Madison County Bill Of Sale: Fill & Download for Free

A2A original question askedWhy was the 2nd amendment to the US constitution passed? Under what circumstances? And do we still have those necessities? Is it still relevant or a relic of the past like slavery?I have discussed these issues numerous times in the past, and will link and quote from my previous posts. First off starting with the amendment itself. The second amendment ought be interpreted quite literally so quoting the Amendment itself: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.First off when & why: 1789 it was one of the bill of rights passed to assure that all 13 states would ratify the the Constitution. One of the big arguments at the time of passage of the constitution against it was the lack of a bill of rights.Bill of Rights (1791) - Bill of Rights InstituteThe first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. James Madison wrote the amendments, which list specific prohibitions on governmental power, in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties. For example, the Founders saw the ability to speak and worship freely as a natural right protected by the First Amendment. Congress is prohibited from making laws establishing religion or abridging freedom of speech. The Fourth Amendment safeguards citizens’ right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion in their homes through the requirement of a warrant.The Bill of Rights was strongly influenced by the Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason. Other precursors include English documents such as the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the English Bill of Rights, and the Massachusetts Body of Liberties.One of the many points of contention between Federalists, who advocated a strong national government, and Anti-Federalists, who wanted power to remain with state and local governments, was the Constitution’s lack of a bill of rights that would place specific limits on government power. Federalists argued that the Constitution did not need a bill of rights, because the people and the states kept any powers not given to the federal government. Anti-Federalists held that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty.Several terms in the amendment are very often misinterpreted often with very anachronistic (wrong historical era) mistaken definitions. The term “well regulated” chief among them. Commonly wrongly interpreted as equivalent to “government regulation” which simply was not used as a term in English of the 18th century, it did not become commonly used till late 19th century.In the 18th century one might say “well-regulated” to mean “functioning correctly” or “well-calibrated” or “proper”. Example would be a “well regulated” clock keeps accurate time. A “well regulated” town council is efficient and honest, and does their work with the best interest of citizens in mind. A “well regulated” militia is able to fight effectively against the enemies of the people from which that militia is formed. It DOES NOT MEAN OR EVEN IMPLY regulated or controlled by a government.Another is the term “militia” fortunately is defined strictly by US Federal law and has been so defined without substantial change since the early 1790s right after the writing of the US Constitution. That states:10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.(b)The classes of the militia are—(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.The most recent modification was to add females enlisted in the National Guard in the 1970s.So a young fit male American citizen over 17 and under 45 walking down the street is in the militia whether he knows it or not.The Amendment asserts it is necessary for a “free state” to have a well regulated militia. By free state they mean a nation with a republican form of government and respect for individual rights of citizens.It also says the “right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”That is if you are paying attention an assumed pre-existing right which is correct. From this answer.Alfred Montestruc's answer to Did, or why didn't, any of North American colonies (other than Canada) side with the British rather than join those colonies who were fighting against them?Quoting from this prior post of mine as to the WHY the amendment was passed, and background.English speaking society was very different then, commonly modern people are deeply ignorant of just how different.No police at all. Police in English speaking societies were invented in the 1800s, prior to that time they knew of French or other continental European nation’s police, but English speaking people saw that as tyrannical and French, and French were a traditional enemy. Will post links below documenting this. Law enforcement was done by the people unpaid as a civic duty. Making Sense of English Law Enforcement in the 18th CenturyEnglish speaking people had a traditional right to keep and bear arms. English speaking people have had this as a traditional right since the Saxon conquest of Roman Britain ~ 600 AD. One can document this in numerous sources of English history and law. That ended in the UK starting in ~1920 when the post WWI Tory government wanted Labor disarmed. However in North America, the problems with Native People, and very low population density and abundance of wild game made this right more important to English colonists.Serious problems with native people who attacked colonists from time to time, yes colonists attacked them too, but that does not make the problem go away.The colonies had all been set up with zero British military support, and self-governing with colonist ~ volunteer militia (You volunteer or ELSE!!) for the only defense.The first thing British officials did, that set the war off was try to confiscate (steal from viewpoint of colonists) arms and ammunition belonging to colonists.Battles of Lexington and Concord - WikipediaThe Battles of Lexington and Concord were the first military engagements of the American Revolutionary War.[9]The battles were fought on April 19, 1775 in Middlesex County, Province of Massachusetts Bay, within the towns of Lexington, Concord, Lincoln, Menotomy (present-day Arlington), and Cambridge. They marked the outbreak of armed conflict between the Kingdom of Great Britain and its thirteen colonies in AmericaIn late 1774, Colonial leaders adopted the Suffolk Resolves in resistance to the alterations made to the Massachusetts colonial government by the British parliament following the Boston Tea Party. The colonial assembly responded by forming a Patriot provisional government known as the Massachusetts Provincial Congress and calling for local militias to train for possible hostilities. The Colonial government exercised effective control of the colony outside of British-controlled Boston. In response, the British government in February 1775 declared Massachusetts to be in a state of rebellion.About 700 British Army regulars in Boston, under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith, were given secret orders to capture and destroy Colonial military supplies reportedly stored by the Massachusetts militia at Concord.This shocked and enraged colonists in other colonies, soon after news of this reached other colonies local militias were marching to the aid of Massachusetts.What may not seem obvious to the modern person, who has government paid police and a military, is the colonists take this threat to steal their arms as an Indian knife held to their children’s scalps, and to murder them. Suddenly other colonies that had thought Massachusetts folk a bunch of hot heads, now march to their aid, and think British officials are monsters.The attempt to unlawfully (in the opinion of American colonists including lawyers well respected on issues of common law) disarm American colonists by British Government officials was what started the American Revolutionary war.It was at the time by American colonists who were accustomed to defending themselves from criminals and Indians seen as a deeply monstrously evil thing to do.British people seem to have a very bad habit of totally forgetting this matter that they picked a fight with us over this issue.Do we still have these necessities?All people have the necessity of self-defense against attack by criminals or invaders.We — American citizens — in terms of politically viable majorities have no desire to change.Furthermore the idea that gun legislation “works” as in is effective in controlling violent crime is just nonsense.That is the most fundamental reason people advocate gun control because of an intuitive —and wrong — opinion that it works as a means of control of crime — it does not effective, if anything the empirical evidence indicates the reverse.I go into that here:Alfred Montestruc's answer to Why doesn't the US learn from the UK when it comes to banning guns?Yes other countries have sold their birthright for a mess of pottage. That does not make them reasonable or right.Mess of pottage - WikipediaA mess of pottage is something immediately attractive but of little value taken foolishly and carelessly in exchange for something more distant and perhaps less tangible but immensely more valuable. The phrase alludes to Esau's sale of his birthright for a meal ("mess") of lentil stew("pottage") in Genesis 25:29–34 and connotes shortsightedness and misplaced priorities.

Why is the Ninth Amendment in the Bill of Rights if it doesn't do anything?The 9th is one of the compromises made between the Federalists, and so called “Anti-Federalists” to get them to “support” the Bill of Rights. (it was actually more of a function, “Well if you are going to add a BoR, then we insist you add this”. And this is a rather interesting debate, that has been conflated by many scholars today, who mistake what the Federalists wanted as a strong central government. Actually, both sides wanted a limited Federal Government, they just disagreed on the best way to do it)For those that don’t know this, the COTUS was written, and ratified WITHOUT the Bill of Rights. It was only the “promise” of a Bill of Rights, that a few reticent States, went ahead and ratified, but it was not guaranteed there would be one, or what it would look like. So before reading the Bill of Rights, one first needs to read the body of the COTUS. Things like Article 1.The Congress shall have the power1. To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States:2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States:etc, etc. And NOTHING ELSE!But this was not good enough for the Anti-Federalists, they wanted EXTRA assurances.The thing to understand, and I know this is no longer taught in public schools, because, well duh?, they are public schools…. is, the US Constitution is a contract, a treaty among the several sovereign member countries, aka States, that make up the federation it created. Remember, the COTUS is nothing more than an upgraded version of the Articles of Confederation, going from a CONfederation, to a Federation. The US is not a union, it is not a unitarian national government, as many seem to believe it is, with 50 regional governments. It is a Federation, and the Federal Government is something of a separate entity.The next thing to understand is, the sovereign authority resides in the People. WE the People delegated certain powers to our States, via the State’s Constitution. The States then in turn delegated even fewer limited powers to the governing body of the federation, aka the Federal Government. These are typically listed in Article 1, sections 8, 9 and 10.Now, going back to the part where I said, “one first needs to read the body of the COTUS”. Where in the COTUS did we the People, or the States, delegate a power to the Federal to say, regulate education? food and drugs? the Press? Speech? etc, etc? Or as an example, the manufacture and sale of intoxicating beverages?Well, in 1919, the States, (via WE the People of each State), ratified the 18th Amendment, delegating that authority to the Federal. (yeah, big mistake, so we took away that authority, and now the Federal Government no longer has the duty, authority or power, to prohibit the manufacture or sale of intoxicating beverages.) Which leads to the question, by what Article, Section, Clause or Amendment, do they have the authority to prohibit the manufacture and sale of cannabis? hmm? If they are as little different as some people would like to claim… just saying.I know this seems like the long way around, but it needs to be said, so you will understand the point of the 9th.Alright, so hopefully, you are beginning to understand the COTUS was written as a contract of negative rights. That is to say, if the Federal is not delegated, i.e. enumerated, a specific duty, authority or power, to act, then it cannot act, and is in fact obligated not to.“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.” ― James MadisonAnd at the time, this was well understood by both parties. But again, the Anti-Federalists wanted to be sure this was never misunderstood and wanted a BoRs. And the Federalist argued this would be dangerous., and would lead to confusion.I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to 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 not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights. Federalist No 84And a question such as this, demonstrates that Hamilton and the Federalists were not far wrong in their fears. Because look at all the things the Federal does, which is has no power to do. The People now look upon the COTUS as a contract of positive rights, meaning, that if the COTUS doesn’t say they can’t do a thing (as enumerated in the BoR), then it can. The complete opposite of how it was ratified.So what the Federalists hope to obtain, by adding the 9th, and the 10th, was that their argument, “The Federal government is limited only to its enumerated powers” would not be lost to time. But sadly it has.So instead of reading the BoR to find out what the Federal can’t do, read the COTUS find out what it can. And honestly, it is really darn little.Oh, and one of the things it (the Supreme Court being part of the Federal) can’t do, is redefine the terms of the COTUS, as it did in Wickard v Filburn, which completely altered the meaning of the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause was only ever meant to apply to actions of State Governments, either foreign or domestic, not give carte blanche to regulate every industry. This would apply the Press industry, btw, which as we can see from Hamilton’s view, could not be construed in such a way.Nor was the General Welfare clause ever meant to apply to the People, as was misconstrued in Helvering v Davis.If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may establish teachers in every State, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public Treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post roads. In short, every thing, from the highest object of State legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated, is copied from the old articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers, and it is a fact that it was preferred in the new instrument for that very reason as less liable than any other to misconstruction.The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. - MadisonAs we can see, the “Welfare” in General Welfare, does not mean charity. It meansthe state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperityor as Webster defined it in 1828Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to states.as it applies to the federation.I hope this helps you understand the 9th a little better.

Why does the USA reject having a national health system when they accept without question a national education system?Who says they accept a national education system? Just because you do not hear about it in the MSM?Let me quote from James Madison, you know, the guy who probably forgot more about the COTUS, than anyone alive today will know about it.If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may establish teachers in every State, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public Treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post roads. In short, every thing, from the highest object of State legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.So does it sound like he, et. al, meant for there to a be a national educational system? I don’t think so. Also, per the 10th Amendment, which clause or amendment delegates a power to Congress to create such a system?And here is the crux of the problem… a national educational system, copied from Bismarkian State Socialism, i.e. the Volksschule. While the Volksschule started off with the lofty ideals of educating the masses, [the Aristocracy went to the Realschule] it was quickly adapted to indoctrinate the masses, to be good little sheeples, good workers who would not strike, or soldiers who would obey orders.Question me this, did the public educational system teach you about the 10th Amendment? Did they inform you about its history, and why it is there?Since they probably didn’t, I will. The US Constitution was written without a Bill of Rights, intentionally. And the men who advocated for the COTUS, advocated AGAINST adding a Bill of Rights, based on the fact, they had written the COTUS in such a way, that the Federal Government was only SUPPOSED to be able to do the things is was delegated the powers to do. And since it was delegated the power to do nothing else, it could not infringe on a person’s liberty to speak, print, practice their religion, keep and bear arms, smoke pot, etc, etc.I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to 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 not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. Federalist No 84The problem was, there was more support for the Bill of Rights, so as a compromise, the Federalists added the 9th and 10th amendments, so this argument become part of the COTUS, to remind the people, of this argument.Do you understand now, why they had to pass the 18th Amendment? Without it, Congress was delegated no power to legislate the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of alcohol. All they could legally do was tax it. And after the 21st, the same is true.So question me this… just which clause or amendment delegates a power to Congress to create a national healthcare system? let alone the FDA, or any of the 80% to 90% of the Federal agencies in existence.And then, after learning that your “national educational system”, has completely failed to properly educate you about US history, and the US Constitution, do you really want them governing your healthcare?Also, the reason the healthcare system in the US is so jacked up, is because of government interference, going back to FDR’s illegal wages controls in 1942, that led to your employer controlling your health insurance.BTW Graham C Lindsay, what concern is it of yours? Do I question why the UK prefers Fascism over free market Capitalism?