Form 7: Request To Enforce Work Order: Fill & Download for Free

Your interpretation of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment is based on circular logic, and is not shared by most Constitutional scholars, the Supreme Court or the majority of the US populace. The guarantee that the people’s right to own and carry arms cannot be infringed, is not limited to membership in a militia.First, you should understand that the 2nd Amendment (and the Constitution in general) does not grant any rights to the people. The Constitution grants a very narrow set of powers and responsibilities to the government, limits the powers of the government to those explicitly enumerated, and reserves all other rights to the people. The 2nd Amendment states that the government shall not infringe upon the natural right of the people to keep and bear arms. It does not confine such a right to a militia. The language is not “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the Militia shall have the right to keep and bear arms.” It uses the need for a militia to preserve a free state, as one rationale for preventing the infringement by the government upon the people’s natural right to be armed.This “natural” right of a person to keep and bear arms was thought by the Founders to be one of the “unalienable” rights endowed upon man by his creator. It had been affirmed a century earlier in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which was the precursor to and inspiration for the US Bill of Rights.[1]It’s also useful to know what was meant by a “well regulated” militia. “Well regulated”, at the time, meant “well equipped”, “in good working order” and, perhaps “well trained” much as a working clock is “well regulated”. It did not mean administered or managed by a higher authority, like congress. A “well regulated militia” was a collection of all well equipped citizens, trained in the use of arms, coming together to defend the liberty of their “free state”. A “well regulated militia” was specifically not a standing army or the modern National Guard.To better understand what the founders had in mind, we should do what Thomas Jefferson himself asked us to do when reading the Constitution:"On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one which was passed." Letter from Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 12 June 1823[2]To “carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted” and “recollect the spirit manifested in the debates”, let’s look at what the Founders actually said about the subject in their contemporary writing on the subject:Patrick Henry: “Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” v3 Elliot, Debates* 168-169.[3]Patrick Henry: “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” v3 Elliot, Debates*, 386.[4]Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”, Proposal for a Virginia Constitution, v1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)[5]Thomas Jefferson: "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." Thomas Jefferson – Letter to William Stephens Smith, 13 November 1787[6]You have to love Jefferson for this one. He expects govrernment to be warned, from time to time, by the people that they “preserve the spirit of resistance.” “Let them take arms” indeed. He knew the “rulers” would naturally tend toward tyranny and saw the people’s right to keep and bear arms as a check on that tyranny.Thomas Jefferson: "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson – The Commonplace Book, Quoting Cesare, Marchese di Beccaria[7]Thomas Jefferson: "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785[8]Thomas Jefferson: "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." – Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824[9]George Mason: “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” v3 Elliott, Debates*, 425-426[10]George Mason: “...to disarm the people ― that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” v3 Elliott, Debates*, 380[11]Thomas Paine: “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside… Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…” vI Writings of Thomas Paine, 56 (1894)[12]James Madison: “The ultimate authority … resides in the people alone. … The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.” [The Federalist Papers 46][13][14]James Madison: "A Government resting on a minority, is an aristocracy not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical [and] physical force against it, without a standing Army, and enslaved press, and a disarmed populace." James Madison, Autobiography, December 1830.[15]James Madison: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." – James Madison, vI Annals of Congress 451, June 8, 1789[16]Alexander Hamilton: “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance. [The Federalist Papers 28][17]Alexander Hamilton: “If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist. [The Federalist Papers 29][18][19]Samuel Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, February 6, 1788[20]Rep. Tenche Coxe of Pennsylvania: “ …the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788[21]Rep. Tenche Coxe of Pennsylvania: "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." – Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789[22]Rep. Tenche Coxe of Pennsylvania: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals . . . “– Tench Coxe, The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority, 1789 [23]Noah Webster (of Webster’s Dictionary): "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every Kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed ….” An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)[24]Richard Henry Lee: “To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…” Major-General Richard Henry Lee, (aka Light Horse Harry, famed revolutionary war leader and the father of Robert E. Lee), Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788)[25]Justice Joseph Story: “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers and will generally even if these are successful the first instance enable the people to resist and triumph over them…” Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. Boston, 1833.[26]Finally, from Cesare, Marchese di Beccaria, a well respected Italian philosopher of the time. This passage was found, copied into one of the journals kept by Thomas Jefferson. Several Founders referenced Beccaria in their writings and debates around the time of the drafting of the Constitution. John Adams, who quoted Beccaria frequently, was so impressed with Beccaria’s work he gave a book of Beccaria’s essays to his son.[27]“A Principal source of errors and injustice, are false ideas of utility. For example, that legislator has false ideas of utility, who considers particular more than general convenience; who had rather command the sentiments of mankind, than excite them, and dares say to reason, "Be thou a slave;" who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages, to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire, for fear of being burnt, and of water, for fear of being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it. The laws of this nature, are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator; and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack armed than unarmed persons.” Cesare Beccaria – Of Crimes and Punishments, 1764, Chapter 40 (Emphasis added)[28]* The Debates in the Several State Conventions, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia, in 1787 – In Four Volumes – Collected and Revised from Contemporary Publications, by Jonathan Elliot[29]The contemporaneous writings of every delegate to the Constitutional Convention… of every Founder… are clear on the issue of the people’s right to keep and bear arms for their own defense and the defense of their free state. They all considered it an unalienable right of the individual. There is no extant contemporaneous writing of the Founders that suggests the right is somehow constrained by participation in a militia.There was grave concern by many, at the time the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution, that it might be viewed, as it often is now, as a narrow list of enumerated rights, which, by their very inclusion, implied that the government was somehow granted the power to regulate what the Founders believed were immutable, unalienable natural rights. Alexander Hamilton was concerned that the very act of including a Bill of Rights might allow “men disposed to usurp” to confer onto the federal government, powers that it is not granted by the Constitution.Alexander Hamilton: “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 pretence 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. ” Alexander Hamilton – The Federalist Papers, 84.[30]Hamilton was remarkably prescient, for that is exactly what has happened over time. The federal government has usurped more and more power and there are many now who claim that it has a right to infringe upon a natural right that the Bill of Rights explicitly states “shall not be infringed”.The ever-growing, power-grabbing, federal government which Hamilton foretold, and warned us against, is why the 9th Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights. It states:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.The Founders intended that the government have only those limited powers which were explicitly called out in the Constitution, and that all other powers and rights be retained by the people. One of those rights is the natural right for a person to own and carry arms in defense of themselves and their free state.We correctly interpret the 2nd Amendment as a protection of the individual right to keep and bear arms, independent of any membership in a militia. This is due, in no small measure, to the US Supreme Court in their decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)[31] This decision, informed by Jefferson’s request to “recollect the spirit manifested in the debates”, was the result of work done by Robert A. Levy and the CATO Institute, beginning in 2002, to put the lawsuit together that was eventually decided in District of Columbia v. Heller.[32][Note that, in much of the current debate about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, we find writers, on both sides of the issue, using spurious quotes, often fabricated from whole cloth, attributed to the Founders in an effort to support one position or another. I’ve made an effort here to cite each quotation with reference to the quote in the context of the original source document. This has resulted is an unusual number of footnotes for an answer on Quora. I apologize for making the answer appear more complicated than it would have been otherwise, but I believe it is important to let the reader research the subject on their own.]Footnotes[1] English Bill of Rights - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com[2] Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 12 June 1823[3] http://teachingamericanhistory.org/pdf/ratification/elliot/ElliotVolume3.pdf[4] http://teachingamericanhistory.org/pdf/ratification/elliot/ElliotVolume3.pdf[5] The James Madison Research Library and Information Center[6] Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 13 November 1 …[7] Thomas Jefferson, 1762-1767, Legal Commonplace Book[8] Jefferson's Letter to Peter Carr 9/19/1785[9] Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824[10] http://teachingamericanhistory.org/pdf/ratification/elliot/ElliotVolume3.pdf[11] http://teachingamericanhistory.org/pdf/ratification/elliot/ElliotVolume3.pdf[12] The James Madison Research Library and Information Center[13] The Federalist Papers[14] The Federalist #46[15] Founders Online: James Madison: Autobiography, December 1830[16] A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774[17] Federalist No 28[18] The Federalist Papers[19] How Alexander Hamilton solved America's gun problem — 228 years ago[20] https://www.milestonedocuments.com/images/content/handouts/Samuel_Adamss_Mass_Convention_Speeches.pdf[21] The James Madison Research Library and Information Center[22] http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_articles/tench_coxe.pdf[23] http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_articles/tench_coxe.pdf[24] Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)[25] Federal Farmer, no. 18[26] The Second Amendment: A Primer[27] The Italian Enlightenment and the American Revolution: Cesare Beccaria’s Forgotten Influence on American Law[28] https://www.laits.utexas.edu/poltheory/beccaria/delitti/delitti.c40.html[29] Elliot’s Debates[30] Federalist No 84[31] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6484080926445491577&q=District+of+Columbia+v.+Heller,+554+U.S.+570+(2008)&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1[32] The Heller Ruling, Five Years On (Robert Levy)

Generally, health inspector in your municipal area is the person who can measure noise level in db scale for maintaining health in the Area.But State Govt can Notify other persons also, responsible for The Noise Control and Regulation Rules, 2000.____________________________Noise is unwanted sound. Ambient noise is all encompassing noise associated with any given environment and is usually a composite of sounds from many sources near and far. Any abnormal sound which irritates human being is called as noise pollution.Noise is one of the undesirable products of technological civilization. Admits this civilization, where ever we go, noise surrounds us. The roar of traffic, the passage of trains and aero planes, the bustle of crowds and the working of industry and the public utilities deafens our ears. Even home is invaded by noise. The noise from whatever source it comes from is undoubtedly, physiologically as well as psychologically harmful. Invading environment in dangerous proportions, it is an invisible but insidious form of pollutant Noise as a potentially harmful pollutant is being recognised as a great nuisance these days affecting the quality of life, particularly, in urban areas.The noise nuisance. -Noise is not only a nuisance; it is a health hazard, Indians who have the dubious distinction of being amongst the noisiest people in the world-are deaf to this fact._________________Addressing the Indian Science Congress' annual convention in January 1981, its president, Prof. A.K. Sharma, said, “in the absence of any preventive measures, Indian towns are noiser than those in the West. Calcutta, Bombay and Delhi are regarded to be among the noisiest cities in the world, where the average noise level even 10 years back was 90 decibels. (Decibels is a unit of noise on a logarithmic scale.)”Prolonged exposure to noise levels about 90 decibels can cause permanent deafness-factory workers show neurological, digestive and metabolical disorders under such conditions. Researchers claim that if present noise levels continue unchecked, further generations may be born deaf._________________Noise levels beyond accepted limitsAccording to The Noise Control and Regulation Rules, 2000.As per the rules, the prescribed highest limit of noise levels for residential localities is 55 and 45 decibels (during the day and the night respectively), for silence zones the level is 50 and 40 decibels, respectively. For the industrial area, the permissible noise level is 75 and 70 and for commercial 65 and 55 decibels respectively.________________________THE NOISE CONTROL AND REGULATION RULES, 2000.S.O. 123 (E), dated 14th February, 2000.1-Wheareas the increasing ambient noise levels in public places from various sources, inter-alia, industrial activity, construction activity, generator sets, loud speakers, public address terms, music systems, vehicular horns and other mechanical devices have mysterious effects on human health and the psychological wellbeing of the people; it is considered necessary to regulate and control noise producing and venerating sources with the objective of maintaining the ambient air quality standards in respect of noise.1. Published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Pt.II, Sec. 3 (ii) dated 14th February, 2000.Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Cl. (ii) of sub-section (2) of Sec. 3, sub-section (1) and Cl. (b) of sub-section (2) of Sec. 6 and Sec. 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986) read with rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, the Central Government hereby makes the following rules for the regulation and control of noise producing and generating sources, namely: -1. Short title and commencement. -(1) These rifles may be called the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.2. DEFINITIONS. - IN THESE RULES, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTLIER7OISE REQUIRES,-(a) “Act” means the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986);(b) “Area/zone” means all areas which fall in either of the of four categories given in the Schedule annexed to these rules;(c) “Authority” means any authority or officer authorised by the Central Government, or as the case may be, the State Government in accordance with the laws in force and includes a District Magistrate, Police Commissioner, or arm other officer designated for the maintenance of the ambient air quality standards in respect of noise under any law for the time being in force;(d) “Person” in relation to any factory or premises means a person or occupier or his agent, who has control over the affairs of the factory or premises;'(e) “State Government” in relation to a Union territory means the Administrator thereof appointed under Art. 239 of the Constitution.3. AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS IN RESPECT OF NOISE FOR DIFFERENT AREAS/ZONES. -(1) The ambient air quality standards in respect of noise different areas/ zones shall be such as specified in the Schedule annexed to these rules.(2) The State Government may categorize the areas into industrial, commercial, residential or silence areas/zones for the purpose of implementation of noise standards for different areas.(3) The State Government shall take measures for abatement of noise including noise emanating from vehicular movements and ensure that the existing noise levels do not exceed the ambient air quality standards specified under these rules.(4) All development authorities, local bodies and other concerned authorities while planning developmental activity or carrying out functions relating to town and country planning shall take into consideration all aspects of noise pollution as a parameter of life to avoid noise menace and to achieve the objective of maintaining the ambient air quality standards in respect of noise.(5) An area comprising not less than 100 meters around hospitals, educational institutions and courts may be declared as silence area/zone for the purpose of these rules.4. RESPONSIBILITY AS TO ENFORCEMENT OF NOISE POLLUTION CONTROL MEASURES.-(1) The noise levels in any area/zone shall not exceed the ambient air quality standards in, respect of noise as specified in the Schedule.(2) The authority shall be responsible for the enforcement of noise pollution control measures and the due compliance of the ambient air quality standards in respect of NOISE.5. RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF LOUD SPEAKERS/PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEM. –(1) A loudspeaker or a public address system shall not be used except after obtaining written permission from the authority. -(2) A loud speaker or a public address system shall not be used at night (between 10.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m.) except in closed premises for communication within, e.g. auditoria, conference rooms, conference rooms, community halls and banquet halls.6. Consequences of any violation in silence zone/area.-Whoever, in any place covered under the silence zone/area commits any of the following offence, he shall be liable for penalty under the provisions of the Act:-(i) Whoever, plays any music or rises any sound amplifiers,(ii) Whoever, beats a drum or tom-tom or blows a horn either, musical or pressure, or trumpet or beats or sounds any instrument, or(iii) Whoever, exhibits any mimetic, musical or other performances of a nature to attract crowds.7. COMPLAINTS TO BE MADE TO THE AUTHORITY-(1) A person may, if the noise level exceeds the ambient noise standards by 11) dB (A) or more given in the corresponding columns against any area/zone, make a complaint to the authority.(2) The authority shall act on the complaint and take action against the violator in accordance with the provisions of these rules and any other law in force.8. POWER TO PROHIBIT ETC. CONTINUANCE OF MUSIC SOUND OR NOISE.-(1) If the authority is satisfied from the report of an officer in charge of a police station or other information received by him that it is necessary to do so in order to prevent annoyance, disturbance, discomfort or injury risk of annoyance, disturbance, discomfort or injury to the public or any person who dwell or occupy property on the vicinity, he may, by written order issue such directions as he may consider necessary to any person for preventing, prohibiting, controlling or regulating: -(a) The incidence or continuance in or upon any premise of-(i) Any vocal or instrumental music,(ii) Sounds caused by playing, beating, clashing, blowing or use in any manner whatsoever of any instrument including loudspeakers, public address systems, appliance or apparatus or contrivance which is capable of producing or re-producing sound, or(b) The carrying on in or upon, any premises of any trade, avocation or operation or process resulting in or attended with noise.(2) The authority empowered under sub-rule (1) may, either oil its own motion, or on the application of any person aggrieved by an order made tinder sub-rule (1), either rescind, modify or alter any such order:Provided that before any such application is disposed of, the said authority shall afford to the applicant an opportunity of appearing before if either in person or by a person representing him and showing cause against the order and shall, if it reflects any such application either wholly or in part, record its reasons for such rejection.________________SCHEDULE(See rule 3 (1) and 4 (1)Ambient Air Quality standards in respect of Noise
Note: -1. Day time shall mean from 6.00 a.m. to 10.00 p.m.2. Night time shall mean from 10.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m.3. Silence zone is defined as an area comprising not less than 100 meters around hospitals, educational institutions and courts. The silence zones are zones, which are declared as such by the competent authority.4. Mixed categories of areas may be declared as one of the four-abovementioned categories by the competent authority.*dB (A) Leq denotes the time weighted average of the level of sound in decibels on scale A which is relatable to human hearing.A “decibel” is a unit in which noise is measured.“A” in dB (A) Leq, denotes the frequency weighting in the measurement of noise and corresponds to frequency response characteristics of the human ear.Leq: equivalent continuous sound level: It is an energy mean of the noise level over a specified period._________________________Masroor Ahmad and another Vs State Of U P And 4 Others on 09 January 2020 in the Allahabad High CourtNo Religion Prescribes Use Of Loudspeakers For Worshipping: Allahabad HC Declines Mosques' Request To Install Loudspeaker For AzaanStating that no religion prescribes the use of loudspeakers for worshipping, the Allahabad High Court declined the permission sought by two mosques to install loudspeakers, for the purposes of Azaan.

I don’t know whether to thank or curse you for the A2A, Neil. As a general rule, I don’t answer questions with more than 20 answers[1] , as by that point I assume that everything that can be said has been said. However, the 495 answers that the edit log says this question has received at the time of this writing are… Well, I’ll get to those; but, suffice to stay, they stopped me in my tracks[2] .The short of it is that the broad character and quality of the answers was distressing enough to keep me awake at night - so thanks for that.This answer will be far from my lengthier magna opera, but I’m going to take it in four parts. Part I will unpack the question. Part II the answers to date. Part III the core of my answer. Part IV some concluding thoughts.Part I: Unpacking the question.I’m going to be honest with you, Neil: the question as worded is confusing, and I reckon that confusion has contributed greatly to many of the dismissive answers you’ve received to-date (to be discussed in Part II). As we say in policy circles, if you get the question wrong, your solution will also be wrong[3] .Let’s look at the question.Given that nothing in the US Constitution gives citizens or the president a right to keep tax returns secret, shouldn’t Federalist Supreme Court justices agree that statutes requiring presidents or candidates to release their tax returns are valid?There are two problems. The first is that you’re leading with a fallacy (ie, that because the Constitution is silent on one thing, it is permissive of another), and the second is that you’re obscuring the main controversy (ie, statutes requiring presidents and presidential candidates to disclose their taxes) by making Supreme Court justices the subject of the question. This becomes apparent when you move the opening, dependent clause to the end of the question as such:Shouldn’t Federalist Supreme Court justices agree that statutes requiring presidents or candidates to release their tax returns are valid given that nothing in the US Constitution gives citizens or the president a right to keep tax returns secret?Which leaves as the basic, subject-verb-object simple sentence:Shouldn’t Supreme Court justices agree the statutes are valid?But then that reveals a second logical error, which is that you’ve assumed the validity of the statutes in the first place - which I’ll discuss in detail later. Between the two fallacies and the confusing phraseology, you’ve invited not just a great deal of hostility to how you’ve presented the question, but a plethora of answers which miss the mark simply because they missed the point of the question.For my purposes, the form of the question I will address in Part III will be:Would statutes requiring sitting presidents or presidential candidates to release their tax returns be valid under the Constitution?That strikes me as a fair interpretation of the intent of the question stripped of fallacies and convoluted structure.Part II: Unpacking the answersSo… I tried reading all of the answers to-date - really, because I’m going to be pretty harsh here. But I think I got about 200 deep before I got the gist of things and finally went to bed.Based on my sample, though, I confidently assert that the overwhelming majority of answers to this question are wrong.Now, just as an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of typewriters for an infinite amount of time might ultimately produce Shakespeare, the sheer volume of answers has provided the contours of a single, correct answer, but they’re lost in the morass of derisiveness and, well, wrongness that otherwise pervades the feed.Without giving air time to the answers that are wrong by virtue of their curtness, hostility, or rambling, tangential screeds, here are the main themes that the substantive answers get wrong.Over-reliance on the Fourth AmendmentIn challenging the leading assertion that there is “nothing in the Constitution [that] gives citizens or the president a right to keep tax returns secret,” many, if not the bulk of answers, point you to the Fourth Amendment, which states:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.Using the Fourth Amendment to debunk the assertion isn’t wrong (ie, there is, in fact, something in the Constitution), but where most of these answers went on to err was asserting that the implied right to privacy contained within the Fourth Amendment is absolute.It is not.The Fourth Amendment protects “the right . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures,” and there may be (and are, as we’ll see) reasonable grounds to demand one’s “papers,” which so-far has been categorically unexplored by the answers.Over-reliance on the Ninth AmendmentEither in isolation or in combination with articulation of the Fourth Amendment, a number of answers have tried to challenge the core of your leading assertion by pointing out that the Constitution itself - through the Ninth Amendment - effectively says, “Don’t take my silence to be absolute.”The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.But as with discussion of the Fourth Amendment, the answers generally fail to go on to address the implicit question: “Why do you assume that the Ninth Amendment affords an absolute protection?”Incorrect application of the Tenth AmendmentAs with the Ninth Amendment, several answers invoked the Tenth to challenge the assertion that absence of authority is permission of conduct. But just as many answers challenged you on whether you read the Constitution, I wondered whether any who invoked the Tenth had ever read it - even when they quoted it:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.While the Ninth Amendment concerns rights not articulated by the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment concerns powers; more specifically, it articulates that powers not given to the Federal government are retained by the States - or, if the States have not assumed such powers, then to the people.The Tenth Amendment is ultimately your best argument for defending your assertion: that is, if the States choose to legislate to mandate political candidates’ disclosure of tax returns, that may be a legitimate exercise of the States’ powers (it isn’t, as I’ll discuss in the next part, but it was your strongest argument).Asserting lack of jurisdiction and over-reliance on the Fifth AmendmentSome of the most popular answers to-date assert that your question fails because there either aren’t any such statutes in the first place; that the only relevant statutes are those which explicitly protect the privacy of a person’s tax returns, regardless of Constitutional provisions; or, no entity outside of the IRS has any scope to see a person’s tax returns, regardless of Constitutional provisions.The most popular answer to-date even contains this breathtaking assertion:States have no authority over federal taxes or returns therefore, in turn, they also have no authority to demand their release or examine them.I’m sure that would come as a shock to the many state prosecutors who have relied on persons’ federal tax returns to prove the commission of financial crimes under their state’s laws. Let the appeals begin! (cc: Andrew Weill)Of the 200-ish answers I scoped prior to writing mine, only two cited the statute governing Congress’ authority to demand and examine a person’s tax returns[4] (and one of them incompletely, thus incorrectly):(f) Disclosure to Committees of Congress(1) Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on TaxationUpon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.(2) Chief of Staff of Joint Committee on TaxationUpon written request by the Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish him with any return or return information specified in such request. Such Chief of Staff may submit such return or return information to any committee described in paragraph (1), except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.(3) Other committeesPursuant to an action by, and upon written request by the chairman of, a committee of the Senate or the House of Representatives (other than a committee specified in paragraph (1)) specially authorized to inspect any return or return information by a resolution of the Senate or the House of Representatives or, in the case of a joint committee (other than the joint committee specified in paragraph (1)) by concurrent resolution, the Secretary shall furnish such committee, or a duly authorized and designated subcommittee thereof, sitting in closed executive session, with any return or return information which such resolution authorizes the committee or subcommittee to inspect. Any resolution described in this paragraph shall specify the purpose for which the return or return information is to be furnished and that such information cannot reasonably be obtained from any other source.The use of shall in those paragraphs is key[5] . It isn’t that Congress has the authority to ask for permission to see a person’s tax returns, it has the express authority to demand and examine them, and they “shall” be provided for such purpose.A number of answers - almost all without citing the above statute - have gone on to challenge Congress’ authority to enter into such examinations without a “legitimate purpose.” The Supreme Court, however, has already ruled that Congress has broad investigatory powers that includes examination of a person’s financial details[6] [7] :We are of opinion that the power of inquiry -- with process to enforce it -- is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function. It was so regarded and employed in American legislatures before the Constitution was framed and ratified. . . .A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change, and where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information -- which not infrequently is true -- recourse must be had to others who do possess it. Experience has taught that mere requests for such information often are unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete, so some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed. All this was true before and when the Constitution was framed and adopted. In that period, the power of inquiry, with enforcing process, was regarded and employed as a necessary and appropriate attribute of the power to legislate -- indeed, was treated as inhering in it. Thus, there is ample warrant for thinking, as we do, that the constitutional provisions which commit the legislative function to the two houses are intended to include this attribute to the end that the function may be effectively exercised.The contention is earnestly made on behalf of the witness that this power of inquiry, if sustained, may be abusively and oppressively exerted. If this be so, it affords no ground for denying the power. The same contention might be directed against the power to legislate, and, of course, would be unavailing. We must assume for present purposes that neither houses will be disposed to exert the power beyond its proper bounds, or without due regard to the rights of witnesses. But if, contrary to this assumption, controlling limitations or restrictions are disregarded . . . a witness rightfully may refuse to answer where the bounds of the power are exceeded or the questions are not pertinent to the matter under inquiry.Now, that latter statement sets up another of the most common assertions made in the answers to-date, which is reliance on the Fifth Amendment to shield someone from self-incrimination by way of illicit declarations on their tax returns.It is true that people are required to declare illicit sources of income on their taxes, and may claim protections in such returns[8] …If the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making, he could have raised the objection in the return, but could not on that account refuse to make any return at all.…however, that is not an absolute defence to having tax returns introduced as evidence in criminal prosecutions[9] .In combination with Congress’ declared, broad authority to make investigations in order to ascertain the adequacy of existing tax laws or, say, evidence of bribery or Emoluments Clause violations that may require impeachment and removal of Federal officials, the notion that Congress has no jurisdiction is patently false.And in combination, the government’s legitimate interests in ensuring citizens’ compliance with tax law absolutely generates reasonable grounds to demand and examine a person’s tax returns, scuttling the Fourth Amendment argument put forward in so many answers.However, that alone isn’t sufficient to answer the question.Part III: My answerOf the answers I scanned, only two came close to the Constitutional provision which actually holds over the question:No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.The Supreme Court has previously ruled that states cannot add qualifications to office beyond what’s in the Constitution[10] . While the existing ruling concerned candidates for Congressional office, there’s little question that the principles would apply to presidential candidates:[T]he power to add qualifications is not part of the original powers of sovereignty that the Tenth Amendment reserved to the States. Petitioners' Tenth Amendment argument misconceives the nature of the right at issue because that Amendment could only "reserve" that which existed before. As Justice Story recognized, "the states can exercise no powers whatsoever, which exclusively spring out of the existence of the national government, which the constitution does not delegate to them .... No state can say, that it has reserved, what it never possessed."Likewise, the Supreme Court has previously ruled that Congress also has no scope to add qualifications beyond the Constitution[11] :[A]nalysis of the "textual commitment" under Art. I, § 5 has demonstrated that, in judging the qualifications of its members, Congress is limited to the standing qualifications prescribed in the Constitution.Therefore, any statute that would require a president or presidential candidate to release their tax returns as a condition of candidacy or qualification to receive electoral votes would be patently unconstitutional.Moreover, while I dismissed the broad assertions of the Fourth Amendment’s applicability earlier, I also said that it wasn’t necessarily incorrect to cite it. Indeed, the Fourth Amendment, on its own and in combination with others, has been said to create “a zone of privacy” that cannot be violated without due process[12] .While Congress has the power to demand a person’s tax returns as an exercise of its legitimate investigatory powers, the same could not be said of the states requiring disclosures for the sake of record-keeping, nor to the public for the sake of transparency. Even in Congress’ power to examine a person’s tax returns, they must do so in closed session unless given express permission of the individual under scrutiny.And so even if the mandate were made separate from any condition of running for office, coercing someone to violate their privacy - even if given some guarantee of immunity or security in secrecy - would almost certainly be ruled to be an unconstitutional violation.Part IV: Concluding thoughtsThe most frustrating thing about this question and the answers it had so-far received was that there are engaging points to be made, but the hostility the question provoked - between its fallacious wording and, let’s be obvious now, the direct challenge to President Trump fiercely resisting any examination of his taxes[13] [14] - took priority over serious examination of those issues.More to the point: the most upvoted and distributed answers to this question are patently wrong, but they served a reinforcing tribal purpose, and succeeded solely on that merit. And yet, had they taken a pause and made serious examination of the issues, they still could have made a defence of President Trump on the facts.That was really what kept this question and the answers floating in my mind overnight.As well aware as I am of my reputation for liberally footnoting my answers[15] , I do it for a reason: So that people can, if they’re inclined, check my work and debate me on the facts.However, I could count the number of sources the hundreds of authors to-date used to answer this question on two hands, and yet they largely presumed to be authoritative without even offering the weakest of evidence.Moreover, given the tedious repetition of the arguments in the answers, it was plain that few, if any, had bothered to see if their case had already been made and could be buttressed rather than repeated, and so decided to shout for the sake of opining.But what distresses me isn’t that people are wrong, or even that people might disagree with me - it was the confidence of the wrongness, no different than the fallacies within the question as presented, and the fact that people who should know better went along with it because it served a tribal purpose.I’ve been on Quora and engaged in politics long enough that I should be neither surprised nor bothered by that - and, indeed, I generally don’t care about people holding biases[16] - but seeing literally hundreds of answers that were such a gross, obvious display of tribalism over reasoning (when, again, reasoned answers could have served the same purpose) gave me a disquieting pause.Also, Neil, now that you have almost closed in on 500 answers to the question, I would strongly encourage you to stop asking for additional answers. It’s not that I believe that I’ve provided such a commanding response that no other could have merit, but you’re now well beyond the point of diminishing returns.Footnotes[1] Carter Moore's answer to Before posting your own answer to a question on Quora, do you read what everybody else has written? Why or why not?[2] Carter Moore's answer to How do you write your Quora answers? How do you decide what questions you will answer? How long does it typically take for you to answer a question? Do you plan out your answers?[3] Carter Moore's answer to What is analytical writing?[4] 26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information[5] Carter Moore's answer to How has Donald Trump successfully blocked Congress from obtaining a copy of his tax returns?[6] McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927)[7] In Teapot Dome Case, Supreme Court Cemented Congressional Power to Investigate[8] United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259 (1927)[9] Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648 (1976)[10] U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995)[11] Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969)[12] Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)[13] The many times Donald Trump promised he was going to release his tax returns [14] President Trump asks Supreme Court to block access to his tax returns, setting up separation of powers battle[15] https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-fit-in-on-Quora/answer/Tom-Robinson-110/comment/120715406[16] Carter Moore's answer to What's wrong with being "politically biased"?