Repealing the Second Amendment Would Call into Question the Entire U.S. Constitution

by Aaron Simms: Some are calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment, such as former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. While this is unlikely to occur, it at least gets to the core of what some in this country really want. Therefore, it is worthwhile to think about the relationship that the Second Amendment has to the Constitution as a whole.

In the lead-up to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution by the various States, there was concern that the proposed federal government would become so powerful that it would overwhelm the rights of the States as well as the liberties of individuals. Two main sides emerged in the debate. The Federalists argued for the need of a strong central government; the impotent government enabled by the previous Articles of Confederation proved as much in their minds. On the other side, however, the Anti-Federalists feared what a strong central government might do to the States and the people. They opposed the ratification of the Constitution as it stood, while some in this Anti-Federalist camp argued that - at the very least - a Bill of Rights was needed in order to ensure that the innate rights of people were protected from the power of the government. On the other side, the Federalists stated that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary since the federal government only had the rights granted to it by the Constitution, while all other rights were retained by the States and the people.

In order to secure ratification of the Constitution, however, the Federalists had to accede to the concerns of the Anti-Federalists and include a Bill of Rights consisting of Constitutional Amendments 1 through 10 (in fact, number 10 expresses the feelings of the Federalists concerning who retains power in the new governmental arrangement).

As a whole, the structure of government envisioned in the U.S. Constitution was modeled on the old Roman Republic in the sense that it created a Republican form of government with various checks and balances to limit governmental power and create friction so as to blunt the potential for tyranny at the hands of imperfect men and women.

The Founders saw the Second Amendment, in particular, as essential to securing liberty for their posterity. Without the ability of the people to challenge their government, there was no ultimate check on governmental power. The shooting phase of the American Revolution, in fact, had begun when the British government attempted to seize American arms. The American colonists knew that this would mean the end of all hope of liberty and therefore fought back, sparking the war which ended in American independence.

The point for the present time, however, is that the only reason the Constitution achieved ratification was because the Bill of Rights were included. Without the Second Amendment, or any of the original Ten for that matter, there would not have been enough support for ratification and the form of government we have today may very well have been modeled more on the Articles of Confederation, with a weaker central government, than what we have today.

One can argue about whether or not the Second Amendment is relevant in our present age (I would argue that it is and always will be relevant until humanity is no longer flawed), but not whether or not it was relevant for the Founders. Without the Second, none of the Constitution would have been ratified. Courts and laws have limited, at times, the protections afforded by the Amendment, but the fundamental right of Americans to have arms with which to defend themselves against criminals and tyrants has remained intact. To remove this protection calls into question the compact we have with one another as States and as American people in this experiment we call the “United States.” One might as well call for the dissolution of the Union, for that’s what a “repeal of the Second Amendment” actually means.

This is to say nothing of the fact that the Bill of Rights is meant to protect individual liberty; it does not grant rights, but rather acknowledges that there are certain innate rights we have - simply by virtue of being people - that deserve special protection from the potential of governmental overreach. Think about what the Amendments are really saying:

• We have the right to say what we want, believe and worship how we want, print what we want, and seek our goals in the political process (Amendment 1)
• We have the right to defend ourselves effectively (Amendment 2)
• We have the right to the independence of our own homes without governmental interference (Amendment 3)
• We have the right to be secure in our homes and privacy without undue government snooping (Amendment 4)
• We have the right to be secure in our lives and property with due process (Amendment 5)
• We have the right to a fair trail by a jury and to receive a just punishment if guilty (Amendments 6, 7, 8)
• We have rights not mentioned in the Constitution and are not giving up those rights just because they’re not specifically mentioned (Amendment 9)
• The States and the people retain the powers which they have not delegated to the federal government (Amendment 10)

This is a compact of sovereign states and a free people, not of subjects. Repealing one of these Amendments destroys the whole foundation on which our system of government rests and by which the Constitution was ratified. It also does not negate the fact that the right meant to be protected by the Amendment still exists, even if the Amendment itself is removed. Perhaps a reminder of why our Founders created the Constitution is in order.

From the preamble 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.From the preamble to the Bill of Rights:The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.-------------------
Aaron Simms @simmswrites is an author, writer, pastor and blogs. H/T The Resurgent

---

Tags: Aaron Simms, Second Amendment, The Constitution To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!