Federal Power[/b]. The issues of suffrage and slavery were [b]State[/b] issues, except the interstate commerce end of the slave trade. Besides that, thats another whole topic.

G2


           




             

>>Hmmm..funny how you readily accept the opinions of those who have (in many cases) a stated agenda that is totally out of synch with what The Founders stated and documented what it was they created.<<
I don't readily accept anything.  However, when a person says that their point of view is right and that the point of view of those that are considered to be experts in the field is wrong, it is nice to have some support besides "this is what I think so I am right and they are wrong."
>>I can read English, the language that The Constitution was written in. There are some glaring examples of courts being incapable of doing the same. US v. Miller (1939) is a good one to start with.<<
Not really.  The Court, under the rule of law, could only consider the information presented to it.  Since there was nobody there for the defense, no information opposing the government case was presented.
>>Heres a question...what happens when these esteemed legal experts are wrong?? Or are they only wrong when they say so??<<
Wrong as a concept is commonly decided by the weight of the body of knowledge in existence at that time.  As we learn more, and as the body of knowledge expands, the concept may change or may be reinforced.
>>we "common folk" are too ignorant to know the difference?<<
Sadly, many are.  Most folks won't make the effort to read good informative material, and even more people have no idea how to engage in critical thinking.
>>The Constitution wasnt written for lawyers...it was written to be a plain language "rulebook" for We The People.<<
For such a plain language book few people can agree on what it means.  The Constitution is anything but plain, it is a very vague document with lots of areas that require interpretation.  Just look at the 2nd Amendment, and how much discussion goes into it.
>>Many of the Founders made their intent quite plain...they wrote it down. There is a plain language record of a very large body of expressed thought that exists in commonly available printed form.<<
Doesn't matter.  Once they are gone, their "intent" is open to interpretation by different parties, and each party has as much right to interpret that intent as the next.
>>Funny, they gave us very several plainly worded things in the Constitution that are routinely violated in ways that are distinctly UnConstitutional. The 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments come to mind.....<<
That is your opinion.  Others disagree.  I might point out, BTW, that using your reasoning we would not have the Amendments since they are not part of the original Constitution, and thus constitute a change to the document.
>>I had this thought....it is common thought among liar/lawyer lawmakers that "nothing is UnConstitutional until its challenged."<<
Pretty close.  That is an old common law dictum that says all laws are considered valid and binding until declared invalid by the proper authorities.
>>Ahhh...the "A" word. Funny how that eventually comes up in any discussion of the Constitution, as if a return to the Founders stated intent/ideas would plunge us into a new dark ages.<<
That is not the reason it comes up.  It comes up because when one takes away the rule of law and suggests operating on the intent of the Constitution (or the intent of any law) you basically do away with law, and each person is left to decide what the intent is and how the law should be interpreted.  That is anarchy.

>>The only person mentioning the Nazi boogyman is you. I made reference to the Weimar Republic (actually a democracy), and its willingness to allow itself to be used as all democracies are, to the advantage of the plunderer.<<
Fair enough.  If your intent was not to invoke the demons of Nazism, I believe you.  But it does provide a great example of what I am talking about.  Without you here, people could read the passage and come to different conclusions about your intent.
>>I do not wish to see this nation go down the same path, by allowing things that are supposedly legal, but that violate the (stated) intent of the Law.<<
You cannot run a nation by intent.  You must have the law.  Again, if you don't like the law, try to convince enough people that it needs to be changed.  If you cannot, perhaps your position isn't nearly as good as you think it is.
>>The Constitution is a limit upon Federal Power. The issues of suffrage and slavery were State issues...<<
Once again, your opinion is not in accordance with most.  Slavery and sufferage were/are considered Federal issues.  And the Consitution is more than a limit on Federal power, it is also a rulebook on how to run the government.  And as with any rulebook, it is subject to change.  In this case, the amendment process was put in place without any limitations by the Founding Fathers to allow that change to happen, and when it happens that change is as strong and as valid as the original document itself.

So, the judges threw all ability to reason out the window? I realise that there was no defence presented, but how anyone could uphold a law that is nothing but a [b]punitive tax[/b] is beyond me...especially when that tax is levied upon something recognized [b]in the decision[/b] as an Individual Right.



I take my support from the Constitution itself, and the stated intent (and its [b]not[/b] ambiguous, especially in the context of 2nd Amendment issues) of the Founders. See my comments on [i]Miller[/i] above.




A simple perusal of [i]The Federalist Papers[/i], and [i]The Anti Federalist Papers[/i], as well as the grammer and syntax of the Amendment in question are sufficient to answer any question about the 2nd Amendment. The simple fact that there are people with an agenda that is adverse to Liberty is what causes the "confusion".



Some things were written so plainly and/or in enough detail that only someone who wishes to obfuscate an issue would be "confused" about it and want to "interpret it. Modern day anti-gunners, activist jurists, and politicians fall neatly into that pigeonhole.



Funny, I never suggested [b]doing away with law[/b], what I put forth was a suggestion to [b]return to it[/b]. Quite a difference. Intent is only needed when one is proposing changes that could be in conflict with a laws original purpose, such as shifts towards a radically different form of government. [:)]




             

Not at all. The Constitution would never have been ratified [b]without[/b] the first 10. I only question those amendments that go beyond the pale of limiting Federal power.



Well, I believe "most" to be incorrect. Some people take [i]Federalism[/i] too far. Many of the Founders believed that too. Thats why we have a Bill of Rights among other things. The United States even went to war with another [b]soveriegn nation[/b] over just that issue.



Yes, and if you will note, the "rules" are all [b]limits upon the Federal government[/b], except for a very few things that are specific areas of Federal responsibility. Its a very well-defined box of powers IMO.



Hmmmm...I believe here is where we really part philosophically. I do not agree that changes to the Constitution that alter our Republican form of government are legal. If the Founders wanted something different, they would have created it. Several of them did state that if the Federal system was abused, that it was the Right (and duty) of The People to alter or abolish that system. We are headed down that road at breakneck speed...all I wish for is an application of the brakes.

What it boils down to is that I believe the Founders stated what they wanted, and the intent/philosophy behind it, and that is the framework that should be utilized when questions arise about the Constitutionality of any action. Others do not. [:)]

I have enjoyed our discussion, however. Thanks for not turning this into a flame war.


G2
           

>>So, the judges threw all ability to reason out the window? I realise that there was no defence presented, but how anyone could uphold a law that is nothing but a punitive tax is beyond me.<<
That is because you probably (like most people) don't understand how the judicial system works.  We are an adversarial system, and unless the opposing party presents an issue the court cannot consider the issue in rendering a decision.
>>I take my support from the Constitution itself, and the stated intent (and its not ambiguous, especially in the context of 2nd Amendment issues) of the Founders.<<
That is nice, but it still doesn't explain why your interpretation of the Constitution and intent shoud be considered better than the interpretation of others.  And the intent (as well as the actual wording) is very ambiguous.  The fact that there are so many different interpretations and beliefs about the meaning of the Constitution makes that self-evident.
>>A simple perusal of The Federalist Papers, and The Anti Federalist Papers, as well as the grammer and syntax of the Amendment in question are sufficient to answer any question about the 2nd Amendment. The simple fact that there are people with an agenda that is adverse to Liberty is what causes the "confusion". <<
Nonsense.  People have been arguing over the meaning of the Constitution and its Amendments since they were written.  Many good strong supporters of liberty disagree on meaning.  Don Kates, for example, who is considered to be one of the primary 2nd Amendment supporters, disagrees with David Koppel (also a prominent 2nd supporter) on some key elements of the 2nd Amendment.
>>Some things were written so plainly and/or in enough detail that only someone who wishes to obfuscate an issue would be "confused" about it and want to "interpret it. Modern day anti-gunners, activist jurists, and politicians fall neatly into that pigeonhole.<<
Doesn't matter.  WHat matters is that intent can be interpreted in different ways by different people.  Trying to ascribe motives to their intent is just like trying to defend your intent---an opponent can always claim it is only the result of a biased interpretation.  That is why intent cannot be used for legal purposes.  Without the original party there to explain the intent, ay inerpretation is just as valid as the next.
>>Funny, I never suggested doing away with law, what I put forth was a suggestion to return to it.<<
No, you are suggesting we not follow the law as it is written, but instead follow the itent.  Since each person can interpret the intent differently, each person basically gets to have their own rules of law, which means there is no law.
>>Not at all. The Constitution would never have been ratified without the first 10. I only question those amendments that go beyond the pale of limiting Federal power.<<
But the first 10 DID amend the Constitution.  Now either we have the right to amend the Cosntitution or we don't.  If we do, all amedments that are legally ratified are in order.  If we don't, none of them are.  Don't get to pick and choose here.

>>Well, I believe "most" to be incorrect.<<
Again, when one is in conflict with the standard accepted body of knowledge, it would be helpful if you could provide more than "I am right and they are wrong because I say so."
>>Yes, and if you will note, the "rules" are all limits upon the Federal government, except for a very few things that are specific areas of Federal responsibility. Its a very well-defined box of powers IMO.<<
The very fact that you have to include an "except" automatically negates the claim of "all."  As to being well-defined, again most will disagree.  In fact we fought a whole civil war over how to define part of it.
>>I do not agree that changes to the Constitution that alter our Republican form of government are legal. If the Founders wanted something different, they would have created it.<<
The Founders gave us the power to amend the Consitution.  If they would have wanted that power to be restricted, they would have said so.  They didn't.  And again, if it is done according to law, it is legal by definition.  It might be wrong, it might be bad, it might be unjust, but it cannot be illegal.
>>If the Founders wanted something different, they would have created it.<<
If the Founders had not wanted us to be able to change the Constitution they would not have witten it with an unrestricted amendment clause.
>>What it boils down to is that I believe the Founders stated what they wanted<<
I do too.  They wanted the Constitution to be changed when needed, thus they stated that it could be amended and that the amendments would be as valid as the rest of the Constitution.
>>I have enjoyed our discussion, however. Thanks for not turning this into a flame war.<<
My pleasure.  It is always enjoyable to engage in a reasoned discussion with a reasonable person.  I wish more people would do so.