04-March: This day in History

[hammAR]

1789 - In New York City, the first U.S. Congress meets and declares the new Constitution of the United States is in effect.

[cobb]

1789 - In New York City, the first U.S. Congress meets and declares the new Constitution of the United States is in effect.

When did they again meet to declare that parts of the Constitution was no longer in effect?

[Old Dude]

Actually, very soon after that. The Alien and Sedition Acts passed by Congress when John Adams was President would certainly now be considered clearly unconstitutional. The Federalists used those acts to shut down Jeffersonian newspapers. Of course, when Jefferson became President, he used the acts against the Federalists.

It's not like the Constitution was promulgated and the United States suddenly became free. It took some years before certain states quite subsidizing certain religions. And freedom of speech and assembly was a tenuous thing. Some years ago, Saul Padover wrote a book The Living U.S. Constitution which theorized that the Constitution was a living document, and not a static one. Rights granted by the Constitution had to be fought for over and over again before they were finally fully recognized.

I'm not saying that the mainstream view of the Constitution by scholars and the judiciary is either right or wrong. I am not a Constitutional scholar. What I am saying is that the view of society of rights granted by the Constitution has evolved over time as society itself has changed. Right? Wrong? Good? Bad? Ask me in a hundred years. If you can find me.

[Dick Unger]

That's why the Second Amendment is considered "militia based". The whole idea of an individual suing his State in federal court in say 1800, over a gun control law was probably not even considered. What they didn't want was the federal government passing a law that say, only landowners in Virginia could own or shoot guns. (Such a law would have useful to the federal government by 1862.)

The Bill of rights speaks of rights of the "people" because that was the terminology of the Enlightenment, but the United States was just a federation of States, not people, and was not designed by John Locke, but by people who used his terminology.

How else would they come up with the "militia" idea which seems so odd today? And why was the 14th Amendment even necessary if the People already had rights against their states? And why was a "right to bear arms" contained in most of the state's constituions? Because although the peoples "rights" were ideas of the Enlightenment, they were a matter for each state to work out independently.

[Rip Van Winkle]

It's been my understanding that the 13th & 14th amendments were passed, after the Civil War, to correct the improper "Dred Scott" decision of the Supreme Court.

[Dick Unger]

The 14th Amendment extended the Due Process and Equal protection to all persons in all the States.

Before the Civil War, the Feds didn't mess with state governments. But yeah, the newly freed slaves needed protection, and would not get it from confederate States after the war.

Later court decisions said due process or equal protection meant most everything in the Bill of Rights. But not the Second Amendment. Yet.

This changed everything. (including Dred Scott) The federal government now "interfered" with the relationship between States and the people residing therein. The start of "big government".

[gunflint]

Also on this date in history my wife and I were married in 1978. By the way it's the same anniversary date as Ron and Nancy Reagan.