32 James i, the first Stuart monarch, took the Crown in 1603. 33 An agitated house of Commons immediately confronted him. 34 James had proclaimed that individuals elected to parliament could be seated only if certified by the chancery; only proper men could be certified. 35 Parliament took the position that it would determine who should be seated. 36 The relationship deteriorated, with James frequently asserting that Kings hold their thrones by the will of God, not Parliament, and that to dispute the king is blasphemy. 37 James's position was that the king was the law and all rights flowed from the king. Consequently, in 1621, james advised Parliament that it existed only by the grace of the king. 38 Legal commentators and Parliament assessed the question of the king's power differently.
Can someone summarize the
22, queen Elizabeth I formalized the advantages process by issuing instructions for general musters of the citizen army in each county. 23 Commissions were issued to various knights to take charge of such musters. 24 The purpose of the musters was to enable queen Elizabeth to know the "numbers, qualities, abilities and sufficiency of all her subjects in that county., from the age of sixteen years upward, that may be found able to bear armour or to use weapons. The period's commentators attributed English military successes to the universal armament practice prevalent in England but absent on the continent. 27 Visitors from the continent even noticed the stark difference. 28 Historians suggested that English universal armament caused a moderation of monarchial rule and fostered individual liberties because the populace had in reserve a check which soon brought the fiercest and proudest King to reason: the check of physical force. 29 However, the virtues of universal armament and the effect of universal armament on monarchial rule had not escaped Parliament's notice. The early Stuart period was the single most important period in English history in terms of shaping the political theory of the American revolutionary leaders. 30 During this period, civil war occurred between Parliament and the crown, a king was executed, another King fled to France, a military dictatorship (p.1012)ruled, supremacy of the English Parliament over the crown was established, and Parliament installed a new King and queen and forced. 31 Throughout this period, various factions sought to control the militia and intermittently to disarm opposing factions.
In 1253, the armed population was expanded beyond freemen to include serfs, individuals friendship bound to the land and the land's owner. 17, serfs were required to procure a spear and dagger. 18, inclusion of serfs in the citizen army was related to the mustering of men and arms which occurred early in 1253 for purposes of crossing the sea to gascavy and supporting the realm against the king of Castile. 19, another general levy occurred in 1297, which directed all men possessing land to a value of twenty pounds to provide themselves with horses and arms and to come to london for purposes of service in France. 20, the citizen-army concept continued to develop through the tudor period. Henry viii decreed that fathers must purchase longbows for sons between seven and fourteen years of age and teach them to shoot. 21, each citizen between the age of fourteen and forty years was required to own and use a longbow unless (p.1011)disabled.
10, blackstone credits King Alfred, who ruled desk England from 871 to 901. D., as establishing the principle that all subjects of his dominion were the realm's soldiers. 11, other commentators trace the obligation of Englishmen to serve in (p.1010)the people's army to 690. 12, regardless of the beginning date, an Englishman's obligation to serve in a citizen army is an old proposition. Coupled with this obligation to defend the realm was the obligation to provide oneself with weapons for this purpose. 13, king Henry ii formalized his subjects' duties in 1181 by issuing the Assize of Arms. 14, the arms required varied depending on the subjects' wealth, with the poorest freemen obligated to provide the least-an iron helmet and a lance. 15, the Assize required not only arms to be possessed, but precluded the possessor from selling, pledging, or in any other way alienating the weapons.
The magnitude of the sacrifice must (p.1009)depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained." 6, the purpose of this Article is only to define those shares of liberty the Framers intended to retain and those given up in the. By way of preview, this Article will contend that the original intent of the second Amendment was to protect each individual's right to keep and bear arms, and to guarantee that individuals acting collectively could throw off the yokes of any oppressive government which might. Thus, the right envisioned was not only the right to be armed, but to be armed at a level equal to the government. To determine the original intent of the second Amendment, this Article will examine the history of armed citizens in England, the federalist and Antifederalist debates, the meaning of the word "militia the constitutional ratification process, and the various state constitutions in existence at the time. Eighteenth-century commentators frequently discussed the evils of standing armies. 7, blackstone observed that professional soldiers endangered liberty. 8, in free states, the defense of the realm was considered best left to citizens who took up arms only when necessary and who returned to their communities and occupations when the danger passed. Standing armies were viewed as instruments of fear intended to preserve the prince.
The, federalist, papers (1787-1789 federalist, essays.45
All of this is true even though holi most of us would (p.1008)agree that nazi hate language is of no utility, and a criminal's confession, absent coercion, and the fruits of a search of his or her house are among the best indicators of actual guilt. Yet, we zealously defend these rights on the premise that governmental abuse of power is a greater evil than that posed by individual hatemongers or criminals. In the context of the second Amendment, civil libertarian instincts are overcome by our fear of one another. As a consequence, we find civil libertarian organizations, such as the American civil Liberties Union (aclu acting as participants in such groups as the national coalition to ban Handguns. 5, indeed, the aclu, typically at the forefront of defending individual rights against an encroaching government, takes the position that the second Amendment protects only the state's right to an organized military-a well-regulated militia. It rejects any suggestion that the second Amendment protects an individual right.
While this phenomenon is interesting, it is not the subject of this Article. My purpose is much narrower. I will address the history of the second Amendment and attempt to define its original intent. I will not suggest that original intent is controlling. On this point, i am reminded that george washington once suggested, "Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest.
Gradesaver, 30 December 2011 Web. Copyright 1994 Valparaiso Univ. Originally published as 28 Val. For educational use only. The printed edition remains canonical.
For citational use please obtain a back issue from William. Hein., 1285 main Street, buffalo, new York 14209;. Long overlooked or ignored, the second Amendment has become the object of some study and much debate. One issue being discussed is whether the second Amendment recognizes the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms, 2 or whether the right belongs solely to state governments and empowers each state to maintain a military force. 3, the debate has resulted in odd political alignments which in turn have caused the second Amendment to be described recently as the most embarrassing provision of the bill of Rights. 4, embarrassment results from the politics associated with determining whether the language creates a state's right or an individual right. Civil libertarians support the individual rights recognized in the first, fourth, fifth, and Sixth Amendments and defend these rights against governmental abuse. Civil libertarians insist that each citizen be accorded the right to free speech, even if the citizen is a nazi hatemonger. Similarly, criminals can count on a vigorous defense of the fourth amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches as well as the fifth amendment right not to incriminate oneself.
Free, federalist # 46, essay
Madison dismisses as highly unlikely the chances of about the federal government being able to raise an army powerful enough to overcome all the state militias. Analysis, madison repeats arguments made in previous papers by hamilton, asserting the many advantages state governments have over the federal government in terms of securing the support of the people and book resisting encroachments. Although in previous papers Madison labored to convince his readers that the system proposed by the constitution would lead to stable and energetic government, he describes at length in this paper a series of hypothetical conflicts between state and federal government. Madison clearly does not expect or hope the constitution to lead to the kinds of conflicts between state and federal authority described here. Rather, he seeks to establish that his opponents chimerical predictions of federal authority crushing state governments are completely unfounded. Buy study guide, how to cite in mla format. Brittany nelson and Christopher Higgins (second revision 09/15/2011). "The federalist Papers Essay 46 Summary and Analysis".
He asserts that the powers of the federal government under the proposed constitution will not threaten the powers reserved to the states. Madison begins metals the paper by reminding his audience that the American people are the common superior of both the federal and state governments. These two different types of governments have different powers, intended for different purposes, but nevertheless subject to the ultimate control of the voters. Madison then employs a series of arguments to convince his audience that the state governments have several natural advantages over the federal government in terms of securing the support of the people. State officials and representatives live in close daily contact with the electorate and deal with issues that directly impact their lives. Furthermore, just as representatives in state governments are typically biased towards their home counties and towns, so will representatives in Congress be biased towards their home states: A local spirit will infallibly prevail much more in the members of the congress, than a national spirit. Furthermore, madison argues that if the federal government were to encroach on the rights of the states, the latter would have a significant advantage in resisting such action. States could ultimately band together in resisting the federal government.
by any candidate the house. From this aspect of the government, it appears to be of a mixed character presenting at least as many federal as national features. The operation of the government is primarily directly on the people thus national. . But the extent of the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects. The last issue that of amendments is neither wholly national nor wholly federal. . The fact that States votes are required makes it federal but since a unanimous vote is not required that is a national characteristic. . so in summary the proposed Constitution is neither a national nor a federal constitution but a composition of both. . Ratification is federal, sources of power are both, operation is national, extent of powers is federal, and amending authority is both. Summary Written by donald Mellon Federalist Papers Summaries Index Page read The federalist Papers. Summary, madison continues and concludes the argument begun in the previous paper.
to determine if the character of the proposed government is federal or national we must look at three objects; what is the foundation of its establishment, what are the sources of its powers and the operation and extent of them, and by what authority are. The establishment of the government is through a ratification process where decisions are made at the State level by officials elected by the people for that purpose. . The ratification is made by a single vote from each of the independent sovereign States that desired to be part of the new Union so that is a federal act. Any State not ratifying the constitution would not be a member of the Union. If the whole of the people voting a majority to ratify was required that would be a national act but that was not the case thus a federal act. The next relation is to the sources from which the government derives its powers. . The house of representatives derives its powers from the people and the people are represented in the same proportion as they are within each State, thus a national position. . The senate derives its power from the States whose legislatures select the senators with two from each States, which is federal position. .
46, teaching American History
James Madison, the federalist Papers Summary no 39: Madison. January 16, 1788, madison begins the candid survey of writing the plan of government reported by the convention by defining a republican form of government and then answering critics concerning whether the proposed plan is federal or national, that is, a confederacy of States. This important last point is the difference between States maintaining their sovereignty if federal. A union with direct control of the people if a national government. . A definition of republicanism is necessary because history has confused the issue. . A republic is a government that derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people; and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period or during good behavior. . A comparison of this definition to the individual State constitutions shows that for the most part States have a form of republican government. But critics claim that they should also have preserved the federal form of government as in the Article of Confederation. .