Tag: bill of rights

The Second Amendment and the Seizure of California’s National Guard

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Initial proposition that would become the Second Amendment

Several weeks ago under the pretext of executive power and spurious claims of out of control wide-spread protests and violence, Trump seized California’s National Guard and turned it on the citizens of Los Angeles.  Protest is not insurrection or rebellion; it is the fight to assemble and protest government actions and policies. Local police authorities in Los Angels City and County have tens of thousands of officers and the capability and will to control any lawlessness by a minority of protestors. 

California sued. The initial ruling in federal court was that the activation of the California National Guard was illegal. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the ruling almost immediately and recently ruled that Trump may continue to to retain control of the California National Guard while the State’s lawsuit continues.  California did not make a second amendment argument, but I think it should have.  I argue that Trump’s seizure of the California National Guard is a fundamental violation of the Second Amendment’s original intent.  

The first federal Congress in 1789, fearing the possibility of one day having a despotic central government, wanted to amend the Constitution to restrict the federal government’s ability to strip state militias of the ability to ‘bear arms’ (among other things). That is essentially the states’ abilities to individually or collectively resist a repressive federal government.  California’s National Guard is just such a well-regulated militia.

By seizing the California National Guard and deploying it against the wishes of the governor, Trump took away California’s right to defend itself from a despotic and corrupt President and central government.  Adding insult to injury, active-duty Marines were also deployed to Los Angeles.

If you read the Congressional debates and follow the revisions surrounding the Second Amendment, the original intent of the Second Amendment was to prohibit the federal government from seizing or disbanding state militias.  Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has so mangled and distorted the amendment in the past decades that the second amendment’s original intent is unrecognizable. 

On June 8, 1789 — 236 years ago this month — James Madison introduced nine propositions or resolutions for amending the Constitution. From these propositions the House of Representatives would derive 17 amendments, of which, ten would eventually become what is known as the Bill of Rights. Way down the list, buried in proposition four, after statements about religious freedom, freedom of speech and press, the right to peaceable assembly and petitioning for redressing of grievances, Madison, proposed what would become the second amendment.

The Annals of Congress contains the record of the running debates surrounding the amendments to the Constitution and reflect contemporaneous conceptions of the meanings of these amendments, and how they changed over the debates. Madison, borrowing from the other state constitutions and even the 1689 English Bill of Rights, proposed the following language regarding the right to bear arms (House Records, pp. 451-452):

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Madison’s propositions did not gain much traction in Congress. Members of Congress were more concerned with the mechanics of setting up a functioning government. The debates preceding and surrounding the discussions on the proposed amendments centered on funding mechanisms and structure of the various executive departments being contemplated. Madison nonetheless persisted, and on July 21 requested further consideration of the amendments. After “desultory” conversation on the amendments, they were referred to a committee of eleven, which included Madison.

Just short of a month later, the committee of eleven finished their work on the proposed amendments and presented them to the House of Representatives on August 17. Madison’s language on bearing arms was revised and read:

“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms (House Records, p.778)

Eldridge Gerry of Massachusetts, a veteran of the constitutional convention in Philadelphia in 1787, and who was one of three delegates who refused to sign the Constitution at the end of the convention, led the debate regarding the amendment to bear arms. His remarks are crucial, I think to understanding, the intent of this amendment. He states:

“This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed (p. 778).”

Not one person during the debate contradicted or challenged Gerry’s assertion, which seems to state that the ability to keep and bear arms referred to the people’s ability to form militias as a collective defense against a tyrannical central government. The remainder of the debate that day on this amendment surrounded primarily the question of religious scruples and service in the militia.

After more “desultory” (I love that word) conversation, 17 proposed amendments to the Constitution were sent to the Senate on August 24. The bearing arms amendment was number 5 and read after some minor tweaking (Senate record, pp. 63-64):

“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

On September 4, the senate, whose records of debate are not as detailed as the House’s records of debate, showed that senators objected to a few of the amendments, but without comment as to why. “On the motion to adopt the fifth article of the amendments proposed by the House of Representatives, amended to read as followeth: ‘a well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed:’ It passed in the affirmative” (Senate Record, p. 71).

That senate version is today’s second amendment.

Trump’s actions run counter to the second amendment and are provocative and meant to inflame the citizens of Los Angeles and California.  He deliberately and recklessly tried to provoke a larger conflict and failed.  Now, instead of quelling protests, they are being used as an occupying army – with police powers – to accompany militarized ICE agents.  

It is not a good sign of democratic health when federal law enforcement agents dress and act like soldiers and the military act like police officers.  The stark historical difference between civilian police and the military are dangerously blurred and will eventually disappear.  For a president who increasingly sees military action as a solution to both domestic – blue states — and overseas issues we will witness an increase of National Guard activations and deployments to suppress domestic opposition soon I fear.  

If the Supreme Court sides with Trump, how will we, denizens of Virginia, defend itself from Trump’s provocations, corruption, and illegalities when Abigail Spanberger is elected governor this November and Virginia becomes a State with a blue governor?  

A New “Remedy:” America’s Social Contract Under Siege

America floundered after the Revolution ended.  A confederation of sovereign states jealously guarding their individual prerogatives, bickering constantly, the central government virtually powerless.  The Articles of Confederation was a disaster.  

In 1786 commissioners from five states met in Annapolis, ostensibly to discuss trade between the states and international trade relationships.  Among the 12 in attendance were James Madison and Alexander Hamilton.  They apparently did not accomplish much, but they did agree to meet the following year in Philadelphia, this time inviting commissioners from all the states.  The stated purpose of the convention was not to develop a new form of government, however, that was precisely what James Madison, among several others, intended.  The convention was to create a new social contract between the people and the states and save the union.

The Philadelphia Convention gathered on May 14, 1787. After waiting for more delegates to arrive they got down to business, debating and agreeing on the rules of Convention.  On May 29th Edmund Randolph of Virginia “opened the main business” of the Convention.  Speaking to the “crisis,” that is the failure of the Articles of Confederation, and “prophecies of the American downfall,” he proposed four objectives “to revise the federal system.  We ought to “inquire 1. into the properties, which such a government ought to possess.  2. The defects of the confederation. 3. the danger of our situation& 4. The remedy.”

That ‘remedy’ has withstood the test of change since the Constitution was adopted by the States in 1789. Two hundred and thirty-six years.  The Constitution was and is not perfect, in fact it was not designed to be infallible, like a religious text proclaiming the word of God.  It was made by humans for humans, and they had the wisdom to recognize that things, well, change.   A Bill of Rights was added early, critical amendments were enacted over the decades.  Slavery was finally abolished (although after 96 years of relentless brutality), African Americans and women won the right to vote, birthright citizenship.   It is the social contract that endures and keeps us bound to one another. It’s what makes us American.

That remedy, that social contract, our Constitution is at risk.  Day after day the current administration attacks America’s social contract.  Executive orders rain down like hail stones, crushing the tender plants in our garden of democracy. If anything, they are messages to his base, a veneer of action, but they are also projecting the America he wants and the social contract he envisions. It isn’t a pretty one.

What happens when his attempts at changing the Constitution through fiat fails.  The Supreme Court says, “no.”  What then?  I doubt he will retreat; he will fight.  One way to fight is to organize a new constitutional convention, a new remedy, a new social contract. Can you imagine Georgia’s delegate being Marjorie Taylor Greene? 

Will our most cherished rights disappear into the ether?  Replaced by an authoritarian social contract?  Emojis of flags and flames and fists. If the convention meets and writes a new constitution, I suspect It will fundamentally alter our relationship to the government, and not in a good way.   

If Trump’s executive orders are a guide, a new social contract will eschew separation of powers, in its place a powerful executive, with unlimited terms.  King like.  Gone will be an independent judiciary, replaced by a Supreme Court appointed by the President, serving at his will. Gone will be the House of Representatives and a Senate, replaced by a unicameral body elected by state representatives, a rubber stamp affair.  A state religion declared.  A Christian religious test to hold office.  Separate but equal codified.

Don’t forget about The Bill of Rights and all amendments that will be nullified. Do you see them offering robust press freedoms?  Protecting you from unreasonable searches and seizures.? What about jury trial, or right to counsel.  Do you see that being in the new social contract?  I see the curtailment of rights, women’s right in particular.   Same sex marriage banned, access to contraception gone (Recall Justice Thomas’ call for cases), homosexuality criminalized.  The list of rights rescinded would go on and on.  It wouldn’t be a positivist social contact it would be negativist one, restricting rights not establishing rights.  It won’t be a mixed government of the one, the few, the many.  It will be the one. Is that an America you can live in?

That’s the social contract I see down the road if people stay at home, keep their heads down, and give in to Trumpian chaos and mayhem. Yes, reform is needed to get money out of the campaigns, stopping politicians from enriching themselves, keep the oligarchs from buying elections like Musk is now trying to buy the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, but a new federal system that gives up on democracy – the many — is not the ‘remedy.’  This new Trumpian social contract would be the opposite of reform, it would turn America not back to 1954 or 1859, or to 1789. It would transform America into an autocracy of one man rule..

This weekend, May 5th, there will be a rally at the Louisa Courthouse from noon to two.  Come have your voices heard.  Celebrate the 238th anniversary of the start of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.