Should badly worded Constitutional clauses be clarified, either by amendment (clarification) or stare decisis (judicial ruling)?

sear

VIP Member
Aug 5, 2015
423
118
80
Adirondack Park, NY
B. O. R. ARTICLE #2: Ratified December 15, 1791
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.
I appreciate what may have been the intended sentiment here. But syntactically I'd call these two disjointed phrases.

But 2A isn't the only problem.

ARTICLE 2. SECTION 1.
4 No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The term at issue: "a natural born Citizen"
A citizen is natural born if delivered vaginally, without mother having benefit of pain meds, or hot water, or perhaps even a sharp blade to sever the umbilical cord.
I suspect the intended meaning was not "natural" born, but native born.

Problem is, we as a nation are at risk of an unscrupulous candidate waiting until too late in the campaign for his opponent to respond, and then invalidating his opponent by providing evidence his opponent was born by other than 100% natural means, meaning perhaps an artificial light was present, etc.

Does it really make sense to await the crisis, and only after that, address this? Or does it make more sense to eliminate the problem risk BEFORE it creates a national crisis?
 
Terminology was different back then. They arent disjointed. You need to look up the meaning of those words back then. Their well documented intent clarifies any questions.
"Natural born citizen" is pretty clear as well. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out it means they became a citizen by birth, and not an immigrant.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #4
"We have the records of the Convention, we know what they meant and what it means." e #2
Even if there was a court stenographer meticulously taking notes, it would reflect the words spoken. It may not fully convey the spectrum of interpretations present. Ben Franklin made explicitly clear, the Constitution was (is) a compromise.
"They arent disjointed." TH #3
"Weren't" perhaps. And while you'll wait long to find me disparaging original intent, I'm also painfully aware that is not all ways (100%) the approach taken in today's law courts.

We know about the aversion to a standing army, and the utility of the citizen soldier, the minute-man.
How does that relate to today? The Michigan militia? A bunch of overweight drunks dressing up in camo pajamas to stagger about in the woods until beer-thirty? It is not a legally recognized militia unless it has a chain of command that leads directly to POTUS.
Plenty of U.S. citizens own firearms, or other lethal weaponry. How many of them would you say are members of a "well regulated militia" as designated by 2A?
I hunt small game for sport, and varmints for necessity, with my .22 bolt action rimfire. My chain of command was severed in the mid-1970's after the ink on my DD-214 dried. I own a gun. What does that have to do with a "well regulated militia"?

PS
The Roberts court seems to be nibbling away at it. The DC ruling not the only recent clarification. Still a long way to go.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #5
""Natural born citizen" is pretty clear as well. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out it means they became a citizen by birth, and not an immigrant." TH #3
I agree that may have been the original intended meaning.
None the less, that doesn't diminish the contingent risk to an unscrupulous bad actor.

Far fetched?
Sanity check:
How many tens of thousands of Republicans insisted Senator Obama was not eligible to run for president, on basis of Obama's birth detail? Notably Senator McCain (R-AZ) defended Obama, knowing to deny Obama eligibility would have let McCain waltz into the white house.

President Trump appears to be party to an armed insurrection, and attempted to murder his own VP, and nullify the Biden election victory.
You think nullifying a candidates eligibility based upon the literal meaning of the Constitution's wording is even more far fetched than that?!
 
sear
B. O. R. ARTICLE #2: Ratified December 15, 1791
I appreciate what may have been the intended sentiment here. But syntactically I'd call these two disjointed phrases.
Fortunately, the court agreed, and has clarified the point:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
 

Forum List

Back
Top