New Gura suit vs DC on 3/9

[Yellowfin]

Hopefully he'll double his earnings from the previous case and DC will get slapped with contempt of court.

 

[yokel]

armed jury nullification

Politicians might betray the people, but the militia cannot because it is the people. Congress might call out the militia to enforce some law specifying a toy gun that usually shoots a cork and produces a popping sound as an entirely valid militia weapon, but always with the risk that if the law was unjust and noisome the militia might decide to sit things out, or even side with the opposition. Think of it as armed jury nullification.

Abiding by the Constitution is a valid option, not inconsistent with common sense, but can a majority of Congress be swayed to this path?

 

[Dr. Fresh]

When you provide for the organizing and arming of a military unit, (and that's exactly what the militia is when called into service) you say how many men each unit has and how they are to be equipped. The militia act of 1792 spelled out exactly what each unit was to have. Congress even stated that:

Forgive me for pushing the matter, but what I understand is that while the militia is actively serving, i.e. there is a need to call it up, Congress can choose to arm its members how it will.

I still see nothing giving them the authority to determine what arms unorganized militia members keep when not actively serving, i.e. at all other times.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Forgive me for pushing the matter, but what I understand is that while the militia is actively serving, i.e. there is a need to call it up, Congress can choose to arm its members how it will.

The power to organize and arm the militia is not dependant upon the militia being called into federal service. That would be a striking limitation on the authority granted Congress in Article I, Sec 8, Par 15-16 of the Constitution.


Paragraph 16 states in full:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The last clause of the above paragraph emphasizes this interpretation... The states had the authority to train the militia according to the program established by congress...

The idea was to establish a uniform system of discipline and tactics so that the various militia units, when called into federal service, would be an effective and coordinated fighting force, familiar with the demands which could be expected of them. Obviously, this training occured at a time when the militia was not called into federal service, as Paragraph 15 states:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Thus, the militia could only be federalized under the circumstances described in Paragraph 15.

Side note to history nerds... the original "discipline prescribed by Congress" was the famous US Army Blue Book, originally authored by Baron Von Steuben at Valley Forge. It remained the mode of discipline directed by congress for a very long time... IIRC it was not substantially altered until some time after the Civil War. A copy of those regulations can be found here:

http://www.quartermaster.army.mil/qm-bluebook.Html

 

[Sam Adams]

Jeff White vs. Yokel

The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.

The reason the Second Amendment guarantees individual people the right to keep and bear arms, not the militia companies, is that there was a fear that the federal government would use its power to equip and call the militia to duty as a means to disarm the general population. It was therefore necessary that individuals, in their individual capacity, not their military capacity, have the right to have guns.

I agree, wholeheartedly.

Jeff, under your reasoning, the Congress could state that "the militia shall be armed with brooms and chickenfeathers. The Department of the Army shall regulate the specifications thereof." By your logic, the militia could be effectively disarmed, paving the way for a tyranny imposed by a standing army.

The fact that the Bill of Rights AMENDS (i.e. changes and/or supercedes certain clauses of) the Constitution means that Article I, Section 8 is not the be all and end all regarding the militia.

The 2nd Amendment has, as Scalia's opinion in Heller mentioned, a prefatory clause (the militia clause) that merely mentions A purpose of the actual, substantive, law which follows: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Thus, mere membership in the militia is not a prerequisite to a right to "keep and bear arms." The restriction on the government restricting our rights ensures that the militia will ALWAYS have arms, whether Congress provides them or not. THAT is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

Think about the whole reasoning behind the BOR - the men who proposed it had all fought in the Revolution, or had supported it (being too old to fight). They had just created the very thing that they had fought against, at such high cost in blood and treasure, a central government. Now, the Constitution itself was purposely designed to not let that government get too powerful - first by splitting powers between and among competing branches of government, and second by not listing too many powers. The BOR was the primary safety net, specifically limiting the power of the government to act in certain areas, notwithstanding any tortuous reading of the text of the main document itself (which is why, for example, we have no official church of the US), and SPECIFICALLY limiting the powers of the government to those listed in the Constitution. WRT arms (not guns, ARMS), the 2nd Amendment says that the RKBA SHALL NOT be infringed. That says to me that the 1st Congress, and the legislatures of the states which ratified the BOR, decided that certain subjects - including the regulation of keeping and bearing arms - WAS INTENDED TO BE BEYOND THE AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.


What are "arms?" That is an open question, but I happen to like the following quote:

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American." Tench Coxe

We know, of course, that the antis would like to limit the term "arms" to only those firearms which were in use at the time of ratification of the 2nd. Scalia addressed this, and showed how absurd it is - because otherwise the government could censor radio, TV, any newspaper printed on modern printing equipment, the Internet, etc. Further, the Constitution also has a clause in Article I, Section 8 dealing with the power of Congress to issue "Letters of Marque and Reprisal." Letters of Marque are, basically, a Congressional license to act as a pirate or a privateer. Private citizens can, if Congress approves, take on and take over (or sink) foreign warships and foreign-flagged merchant ships. Such Letters were actually issued during the War of 1812. Now, the question is: how does one take on a foreign warship or an armed merchant ship? Even in Revolutionary War days, it wasn't with muskets and Kentucky Rifles - some citizens, and many groups of citizens, owned cannon. CLEARLY the Founders knew this (some of them were the owners of cannon), else they would not have put such a clause into the main body of the Constitution, nor would they have said "arms" instead of "firearms" or "guns" or "muskets, rifles and pistols" or some other very limiting language into the 2nd Amendment.

I'm with Yokel. I also recognize that at this time, and with the base of precedent that we have, no one here is going to have their right to walk into WallyWorld and buy the Colt Monitor, M14 or M16 in the gunrack for cash, without a background check, and without filling out that odious 4473, recognized in any court any time soon. However, we may well be able to get 922(o) knocked out, on the theory that it bans an entire class of weapons that is in general use (by armies and police forces here and abroad, not to mention by those 200,000 or so civilians who had properly licensed a full auto by May 19, 1986). That is my earnest hope regarding all of the recent and pending litigation (besides outlawing future AWBs and making the states all respect a single standard). Restore to any of us the ability to buy any rifle in any town, city or state, and I'll be happy to jump through a few hoops and pay $200 for a tax stamp on a newly-manufactured Colt Monitor or brand-spanking-new M4, or even a newly-made happy switch for my AR (all at competitive prices, of course, since there'd be no limits on production, except those imposed by the free market).

 

[NotEnoughSand]

I think there is a point being lost in the legalese.

We know that for the most part, the militia = the people. But legally speaking, the militia and the people are not the same entity, and that distinction matters.

When Mr. White says that Congress has the power to arm--or disarm--the militia, that does not mean they have the power to disarm the people. The people have a right to bear arms, as an individual right, independent of any duty to militia service that they have. (This right enables them to be prepared for militia service in the event they are called upon to serve.) There is no slippery slope to tyranny in the "can disarm the militia" argument, because they still have no power to disarm the people.

-----
I don't agree that we should not seek to legalize automatics. Heller stands for the proposition that the 2A protects arms in common use by civilians, which are suitable for militia service. The modern day analogue to "a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock" is an M-16A3 with seven loaded magazines. (Or M4, MP5, etc, take your pick for an ordinary infantryman's primary weapon.)

The weapons outside the scope of protection would appropriately be specialized military weapons--the sort of weapons that would not be useful for civilian purposes and therefore would not be in common use. MANPADS, M136s, grenades, general purpose machineguns, etc. fall into this category, because they all have a specific, military use (shooting down aircraft, destroying armor, suppressive fire covering an advance, etc). Assault rifles and submachineguns are not specialized in this manner and do not fit into this category. The fact that semiautomatic versions exist for hunting, sport shooting, and home defense proves that. Having the option for automatic fire does not make them any less useful for civilian purposes. Indeed, these weapons are ideal for militia duty because they are primary weapons of the infrantryman and they have civilian applications, so the body of citizens should already have them and know how to use them. It's efficient.

But, before we go after automatic rifles, we need to flesh out "common use" and solidify its meaning. Going for too much too quickly may result in a decision that undermines the meaning of "common use" and can leave us in a bad situation going forward. Good litigation strategy sets the stage for the big decisions with smaller cases that create precedent that makes favorable reasoning in the big, future case inescapable. Plessy didn't get overturned by Brown the day after, nor can we hope to overturn NFA34 without setting the stage first.

In our case, what we need is for the "common use" vs. "dangerous and usual" language to evolve into a standard that differentiates between "common purpose" and "specialized military purpose." I think you start that voyage by attacking the circularity problem with the "common use" reasoning--the idea that the government can make something not "common" by banning or restricting it, and in doing so, defines the limits of its own power. That is obviously absurd. Moving to common purpose means the government cannot define its own power; weapons that have civilian applications are protected even if the government has made them uncommon.
The nunchucks case may well be a very good way to go about doing this.

 

[yokel]

Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller revisits that "ideal of a citizens' militia" theme in reviewing efforts by George III's government to disarm American colonists (pg. 21). Discussing the ancient origins of the right, Scalia notes that "the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents" (pg. 19).

So-called "assault weapons" are selected for prohibition because gun-control and confiscation exponents claim that the rifles are "weapons of war." This claim, if true, amounts to an admission that the rifles lie at the core of the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment is at its core about creating and sustaining warfighting capability.

We can no longer ignore the worst-case scenario that if a war comes to our shores, the people must be prepared to defend against the threat that foreign and/or domestic aggressors will confiscate or destroy property and destroy lives. For a sovereign people, particularly those in the midst of armed struggles, war is often a matter of national and social survival.

Modern warfare uses explosives and machinery to subdue enemies and territories.

The strength of military forces is no longer measured by the number of men under arms. Today, military forces are measured by the number--and warfighting capabilities--of their weapon systems.

 

[Jeff White]

Jeff, under your reasoning, the Congress could state that "the militia shall be armed with brooms and chickenfeathers. The Department of the Army shall regulate the specifications thereof." By your logic, the militia could be effectively disarmed, paving the way for a tyranny imposed by a standing army.

The fact that the Bill of Rights AMENDS (i.e. changes and/or supercedes certain clauses of) the Constitution means that Article I, Section 8 is not the be all and end all regarding the militia.

Where does it say this? Where is the court decison that spells this out? It doesn't exist.

If four of the justices had been able to win over the fifth in Heller and they ruled that the only right to arms covered by the second amendment was to be able to fulfill your obligations as a member of the militia then congress could under article I section 8 pass a law saying that the appropriate arms for the militia were anything they wanted them to be and the federal government or a lessor unit of government would have been free to outlaw any weapon other then what congress specified in in the law saying what was appropriate for militia use. The only weapons acceptable would be what congress decided the militia should have. And if they said the unorganized militia of the United States should maintain a push broom, shovel and pitchfork for use when they were called into service to build antitank ditches in support of the regular Army and National Guard, then those would be the only implements protected under the second amendment.

We were one vote away from that scenario. The best thing we can do for RKBA is forget the militia clause. It is not now nor will be in the foreseeable future a foot in the door to removing restrictions on title II weapons, or repealing 922 (o).

I don't agree that we should not seek to legalize automatics. Heller stands for the proposition that the 2A protects arms in common use by civilians, which are suitable for militia service. The modern day analogue to "a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock" is an M-16A3 with seven loaded magazines. (Or M4, MP5, etc, take your pick for an ordinary infantryman's primary weapon.)

When you get your congressman to introduce and legislation amending the US Code to say that an M16A3 with 7 magazines is the modern day equivalent of a good musket or firelock, then you will have legal grounds to say that. Until then, it's a pipe dream. Like it or not Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution give congress the authority to prescribe what arms are acceptable for militia service. There is nothing in the second amendment that says in the absence of guidance from congress individuals are free to decide what is an appropriate militia weapon.

We know, of course, that the antis would like to limit the term "arms" to only those firearms which were in use at the time of ratification of the 2nd. Scalia addressed this, and showed how absurd it is - because otherwise the government could censor radio, TV, any newspaper printed on modern printing equipment, the Internet, etc. Further, the Constitution also has a clause in Article I, Section 8 dealing with the power of Congress to issue "Letters of Marque and Reprisal." Letters of Marque are, basically, a Congressional license to act as a pirate or a privateer. Private citizens can, if Congress approves, take on and take over (or sink) foreign warships and foreign-flagged merchant ships. Such Letters were actually issued during the War of 1812. Now, the question is: how does one take on a foreign warship or an armed merchant ship? Even in Revolutionary War days, it wasn't with muskets and Kentucky Rifles - some citizens, and many groups of citizens, owned cannon. CLEARLY the Founders knew this (some of them were the owners of cannon), else they would not have put such a clause into the main body of the Constitution, nor would they have said "arms" instead of "firearms" or "guns" or "muskets, rifles and pistols" or some other very limiting language into the 2nd Amendment.

There are still plenty of cannon in private hands. Just buy the tax stamp for it and each round of ammunition you use and take it out and use it. I don't know how you'd get status to sue to have the NFA overturned because it infringes on your right to own a cannon.

The Second Amendment is at its core about creating and sustaining warfighting capability.

You can't get around the fact that Article I Section 8 of the constitution gives congress the power to decide what warfighting capability you as a member of the unorganized militia have. Wishing the constitution didn't include article I section 8 won't take it out of there.

We can no longer ignore the worst-case scenario that if a war comes to our shores, the people must be prepared to defend against the threat that foreign and/or domestic aggressors will confiscate or destroy property and destroy lives. For a sovereign people, particularly those in the midst of armed struggles, war is often a matter of national and social survival.

Were you ever a soldier? Ground combat arms? If you were, you'd understand just how ridiculous this sounds in 2009. Just who do you think has the resources to mount a military campaign on the North American continent? the Unites States is the only nation with the capability to project significant force any distance from it's national borders.

Modern warfare uses explosives and machinery to subdue enemies and territories.

The strength of military forces is no longer measured by the number of men under arms. Today, military forces are measured by the number--and warfighting capabilities--of their weapon systems.

It's the Summer of 2003, the warfighting capabilities of the most advanced armed forces ever to exist has destroyed the military capability of fifth rate army. And now in 2009 after using that very outdated as you say measure of a large number of men under arms, we are finally beginning to meet our original goals in Iraq. I doubt your emotional argument is going to convince a judge at any level that the second amendment gives you the right to own explosives and the machinery of war with no regulation.

 

[Dr. Fresh]

Were you ever a soldier? Ground combat arms? If you were, you'd understand just how ridiculous this sounds in 2009. Just who do you think has the resources to mount a military campaign on the North American continent? the Unites States is the only nation with the capability to project significant force any distance from it's national borders.

I take issue with this argument. I see it time and time again.

The thing is, no nation remains on top forever. At the height of Roman power, citizens of the empire most likely thought as you do. My point is, no one can guarantee that in the next 50 or 100 years there will not be a war fought on American soil. We are not invincible, and nothing lasts forever.

The current political climate is irrelevant.

 

[Hawaiian]

Interesting reading a page back where it was explained how CA regulates its approved list. This borders on extortion. Maybe some one should file a RICO action against the State of CA.

 

[yokel]

The best thing we can do for RKBA is forget the militia clause.

Well, then i'd be willing to bet that some inspiration and insight from a master strategist and constitutional scholar such as yourself would set these misguided folks straight:

NRA bylaws Article II - Purpose and Objectives:

Quote:
1. To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially with reference to the inalienable right of the individual American citizen guaranteed by such Constitution to acquire, possess, collect, exhibit, transport, carry, transfer ownership of, and enjoy the right to use firearms, in order that the people may always be in a position to exercise their legitimate individual rights of self-preservation and defense of family, person, and property, as well as to serve effectively in the appropriate militia for the common defense of the Republic and the individual liberty of its citizens;
2. To promote public safety, law and order, and the national defense;
3. To train members of law enforcement agencies, the armed forces, the militia, and people of good repute in marksmanship and in the safe handling and efficient use of small arms."[emphasis added]

 

[Jeff White]

The thing is, no nation remains on top forever. At the height of Roman power, citizens of the empire most likely thought as you do. My point is, no one can guarantee that in the next 50 or 100 years there will not be a war fought on American soil. We are not invincible, and nothing lasts forever.

I never said we were invincible. But when our time comes, it will come from within. No nation can afford the cost of maintaining a force that far from home. Not now, not in the past and not in the foreseeable future. Perhaps if Canada or Mexico suddenly put 90% of the GDP into militarization there might be a threat. But even in the days when an army only required food, ball and powder no nation that had to cross either the Atlantic or the Pacific to get to us could support a large enough force to win here. In modern times, with all the requirements for food, ammunition, spare parts and fuel, no nation now existing has the resources to support the number of troops that would be necessary to conquer CONUS from thousands of miles away. We're simply too big and too far away. By about 1820 the settled part of the US was too big for any nation to be able to support a large enough force to beat. While China and India could certainly put enough men under arms to do it, they face the impossibility of getting them here and supporting them here once they are here.

Well, then i'd be willing to bet that some inspiration and insight from a master strategist and constitutional scholar such as yourself would set these misguided folks straight:

To serve effectively means to follow the lawful orders of the chain of command. Once again, in case you've forgotten, Article I Section 8 of the constitution gives congress the authority to dictate what weapons the militia has.

It has nothing at all to do with the NRA bylaws which date back to the 1870s. Back when we still actually had a militia that was a real force. The militia as envisioned by the founding fathers ceased to exist with the passage of the Dick Act in 1903. Yes we still have a provision for an unorganized militia in the United States Code. But it has never been used. The closest thing in modern society to the militia our founding fathers knew is the State Defense Forces that many states have. And even these are not true to the original definition the founding fathers knew, as they are volunteer forces. The last time the militia our founding fathers would have recognized was used was the Spanish American War. It was the recognition that warfare had evolved to the point that we were going to be unable to effectively defend the country with a small standing army and a militia to expand it that led to the Dick Act which gave us our first reserve components and split the militia into the organized and the unorganized militia. We didn't tap into the unorganized militia even during the total mobilization of WWII.

If you don't think a judge will look into the history of the militia and how it's evolved if you would file suit saying your right to possess a machine gun under the militia clause of the second amendment was infringed by 922(o), you are mistaken. Look at all the history Scalia cited in Heller. If one were to look deeply at the history of the militia in this country, one could easily conclude that you had a right to possess a machine gun as a member of the organized militia while in the performance of your duties. But membership in the unorganized militia didn't give you the right to possess a machine gun, that your right to a machine gun was protected by the existence of the organized militia and if you wanted one, you could join the organized militia. I can see all kinds of antigun and even neutral judges coming to that conclusion once they look at the legislation dealing with the militia since the Dick Act.

Better to attack from a different angle then to play the militia clause and lose, then there will be another court precedent that would have to be over turned and judges don't like to do that.

Drop your emotional attachment to the idea that you should be able to have any weapon you want in case you need to defend the country and try to look at it the way someone without an emotional attachment to the issue would.

 

[Librarian]

Interesting reading a page back where it was explained how CA regulates its approved list. This borders on extortion. Maybe some one should file a RICO action against the State of CA.

It's certainly bad, but I don't think it rises to RICO level.

If you read the law very carefully, it resolves to a regulation on California-licensed gun dealers (who are coincidentally also FFL holders). That select group - and I'm sure it's well established that states can regulate business within their own borders - is really the only one directly affected. It is only they who may be punished for transferring a handgun not on the Roster to a person who is not exempt from the restriction.

It just happens that Federal law generally requires interstate transfer to obey the laws of the buyer's state, and it just happens that unlicensed individuals in California are generally required to do their handgun transfers through a California-licensed FFL. (Exceptions omitted - they get in the way of the snark.)

 

[frogomatic]

abolition of California

that's the best idea I've heard in a long time.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Jeff White: "In modern times, with all the requirements for food, ammunition, spare parts and fuel, no nation now existing has the resources to support the number of troops that would be necessary to conquer CONUS from thousands of miles away."

That would depend on how many of us are left around, and willing and able to fight, many decades from now when Chinese forces, aided by a massive domestic ethnic Chinese cohort in California, decide to take over the wreckage of the Pacific American coast -- to the cheers of an impoverished and half-starved American population ravaged by decades of economic chaos and internal ethnic and political strife, reduced in number by the atomic annihilation of some of her largest metropolitan areas including her capital, and oppressed by years of federal martial law.

 

[yokel]

To serve effectively means to follow the lawful orders of the chain of command. Once again, in case you've forgotten, Article I Section 8 of the constitution gives congress the authority to dictate what weapons the militia has.

See my post above regarding armed jury nullification.

The Congress has rendered their decision to arm the miltia with popguns; now let them enforce it.

Drop your emotional attachment to the idea that you should be able to have any weapon you want in case you need to defend the country and try to look at it the way someone without an emotional attachment to the issue would.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
- Preamble to the United States Constitution

Providing for the common defense and securing the blessings of liberty aren't little after-thoughts of the Framers or the result of anyone's "emotional attachment". And despite some assertions to the contrary, the narrowly tailored Heller opinion did not obviate this Preamble.

It has nothing at all to do with the NRA bylaws which date back to the 1870s.

Article XV of the NRA Bylaws sets forth the rules for amending the Association's Bylaws, which have in fact been amended to since it's inception.

 

[NotEnoughSand]

When you get your congressman to introduce and legislation amending the US Code to say that an M16A3 with 7 magazines is the modern day equivalent of a good musket or firelock, then you will have legal grounds to say that. Until then, it's a pipe dream. Like it or not Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution give congress the authority to prescribe what arms are acceptable for militia service. There is nothing in the second amendment that says in the absence of guidance from congress individuals are free to decide what is an appropriate militia weapon.

What individuals think is appropriate is irrelevant. Nor is what Congress thinks is appropriate relevant to the scope of the individual right to bear arms, because Article I Section 8 is not a limitation on the 2nd Amendment, but a grant of federal power over the militia. What matters is what the Court thinks the scope of the 2nd Amendment is.

The 2nd Amendment says absolutely nothing about what weapons are included in the right to keep and bear arms, but that did not stop the Heller court from using the militia clause to inform their reasoning that the scope of the 2A includes those weapons in common use. Setting aside the common use circularity problem, Congress does not have the power to limit the individual right; that's the whole point of having a Constitution that limits the power of the government. (And that's why the common use standard is going to have to evolve in future cases)

 

[leadcounsel]

And the irresponsible government CONTINUES to throw good money after bad in their anti-gun pursuits....

There should be both civil and criminal penalties for failing to adhere and uphold the US Constitution for government employees.

 

[USAFNoDAk]

Let's not be so certain that the Chinese couldn't get the man power and supplies needed to attack the US Left coast. See this website:

http://www.gizmag.com/go/5853/

This ship is huge and can run at over 25 knots. It's just a commercial container ship, but in WW2 many commercial vessels were used in a military capacity. I'm not wearing tinfoil and trying to communicate with the mother ship just yet. I don't believe China has the military capacity to invade the US at this time. But who thought Hitler had the capacity to overrun western Europe before he did? Certainly not Neville Chamberlain.

 

[ServiceSoon]

I would argue that the draft is a function of the unorganized militia.

Allowing the gov to decide which arms the people can possess is naive. After all, history has shown us this is the same gov (especially the federal gov) that would use it's powers to disarm the people to impose their will. I would feel safer if these rules came from the state gov.

Lets not forget that the people (at least in Indiana) have the authority to abolish and alter their gov if they feel it is not serving them.

Article 1 - Sect. 2. That all power is inherent in the people; and all free Governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends, they have at all times and unalienable and indefeasible right to alter or reform their Government in such manner as they may think proper.

 

[everallm]

ServiceSoon,

Every state has that, it's called voting.

 

[ServiceSoon]

ServiceSoon,

Every state has that, it's called voting.

That was directed at something somebody said earlier. I should have quoted them. I don't believe that specific passage is in every state, but it is in the majority of them. I know of one state that has altered their constitution to remove that language. The problem with voting alone is it allows the tyranny of the majority. I think these provisions counter balance that fact.