Author/Historian Joe Ellis answers questions regarding 2A and Heller decision

[CWulf]

You may want to reconsider before you buy one of Joseph Ellis’s books (Founding Brothers. He is a rather prolific writer on the Revolutionary War period and our founding fathers and may be familiar to some of you. He has an op-ed in todays Globe entitled “The Pitfalls of assuming the ‘original intent’ of Founders’ that covers questions he was asked while out shilling his latest book. Contrary to the title the first thing Ellis does is declare his assumption of ‘original intent’. He is very specific on the Second Amendment and the Heller ruling… its pretty clear this guy is not on our side… and of course is a teach at Mount Holyoke College… Here is his response to a question regarding the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment.

Do you agree that the Second Amendment provides a nearly unlimited right to bear arms?
James Madison wrote the Second Amendment, indeed the first draft of the entire Bill of Rights, in the late spring of 1789. His chief source was the list of 132 amendments recommended by six state ratifying conventions. His intentions were political rather than philosophical, namely to appease the reluctant rectifiers by taking their suggested limitations on federal authority seriously. None of the proposed amendments mentioned the right to bear arms. Three mentioned the fear of a standing army. The Second Amendment was designed to assure that national defense would remain in the hands of state militia, not a professional army. The right to bear arms, in Madison’s mind, was not a natural right, but derived from service in the militia.

I guess we can't make an assumption of intent but Ellis can….

On Heller….
Does that mean that you think the 2008 Supreme Court decision is wrong?
Yes, and doubly so. The majority opinion in Heller v. District of Columbia, written by Antonin Scalia, purports to be a poster-child for the judicial doctrine of “original intent,” yet it ignores the unequivocal intentions of Madison that I have just described, presumably because Scalia shaped his opinion around a conclusion that he had already reached beforehand.

Again, Heller’s assumption is all that should be considered…

I guess I really need to figure out why I still get the globe…

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...KomwyVxUDBO/story.html?event=event12#comments

 

[free]

In the context of original intent, he is correct. Calm down. He is only interpreting some of the founders and writers. Go bad mouth Madison on his chatroom, and don't buy his books.

Elsewhere, he has made the point that such rights, go beyond the constitution. That they ARE natural.

 

[Waher]

Elsewhere, he has made the point that such rights, go beyond the constitution. That they ARE natural.

Except that the author explicitly is stating that he believes Madison thought and intentionally wrote the 2nd Amendment otherwise.

It's pretty clear to me from reading works of the framers that the meaning of the 2A is like all other other rights in that they are individual and collective rights. That citizens INDIVIDUALLY have the right to keep and bear arms and have the COLLECTIVE right to assembly to be part of/train with,be regular (as in the original meaning of regulated in good working order/practice) with other armed citizens as a militia.

No different than the 1st amendment. You have the right to freedom of speech and religion as an individual and to practice speech and religion collectively in a crowd, congregation, print house, etc.

None of this, "you are free to do what you want at home but not in public" or "you are free to do so as part of a group but not as individual" bullshit.

 

[standfast86]

I mean c'mon, he made it number two. It couldn't have meant that much to him.

 

[CWulf]

In the context of original intent, he is correct. Calm down. He is only interpreting some of the founders and writers. Go bad mouth Madison on his chatroom, and don't buy his books.

Elsewhere, he has made the point that such rights, go beyond the constitution. That they ARE natural.

I am not sure what you mean, I am calm, and I disagree with you. And your post proves the point I am trying to make.. Ellis is warning of the 'pitfalls' of making assumptions of what the founders intended and then goes ahead and make some pretty big assumptions. I am not bad mouthing Madison, he was a great man. I am surprised Madison has a chat room, he has been dead quite a while.

 

[Dadstoys]

He might want to try reading the Federalist papers.
The founding fathers clarified the intent of many amendments including the 2nd.
Some historian.
We need a flipping the bird or mooning emoticons.

 

[Woodstock]

Ellis rewrites history all the time - including his own. For years he bragged to students and faculty members about his service with the 101st Airborne in Vietnam. He was never there, and Mt. Holyoke had to suspend him for a year when the story got too hot. And when Clinton got into the mess with Monica, Ellis came up with the story that Thomas Jefferson had fathered children with his slave Sally Henning. DNA results showed the father could have been any one of 25 male family members, but the story helped the media excuse Clinton because "they all do it."
http://www.warbirdforum.com/ellis.htm