54 Parliament called out the militia and warned that militia units mustered under authority other than that of Parliament would be punished. 55 The king did the same, and civil war ensued. 56 The actual ability of Parliament or the king to muster the militia is unclear. Charles attempted to disarm many militia units by confiscating public magazines and seizing the weapons of residents. 57 In addition, Charles sought to arm Catholics he had previously disarmed to secure their assistance. 58 These acts could be considered as evidence that Parliament was more successful at securing the support of local militias than was Charles.
Federalist essay - how to Write a perfect Research Paper
46 Charles attempted to raise funds for additional military forces by writs or assessments on each individual. 47 In addition, ecclesiastical canons were added which advised subjects that bearing arms against the king would food result in damnation. 48 Scotland went into open rebellion. Charles I was forced to call Parliament to session in 1640 for purposes of raising additional taxes because of the rebellion. 49 The new Parliament, frequently called the long Parliament because of its extended tenure, 50 seized the opportunity to assert its influence to the detriment of the monarchy. Parliament secured for itself the power of dissolving and eliminating the king's prerogative courts. 51 Additionally, parliament demanded that Lord Strafford, the king's leading minister, be removed from his post on the grounds that Strafford had raised a standing army in Ireland. 52 The king complied; Strafford was executed; and Ireland revolted. Swelled with its success in outmaneuvering the king, the long Parliament moved to seize control of the militia. 53 The king balked and refused to accede to this demand. Parliament moved forward and appointed its own officers to (p.1014)take charge of the militia by passing the bill the king had refused to sign as an Ordinance of Parliament in 1642.
40 Consequently, the king had no power outside of these. Parliament pointed out that its powers and liberties were "the ancient and undoubted birthright and inheritance of the subjects of England." 41 James I tore the page containing these words from the journal of the commons. 42 James's son Charles fared no better in his relations with Parliament. In (p.1013)1628, parliament enacted the petition of Right. 43 This petition enumerated Charles's violations of the rights of his subjects, including forced loans to the Crown, imprisonment without process, quartering of soldiers in English homes without the consent of the owner, and the execution of persons pursuant to martial law. 44 The king agreed to acknowledge his excesses because yardage he needed Parliament's assistance in raising revenues. 45 Charles I thereafter dissolved Parliament and refused to call new Parliaments for eleven years. Charles I began developing his own army.
34 James had proclaimed that individuals elected to parliament could be seated only if certified by the chancery; only proper men could be certified. 35 Parliament took the position that it would determine who should be seated. 36 The relationship deteriorated, with James frequently asserting that Kings hold their thrones by the will of God, not Parliament, and that to dispute the king is blasphemy. 37 James's position was that the king was the law and all rights flowed from the king. Consequently, in 1621, james advised Parliament that it existed only by the grace of the king. 38 Legal commentators and Parliament assessed the question of the king's power differently. Lord coke argued that the king's prerogative was limited to what the law of land allowed him. 39 coke's view was that the law of England was composed of only three parts: common law, statute, and custom.
Federalist, papers, summary
Henry viii decreed that fathers must purchase longbows for sons between seven and for fourteen years of age and teach them to shoot. 21, each citizen between the age of fourteen and forty years was required to own and use a longbow unless (p.1011)disabled. 22, queen Elizabeth I formalized the process by issuing instructions for general musters of the citizen army in each county. 23 Commissions were issued to various knights to take charge of such musters. 24 The purpose of the musters was to enable queen Elizabeth to know presentation the "numbers, qualities, abilities and sufficiency of all her subjects in that county., from the age of sixteen years upward, that may be found able to bear armour or to use weapons. The period's commentators attributed English military successes to the universal armament practice prevalent in England but absent on the continent. 27 Visitors from the continent even noticed the stark difference.
28 Historians suggested that English universal armament caused a moderation of monarchial rule and fostered individual liberties because the populace had in reserve a check which soon brought the fiercest and proudest King to reason: the check of physical force. 29 However, the virtues of universal armament and the effect of universal armament on monarchial rule had not escaped Parliament's notice. The early Stuart period was the single most important period in English history in terms of shaping the political theory of the American revolutionary leaders. 30 During this period, civil war occurred between Parliament and the crown, a king was executed, another King fled to France, a military dictatorship (p.1012)ruled, supremacy of the English Parliament over the crown was established, and Parliament installed a new King and queen and forced. 31 Throughout this period, various factions sought to control the militia and intermittently to disarm opposing factions. 32 James i, the first Stuart monarch, took the Crown in 1603. 33 An agitated house of Commons immediately confronted him.
11, other commentators trace the obligation of Englishmen to serve in (p.1010)the people's army to 690. 12, regardless of the beginning date, an Englishman's obligation to serve in a citizen army is an old proposition. Coupled with this obligation to defend the realm was the obligation to provide oneself with weapons for this purpose. 13, king Henry ii formalized his subjects' duties in 1181 by issuing the Assize of Arms. 14, the arms required varied depending on the subjects' wealth, with the poorest freemen obligated to provide the least-an iron helmet and a lance.
15, the Assize required not only arms to be possessed, but precluded the possessor from selling, pledging, or in any other way alienating the weapons. In 1253, the armed population was expanded beyond freemen to include serfs, individuals bound to the land and the land's owner. 17, serfs were required to procure a spear and dagger. 18, inclusion of serfs in the citizen army was related to the mustering of men and arms which occurred early in 1253 for purposes of crossing the sea to gascavy and supporting the realm against the king of Castile. 19, another general levy occurred in 1297, which directed all men possessing land to a value of twenty pounds to provide themselves with horses and arms and to come to london for purposes of service in France. 20, the citizen-army concept continued to develop through the tudor period.
The federalist papers argued for - expert Reports with
Thus, the right envisioned was not only the right to be armed, plan but to be armed at a level equal to the government. To determine the original intent of online the second Amendment, this Article will examine the history of armed citizens in England, the federalist and Antifederalist debates, the meaning of the word "militia the constitutional ratification process, and the various state constitutions in existence at the time. Eighteenth-century commentators frequently discussed the evils of standing armies. 7, blackstone observed that professional soldiers endangered liberty. 8, in free states, the defense of the realm was considered best left to citizens who took up arms only when necessary and who returned to their communities and occupations when the danger passed. Standing armies were viewed as instruments of fear intended to preserve the prince. 10, blackstone credits King Alfred, who ruled England from 871 to 901. D., as establishing the principle that all subjects of his dominion were the realm's soldiers.
5, indeed, the aclu, typically at the forefront of defending planning individual rights against an encroaching government, takes the position that the second Amendment protects only the state's right to an organized military-a well-regulated militia. It rejects any suggestion that the second Amendment protects an individual right. While this phenomenon is interesting, it is not the subject of this Article. My purpose is much narrower. I will address the history of the second Amendment and attempt to define its original intent. I will not suggest that original intent is controlling. On this point, i am reminded that george washington once suggested, "Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must (p.1009)depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained." 6, the purpose of this Article is only to define those shares of liberty the Framers intended to retain and those given up in the. By way of preview, this Article will contend that the original intent of the second Amendment was to protect each individual's right to keep and bear arms, and to guarantee that individuals acting collectively could throw off the yokes of any oppressive government which might.
whether the language creates a state's right or an individual right. Civil libertarians support the individual rights recognized in the first, fourth, fifth, and Sixth Amendments and defend these rights against governmental abuse. Civil libertarians insist that each citizen be accorded the right to free speech, even if the citizen is a nazi hatemonger. Similarly, criminals can count on a vigorous defense of the fourth amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches as well as the fifth amendment right not to incriminate oneself. All of this is true even though most of us would (p.1008)agree that nazi hate language is of no utility, and a criminal's confession, absent coercion, and the fruits of a search of his or her house are among the best indicators of actual guilt. Yet, we zealously defend these rights on the premise that governmental abuse of power is a greater evil than that posed by individual hatemongers or criminals. In the context of the second Amendment, civil libertarian instincts are overcome by our fear of one another. As a consequence, we find civil libertarian organizations, such as the American civil Liberties Union (aclu acting as participants in such groups as the national coalition to ban Handguns.
Eu data subject Requests. Copyright 1994 Valparaiso Univ. Originally published as 28 Val. For best educational use only. The printed edition remains canonical. For citational use please obtain a back issue from William. Hein., 1285 main Street, buffalo, new York 14209;. Long overlooked or ignored, the second Amendment has become the object of some study and much debate. One issue being discussed is whether the second Amendment recognizes the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms, 2 or whether the right belongs solely to state governments and empowers each state to maintain a military force.
SparkNotes: The, federalist, papers (