Former Justice Stevens: Change 2nd Amendment to Improve Constitution

[WTJ]

I'm always amazed at how people like this try to explain...and self-interpret... what the intentions of the founding fathers were when they wrote the 2A. The Federalist Papers have always seemed to make the intentions of our founding fathers pretty clear to me.

Yep. And that was the Federalists' position, and they opposed the Bill of Rights. Evidently, the Anti-Federalists felt even stronger about the subject.

 

[dutchwrangler]

Yep. And that was the Federalists' position, and they opposed the Bill of Rights. Evidently, the Anti-Federalists felt even stronger about the subject.

The Anti-Federalist papers rarely get a mention in discussions. I suppose it's because it doesn't fit the requirement of advancing American Civil Religion and those things that promote the state: the Constitution, Federalist Papers, the flag, the Pledge, the 4th of July...

 

[WTJ]

The Anti-Federalist papers rarely get a mention in discussions. I suppose it's because it doesn't fit the requirement of advancing American Civil Religion and those things that promote the state: the Constitution, Federalist Papers, the flag, the Pledge, the 4th of July...

Well, they never really teach the other side of the story. The Federalists, as I understand it, wanted a class of Rulers and not a true Republic. Given the history, I suspect you are correct. Hamilton and company would likely be appalled at the application of their ideas today though.

 

[pak-40]

Yep. And that was the Federalists' position, and they opposed the Bill of Rights. Evidently, the Anti-Federalists felt even stronger about the subject.

Hamilton was against the bill of rights. He was obvously right in some aspects as we can all see where we are today in regards to the 2a.

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? " --Alexander Hamilton

 

[WTJ]

Hamilton was against the bill of rights. He was obvously right in some aspects as we can all see where we are today in regards to the 2a.

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? " --Alexander Hamilton

Possibly. I suspect Hamilton's primary objection had to do with having his hands tied by specific instructions. He was a Federalist, and wanted more centralized authoritah than did the Antis.