February 11, 2014 at 1:25 pm
Craig-315134 (2/11/2014)
The fact is that most people CHOOSE how to interpret it, but it clearly says we have the right to bear arms and that it should not be infringed.Does it? I recall a bit about linking that right to being a member of a state militia. I don't recall any right allowing the possession and use of guns in schools, movie theatres, fast food restaurants, or one's place of employment. Yet that is what happens, repeatedly and tragically.
Just a little more digression, the Second Amendment does mention a "well regulated militia" (nothing about a state militia, and the USA did not have a standing army until after the Civil War), but the key phrase in the Second Amendment is this "the Right of the People." This same phrase is used in the First Amendment. This phrase needs to be interpreted the same in both or we lose both.
February 11, 2014 at 1:48 pm
... the Second Amendment does mention a "well regulated militia" (nothing about a state militia ...
Here's the actual wording:
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.
The United States began as a loose confederation of former colonies, which the Constitution attempted to bind into a somewhat closer federation. As you rightly pointed out, there was no standing federal army at the time of the Second Amendment's adoption. The responsibility for defence was the purview of the individual states - the mechanism of which was the state militia.
So, yes, the Second Amendment does reference state militias.
February 11, 2014 at 2:32 pm
Craig-315134 (2/11/2014)
... the Second Amendment does mention a "well regulated militia" (nothing about a state militia ...Here's the actual wording:
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.
The United States began as a loose confederation of former colonies, which the Constitution attempted to bind into a somewhat closer federation. As you rightly pointed out, there was no standing federal army at the time of the Second Amendment's adoption. The responsibility for defence was the purview of the individual states - the mechanism of which was the state militia.
So, yes, the Second Amendment does reference state militias.
But you are still focusing on the phrase "A well regulated Militia" and not the phrase "the right of the people". The is an individual right, not a State right.
February 11, 2014 at 2:35 pm
Craig-315134 (2/11/2014)
So, yes, the Second Amendment does reference state militias.
Yes, it does. I was avoiding this conversation figuring a full on train wreck of a derail wasn't good for the topic, but apparently that's dead now.
You must take into account the definition of militia at the time the constitution was written. It was based on the militia of England.
http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/bioterrorism/8military/milita01.htm
A. The Colonial Militias
The great majority of colonists arriving in America during the seventeenth century had no experience as soldiers. Yet owing to the small British military presence of the time, the colonists soon found the need to establish a military force. They drew from their knowledge of the militia system in England to develop their own military forces. The resulting colonial militia laws required every able-bodied male citizen to participate and to provide his own arms. Militia control was very localized, often with individual towns having autonomous command systems. Additionally, the colonies placed relatively short training requirements upon their militiamen: as little as four days of training per year.
Same document:
First, the militia served in place of a standing army to resist foreign aggression. Second, the militia served as an internal police force for the states. Third, following the establishment of the federal government, the militia served to resist or deter the use of a federal standing army against the states. The eighteenth-century militia was well structured and equipped to fulfill each of these three purposes.
These purposes cannot be pursued if the militia is required to get permission to retrieve their arms, or if a sudden or hidden strike by the federal government can deny the militia access to their weaponry.
Yes, I realize I'm coming off as a bunker-nut with this, but they're not wrong, just extreme. The purpose of an armed populace is not only self-defense, but allow the citizenry the ability to withstand federal oppression. This was a significant concern amongst the colonies just following the revolutionary war. The idea being that the citizenry was AS WELL ARMED as the federal government, allowing them to come to the call of the state as a militia to defend themselves from the federal government.
Has this desire changed? Well, I no longer have wolves prowling around between me and the outhouse, and I sure as hell can't afford anything that can punch a hole in an APC, nevermind a tank, so yeah, mostly. Have we wrapped this amendment in a thousand restrictions and laws over the past 200 years that have distorted its original purpose? Absolutely.
The consitution has become a guildeline, instead of a set of absolutes, in some ways over the many years.
I'll trade off the 2nd Amendment, though, because it can be a very heated topic, for a moment.
Let's start with the first line of the Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
If we excuse the law for being a product of humans, and realize that lawyers are simply the best debate artists amongst us within a set of guidelines, promoting the general welfare is such an open ended statement that the federal government can pass ANYTHING that is not specifically excluded by the rest of the constitution under the header of protecting us from ourselves. This clause drives everything from the legality of safe waste disposal to OSHA.
Section 8, in particular, is damning to the state's controls. Just about everything these days is interstate. That used to have more meaning when crossing a state took days, and you didn't flip up to Boston for Thanksgiving and be back in New York for Black Friday sales.
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Almost no company is single state anymore except for your local mom & pop shops. This puts them into Federal Jusridiction. Even Mom and Pop shops which get goods from out of state fall under this header.
However, it also maintains another clause, which briefly brings us back to the 2nd amendment:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
If they're arming the militia, and only the militia was to be armed, then the 2nd Amendment was unnecessary.
The Constitution may be a stone cold document, but its interpretation continues to be fluid, and will be for the forseeable future. That's why there's a bunch of clarification items and the like surrounding the Constitution and the Supreme Court is constantly deciding upon it according to the morals of the time and their interpretation. The founding fathers knew it would be necessary.
... This has gotten a bit longer than I'd expected. If there's only one or two folks who wish to continue this with me I'll be happy to go to PM with it instead of riding off into the sunset with this topic.
Never stop learning, even if it hurts. Ego bruises are practically mandatory as you learn unless you've never risked enough to make a mistake.
For better assistance in answering your questions[/url] | Forum Netiquette
For index/tuning help, follow these directions.[/url] |Tally Tables[/url]
Twitter: @AnyWayDBA
February 11, 2014 at 2:57 pm
Luis Cazares (2/11/2014)
Gary Varga (2/11/2014)
Craig-315134 (2/11/2014)
Gary Varga (2/11/2014)
Craig-315134 (2/10/2014)
...but the Darwinistic nature of capitalism sooner or later weeds out the bad ones.Oh, I wish I found that to be the case!!!
But it *is* the case, Gary.
That's the way the system works. Poorly-managed companies can't compete ad infinitum. True, bad managers can and do pop up even in well-managed firms, but they don't last.
Unfortunately, I have come across far too many cases of bad staff lasting a long time. I have found "the system" to not be as efficient as you suggest. Either that has been my misfortune or your good fortune. Either way, long may your good experiences continue. 🙂
The problem is not about companies competing ad infinitum, it's about companies with bad management being created faster than they can disappear.
+1
February 11, 2014 at 3:06 pm
To Craig Farrell:
Nice response. Considered, well-written, enjoyable. Thanks.
Your fellow Craig
February 12, 2014 at 9:11 am
Nice theory. But out in the real world managers are often rewarded for being politically well-connected. Doesn't matter how flimsy the excuse given why it's someone else's fault the guy who plays golf with the supervising manager while the line manager is actually managing projects and trying to sort out the mess? That's the guy that stays aboard.
You've heard of the six phases of any project:
1) Unbrideled Enthusiasm
2) Inevitable disillusion
3) Wide spread panic and hysteria
4) The search for the guilty.
5) The punishement of the innocent.
6) All praise and honor for the uninvolved.
The story continues because it remains true, regardless of the flavor of the month methodology that we supposedly use to get there. And it rewards the people who learn to best take the credit for other peoples work when something succeeds and who have a scapegoat handy when something fails.
Within the overal system there are tight project teams who manage to snatch success from the jaws of failure over and over until the numbers game finally catches up to them. Then the parts get torn up and scattered to the winds where they reform with others from a similar situation who manage to pull off miracles against all upper management efforts until the next time a reduction in force comes along. Meanwhile the same management that creates the situation stands around patting itself on the back for what a stellar job they do, with no concern that reality will ever intrude upon thier world view.
February 12, 2014 at 10:05 am
... out in the real world managers are often rewarded for being politically well-connected.
Sooner or later, the balance sheets catch up with them.
That's one of the more positive aspects of capitalism - that it ultimately rewards merit. Political connexions will only take a person so far for so long.
February 12, 2014 at 10:08 am
Craig-315134 (2/12/2014)
... out in the real world managers are often rewarded for being politically well-connected.Sooner or later, the balance sheets catch up with them.
That's one of the more positive aspects of capitalism - that it ultimately rewards merit. Political connexions will only take a person so far for so long.
My former manager on current job is witness of that 🙂
February 12, 2014 at 12:51 pm
SQLRNNR (2/8/2014)
I don't know if I'd prefer to see people in technology working only a few jobs during their careers, spending decades at each, or if we are better workers with the exposure to differing environments and businesses.
I think moving around and getting access to different environments makes better technologists in the long run. The question is how frequent is too frequent and when is it not frequent enough. Getting exposure to different technologies, different environments, different SLAs, and different people can really enhance one's abilities and tool belt.
Getting that access doesn't require changing employer.
A good employer that is big enough will move people around, make sure they get access to different environments and exposure to different technologies, different people, different aims and objectives and success criteria, different locations, and great learning excercises. A small company can't necessarily do that, but a big one certainly can. It is great to work at a company which can and does do that. It's a great pity that most big companies appear to be totally unwilling to do this (at least for technically-oriented people).
In my time in computing I worked for 6 companies (1 very large where I stayed 18 months, another very large where I stayed 24 and a half years; 2 very small and very new; and 2 medium sized - less than 1000 employees), 1 university, and the Commission of the European Communities (several times). I got exposure to a much greater variety of technologies, organisational structures, people, responsabilities, training and so on in my 24.5 years with one company that in 17.5 years with the other 7 employers. So I found no greater variety with frequent change of employer than when staying with the same employer.
Tom
February 12, 2014 at 12:58 pm
A good employer that is big enough will move people around, make sure they get access to different environments and exposure to different technologies, different people, different aims and objectives and success criteria, different locations, and great learning excercises. A small company can't necessarily do that, but a big one certainly can.
Two comments, if I may, please:
1. A smaller employer often requires its IT workers to wear more hats than a large one, in which specialisation is often a hallmark of the job. More hats = more exposure to more technologies.
2. A bigger employer 'can' potentially offer a variety of different IT jobs, but it doesn't follow that such is axiomatically the case. Often the opposite is true: specialisation becomes the norm, resulting in workers becoming 'pigeon-holed' into a particular role.
February 12, 2014 at 1:51 pm
Craig-315134 (2/11/2014)
What I find funny is that the schools are teaching kids about the constitution, but telling lies about what the constitution means.I suspect neither of us are constitutional scholars, Dave - but even those who are, can't always agree on 'what the Constitution means'. My carpool buddy and I - both of us software developers - have very different opinions about the Second Amendment.
Well, like many amendments what it means changes from time to time, according to what the supreme court has most recently been persuaded to assert. For example, from 1939 until 2008 it protected only possession of arms that had a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, while since 2008 it protects a right topossess an arm unconnected with service in a militia. From 1875 to 2010 it prevented only the Congress fromimposing laws to restrict whatever right it protected; but since 2010 it also constrains state and local governments.
It's not really surprising that people can disagree about what it means when there have been supreme court decisions over the years which had to carefully juggle words to appear to be compatible with earlier decisions and others which don't appear to have even tried (eg the 2010 decision seems to directly contradict the court's statement in 1875).
I reckon the one which is going to be the biggest subject of debate and disagreement in the near future is the fourth, not the second, though.
Tom
February 12, 2014 at 2:07 pm
Craig-315134 (2/11/2014)
... we allow our government to regulate all kinds of things it doesn't have the power to regulate.Such as ... ?
Certainly I would rather have the federal government enforcing civil rights laws than, say, the State of Alabama (were I a resident of that state).
... government regulates too much, and every regulation takes us further from capitalism.
Sorry, I'm not willing to give up the minimum wage, worker safety and occupational hazard regs, or traffic signals. All things which 'government regulates'.
Anyway, this is all way off topic. Sorry for my digressions.
So you would like to see the tenth amendment repealed? I'm ncertainly not a constitutional expert (it's not my constitution, may heaven be praised), but I can't see any way of interpreting the tenth amendment to make all that regulation.
edit: I see from a later post that you claim that the preamble to the constitution endows the government with powers not listed in article 1, article 2, or article 6. Well, it's your constitution, so I suppose if you want to treat article 1 as utterly meaningless except in so far as it describes how congress shall be constituted and elected that's up to you. But I believe that that claim confirms my theory that a constitution written as a single document (plus a set of amendments) is much less likely to retain any meaningful influence than an unwritten one.
Tom
February 12, 2014 at 2:18 pm
So you would like to see the tenth amendment repealed?
No; indeed, I find it rather necessary to enforce the federal government's regulatory power over the states. The Tenth Amendment's commerce clause has been interpreted to this end; and rightly so, in my opinion. Someone else upstream wrote a cogent post elucidating this view, so I will not endeavour to repeat it.
I'm ncertainly not a constitutional expert (it's not my constitution, may heaven be praised), but I can't see any way of interpreting the tenth amendment to make all that regulation.
I'm actually British, and so it may be said I have no constitution (at least no single written one); nor am I anyone's idea of an expert on such documents, either. However, before criticising the US Constitution, you might reflect on the fact it has served successfully as the legal foundation of the United States for well over two centuries, with only modest changes to it. If the US is not the world's oldest constitutional republic, it must be one of the very oldest.
February 15, 2014 at 1:33 pm
Craig-315134 (2/12/2014)
... out in the real world managers are often rewarded for being politically well-connected.Sooner or later, the balance sheets catch up with them.
That's one of the more positive aspects of capitalism - that it ultimately rewards merit. Political connexions will only take a person so far for so long.
I too enjoy my vacations at Disneyland!
Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 65 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply