Outlander's Engine wrote:There was a consensus. A unified intent. That's why it was ratified. Yes, there was certainly compromise involved, since almost all politics involve compromise. That's why the amendments we call the bill of rights aren't part of the constitution but are, instead, amendments.
A few things. First of all, amendments are most certainly
part of the constitution. That's not even debatable.
The need for amendments at all proves there was not a unified intent (if they had a unified intent, what is there to compromise over? Answer: Nothing). Further - There was exhaustive debate over whether a bill of rights was needed, based in turn on the huge debate over implied versus expressed powers - does the government have the right to do everything not prohibited, or only those explicitly assigned to it? One line of thought went that it was incredibly important to set in stone that the government had no right to interfere in certain matters, to protect citizen's rights. An opposing school of thought held that this implicitly gave the government an extremely dangerous amount of power, because the government was already forbidden from doing anything not expressly granted it - setting down things it could not do would weaken that stance. We wound up with a sort of hybrid between the two philosophies of how to assign governmental power - certainly no product of a unified intent. Just because they wound up going with an option instead of debating the points until they all died of old age in their seats does not prove that they had a unified will and intention. To say nothing of the founding fathers who did not like the constitution (cf. Patrick Henry and the entire state of Rhode Island)! One faction's intention won out in the end, and the minority faction (or at least, the faction against ratification) was overruled, the way they are wont to do in democracies. The overrule of the losing opinion does not mean the losing opinion did not exist.
The simple fact of the constitution being ratified by all the states (eventually! As you will recall, it took a rather long time to get everybody on board) is decidedly not
the same as a unified philosophical intent. The error lies in assuming that because the document got ratified, everybody had the same reason for ratifying it. That does not follow. The constitution served many different interests (slaveowners, merchants, land speculators) and therefore different interests had different reasons for advocating (or being persuaded to the side of) ratification. Or have you forgotten the Federalist papers (hint: why do they exist at all)?
There's an argument here that might be framed along the lines of "since there was not a consensus among the original framers, this amendment may not reflect the majorities intent".
That is very nearly what I am arguing. Where there is no consensus, there can be no...well...consensus. No unified intent among all 55. But I find it odd that the goalposts have changed from "consensus" to "majority intent" - two very different things indeed. Anyway, yes - since there wasn't a consensus, I don't think you can say that the second amendment reflects one. What I do think you can say is that it reflects the best compromise they were able to come up with.
In addition, pray tell - where can I find this unified intent? 'Cause it's hidden real well from me and every other scholar going over the constitution itself and the founders' writings with a fine-tooth comb. If they had a unified intent, it would be abundantly clear from all of their writings what it was, and we would not have to wonder or debate over what they originally meant. They didn't, and it isn't, and we do.
It was ratified. They passed it. What more 'consensus' do you need?
edit: excuse me. That's a generic 'you', not directed at Cheezwhiz or anyone else.
I should have said 'would they need' instead.
(Re: edit - okay, thanks.
That's very akin to saying that because the health care bill got passed, all the politicians who voted for it have one single, canon, unified intention for its interpretation and implementation, which is obviously not true (just look at the knock-down drag-out fight over the language about abortion if you don't believe me). The only consensus on the part of those who drafted and voted for the health care bill (or ratification) was that it was a document they could accept given deals, compromises, promises - like the abortion issue for the health care bill, or (for the constitution) the Massachusetts compromise or of course the 3/5ths compromise. The 3/5ths compromise made it into the final draft, but that does not
prove there was a consensus on slavery - in fact, quite the opposite. So too with the entire document.
And I'm not sure original intent really matters. The question of the moment is, does the 2nd amendment still make sense.
I don't think it's overly important, either. Unfortunately, another viewpoint exists, but that's another debate...