Well-Regulated Militias, and More

[oudies at flash.net]

while i agree with many of the analyses of the consitution, showing that it
was an elitist document etc erc.  i think  it's a bit over the top to get
too concerned about this passage.  if you consider the context having equal
representation for each state was hardly out of line, given that each state
considered itself very much an sovreign state at the time.  why, given that
they were attempting to merge these separate entities, would they be
interested in representation only by population?  this if you look at the
*colonial* constitutions which many colonies had prior to the
constitutional convention was standard practice:  the upper house of the
bi-cameral legilasture generally gave equal rep to townships, coutnies, etc

btw, the bill of rights is similarly a practice drawn from colonial
constitutions.  they were generally called 'rights of man' and tacked on to
the section outlining the mechanics of go't operations.  the right to bear
arms was, as i recall, a right included in most colony's constitutions.

also, constitution used to refer to, in GB, the entire body of formal and
informal law, custom, practice, legal and juridical traditions, and so
forth.  


>Charles Brown wrote:
>
>>No, ANY provision of the Constitution may be changed by the 
>>Amendment provision. The Senate could be changed to one Senator from 
>>every state, or 8 from every state.  The Senate could be abolished.
>>
>>Originally, the Senators were elected by the state legislatures and 
>>not elected by the population.
>
>Um, here's what Article V of the sacred text says:
>
>"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it 
>necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the 
>Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, 
>shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either 
>Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this 
>Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of 
>the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as 
>the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the 
>Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the 
>Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect 
>the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first 
>Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of 
>its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
>
>That last clause sure sounds like it'd be impossible to abolish the 
>Senate under the present Constitution.
>
>By the way, the White House has a section called "major government 
>documents" on its website. They are:
>
>*The Declaration of Independence
>*The United States Constitution
>*North American Free Trade Agreement
>*General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
>*OMB Budgets
>
>Sorta shows the Clinton administration's priorities, eh?
>
>Doug
>
>
>
>