AMENDMENT II
The U.S. has a strong tradition of civilian control of the military. The President is the military's overall head, and helps form military policy with the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), a federal executive department, acting as the principal organ by which military policy is carried out.
Make no mistake there is an understanding that provides the Presidency, even today, the power to command the military. The CIVILIAN authority commands the USA military. The civilian's President says yes or no to movement of the military.
So, one has to wonder where the sincere meaning that the Libertarian Party claims as its has actually existed. Why the demand for access to such high powered weapons? We are all still a citizen militia?
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.
Annotated bibliographies are a summary and/or evaluation of each of the source on a studied subject. It can include a summary and / or an assessment and / or a reflection. Much of the authorship of an annotated bibliography comes through as an expertise as well as a listing of the source being referenced. That is what is being conducted in an Annotated Constitution noted below. It makes reference to law and brings a summary / evaluation / reflection to it.
CRS Annotated Constitution (click here)
...The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an “individual rights” thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a “states’ rights” thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units. Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state or private restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force....
The Libertarian Party would not even be correct if it were still 1776. The original Second Amendment, according to the Libertarian Party, bravely put itself in the direct path of prohibiting an organized military under a king or in this case a President. According to The Libertarians,the colonists of the thirteen colonies did not want to have a central military because they believed it would turn on the country they had carved out of their understanding of freedom. They, instead, wanted a citizens's militia where they would have control over their lives. The citizen's militia would have one Commander and Chief, not thirteen or more. One sole purpose was to bring the citizens together to serve and it would be lead by the President.
CRS Annotated Constitution (click here)
...The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an “individual rights” thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a “states’ rights” thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units. Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state or private restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force....
The Libertarian Party would not even be correct if it were still 1776. The original Second Amendment, according to the Libertarian Party, bravely put itself in the direct path of prohibiting an organized military under a king or in this case a President. According to The Libertarians,the colonists of the thirteen colonies did not want to have a central military because they believed it would turn on the country they had carved out of their understanding of freedom. They, instead, wanted a citizens's militia where they would have control over their lives. The citizen's militia would have one Commander and Chief, not thirteen or more. One sole purpose was to bring the citizens together to serve and it would be lead by the President.
The U.S. has a strong tradition of civilian control of the military. The President is the military's overall head, and helps form military policy with the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), a federal executive department, acting as the principal organ by which military policy is carried out.
Make no mistake there is an understanding that provides the Presidency, even today, the power to command the military. The CIVILIAN authority commands the USA military. The civilian's President says yes or no to movement of the military.
So, one has to wonder where the sincere meaning that the Libertarian Party claims as its has actually existed. Why the demand for access to such high powered weapons? We are all still a citizen militia?
