So long as the definition of one excludes some members of the other, no matter how large the subset, they are not synonymous
Agreed.
While the legislative definition does this, the constitutional meaning does not exclude anyone. TCase-by-case circumstances might render specific individuals unsuitable for being called forth under the militia clauses, but they are excluded by executive or judicial action, and not by definition. The constitutional meaning does not exclude anyone.
Under the constitutional meaning, the most heinous criminal in death row is still a member of the militia, and can theoretically be called forth, even though no executive officer would ever allow him to serve such a purpose. He is not deprived of the right to keep and bear arms due to not being in the militia. He is “deprived of life, liberty, or property”, including RKBA, through “due process” in accordance with the 5th amendment.
the constitutional meaning does not exclude anyone
Buddy, you keep just saying that like it’s some b ontological fact. I’ve repeatedly asked you for evidence to support that and you keep shifting focus to avoid doing so.
Until you can provide concrete, tangible evidence to support that interpretation, I’m not interested in hearing anything else. Show me documentation, not just your own assertions. No more dancing.
10 USC 246 already covers the entire male population (at some point in their lives) as well as some specific females. There is nothing preventing Congress from opening it up to the remaining females. That is concrete, tangible evidence to support my interpretation.
The Federalist Papers, specifically #29, discuss the militia as being comprised of “the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens”. It refers to a “scheme of disciplining the whole nation”
While most of the paper discusses “the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service” (aka: The National guard) it also discusses militia obligations on “the people at large”:
Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
Congress does not see fit to maintain such assemblies today, but they did exist back then, and they could be reinstated at will tomorrow. Any member of the “people at large”, is thus also a member of the militia.
10 USC 246 does not cover males under 17 or over 45, these are part of the People who are not legislative Militia. Hypotheticals are not evidence.
The Federalist Papers are not the Constitution. If you draw a distinction between the constitutional and legislative, I’ll draw a further distinction against commentary.
I am a proponent of disciplining the whole nation, and have no problem whatsoever considering the disciplined portion to be unambiguously a part of the Militia. If Congress does indeed reinstate assembly to properly arm and equip every member of the People, I will promptly concede. But hypotheticals are not evidence.
10 USC 246 does not cover males under 17 or over 45,
When you look at their whole lifetime, 10 USC 246 covers all males, and some females. More than 50% of the people.
The Federalist Papers are not the Constitution.
They are not, but they certainly do provide insight into the language used in the constitution, as well as the intent of the authors.
If you draw a distinction between the constitutional and legislative
Congress is not empowered to alter the meaning of the constitution. If Congress chooses to discuss a term used in the constitution, their usage does not alter the constitutional meaning, but only establishes a legislative meaning.
Congress cannot redefine “speech” to mean “feces” and then claim that the first amendment only protects the right to take a shit.
The distinction I draw between legislative and constitutional meanings clearly and directly arises from the limits to Congressional authority. Congress does not have the power to change the meaning of militia; their use of the term “militia” cannot be considered authoritative.
There is no such distinction for the Federalist papers. The same people who wrote the constitution also wrote the Federalist papers. The papers were written for the specific purpose of explaining and promoting the Constitution, by the very people who wrote it. Their explanations in the papers were the basis for the states to ratify the constitution, so even if the authors meant something else (they didn’t), the states accepted and enacted the constitution in the context of the papers.
Basically, your distinction is arbitrary, capricious, and rejected.
I am a proponent of disciplining the whole nation
Such discipline is only constitutionally permissible under the Militia clauses.
and have no problem whatsoever considering the disciplined portion to be unambiguously a part of the Militia.
That portion being the “whole nation”.
If Congress does indeed reinstate assembly to properly arm and equip every member of the People,
What if I argue that Congress found a different way to ensure the population was “properly armed and equipped” that didn’t require annual assembly?
What if Congress found a method by which so many members of the militia would be armed that assembly would not be required to verify?
Congress did establish the Federal Firearm Licensee system, which regulates the commercial sale of firearms to the general public. It can be reasonably argued that the FFL system was enacted but just under their power to regulate interstate commerce, but also under their power to arm the militia.
Substantially less than 100%. The terms are not synonymous.
they certainly do provide insight into the language used in the constitution, as well as the intent of the authors.
Some of the authors. If it was sufficiently representative, it would have made it into the Constitution itself.
If Congress chooses to discuss a term used in the constitution, their usage does not alter the constitutional meaning, but only establishes a legislative meaning.
This still does not establish the constitutional meaning. You have notably not provided sufficient evidence to establish a constitutional meaning.
the states accepted and enacted the constitution in the context of the papers.
Correct. The states accepted and ratified the Constitution, not the Federalist Papers.
and have no problem whatsoever considering the disciplined portion to be unambiguously a part of the Militia.
That portion being the “whole nation”.
The “whole nation” is not disciplined. I was quite specific: if, and only if, the “whole nation” is disciplined, it is appropriate to consider the “whole nation” to be synonymous with the Militia.
What if I argue that Congress found a different way to ensure the population was “properly armed and equipped” that didn’t require annual assembly?
“Properly” being the functional term here. “Armed and equipped” is not the same as “Properly armed and equipped”.
If you don’t like being held to pedantry, don’t make flippant categorical equivalences of precise legal language.
Substantially less than 100%. The terms are not synonymous.
10USC246 is substantially less than 100%, yes.
But, “male” can be dropped from that definition tomorrow. Which means that although females didn’t meet the legislative definition, they did meet the constitutional definition yesterday. They had to, or Congress couldn’t add them to its narrower definition.
Some of the authors. If it was sufficiently representative, it would have made it into the Constitution itself.
Non sequitur.
This still does not establish the constitutional meaning.
That argument devolves into absurdity. You can make the same argument for each and every word in the constitution. By prohibiting any sort of context by which to derive the meaning of language, not a single word in the constitution has any meaning whatsoever.
It is only through contemporary context that the meaning of a word can be derived, and there is no body of work closer than the Federalist papers by which to gain such context.
Properly" being the functional term here. “Armed and equipped” is not the same as “Properly armed and equipped”.
You shouldn’t have conceded the rest of that and focused on “properly”, because I can accept that condition. I fully agree, “properly” is the functional term.
Article I Section 8 clause 18 empowers Congress “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers”
Congress determines the “proper” way to arm and equip the militia, and this is the method they have chosen.
Agreed.
While the legislative definition does this, the constitutional meaning does not exclude anyone. TCase-by-case circumstances might render specific individuals unsuitable for being called forth under the militia clauses, but they are excluded by executive or judicial action, and not by definition. The constitutional meaning does not exclude anyone.
Under the constitutional meaning, the most heinous criminal in death row is still a member of the militia, and can theoretically be called forth, even though no executive officer would ever allow him to serve such a purpose. He is not deprived of the right to keep and bear arms due to not being in the militia. He is “deprived of life, liberty, or property”, including RKBA, through “due process” in accordance with the 5th amendment.
Buddy, you keep just saying that like it’s some b ontological fact. I’ve repeatedly asked you for evidence to support that and you keep shifting focus to avoid doing so.
Until you can provide concrete, tangible evidence to support that interpretation, I’m not interested in hearing anything else. Show me documentation, not just your own assertions. No more dancing.
10 USC 246 already covers the entire male population (at some point in their lives) as well as some specific females. There is nothing preventing Congress from opening it up to the remaining females. That is concrete, tangible evidence to support my interpretation.
The Federalist Papers, specifically #29, discuss the militia as being comprised of “the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens”. It refers to a “scheme of disciplining the whole nation”
While most of the paper discusses “the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service” (aka: The National guard) it also discusses militia obligations on “the people at large”:
Congress does not see fit to maintain such assemblies today, but they did exist back then, and they could be reinstated at will tomorrow. Any member of the “people at large”, is thus also a member of the militia.
10 USC 246 does not cover males under 17 or over 45, these are part of the People who are not legislative Militia. Hypotheticals are not evidence.
The Federalist Papers are not the Constitution. If you draw a distinction between the constitutional and legislative, I’ll draw a further distinction against commentary.
I am a proponent of disciplining the whole nation, and have no problem whatsoever considering the disciplined portion to be unambiguously a part of the Militia. If Congress does indeed reinstate assembly to properly arm and equip every member of the People, I will promptly concede. But hypotheticals are not evidence.
When you look at their whole lifetime, 10 USC 246 covers all males, and some females. More than 50% of the people.
They are not, but they certainly do provide insight into the language used in the constitution, as well as the intent of the authors.
Congress is not empowered to alter the meaning of the constitution. If Congress chooses to discuss a term used in the constitution, their usage does not alter the constitutional meaning, but only establishes a legislative meaning.
Congress cannot redefine “speech” to mean “feces” and then claim that the first amendment only protects the right to take a shit.
The distinction I draw between legislative and constitutional meanings clearly and directly arises from the limits to Congressional authority. Congress does not have the power to change the meaning of militia; their use of the term “militia” cannot be considered authoritative.
There is no such distinction for the Federalist papers. The same people who wrote the constitution also wrote the Federalist papers. The papers were written for the specific purpose of explaining and promoting the Constitution, by the very people who wrote it. Their explanations in the papers were the basis for the states to ratify the constitution, so even if the authors meant something else (they didn’t), the states accepted and enacted the constitution in the context of the papers.
Basically, your distinction is arbitrary, capricious, and rejected.
Such discipline is only constitutionally permissible under the Militia clauses.
That portion being the “whole nation”.
What if I argue that Congress found a different way to ensure the population was “properly armed and equipped” that didn’t require annual assembly?
What if Congress found a method by which so many members of the militia would be armed that assembly would not be required to verify?
Congress did establish the Federal Firearm Licensee system, which regulates the commercial sale of firearms to the general public. It can be reasonably argued that the FFL system was enacted but just under their power to regulate interstate commerce, but also under their power to arm the militia.
Does that satisfy your pedantry?
Substantially less than 100%. The terms are not synonymous.
Some of the authors. If it was sufficiently representative, it would have made it into the Constitution itself.
This still does not establish the constitutional meaning. You have notably not provided sufficient evidence to establish a constitutional meaning.
Correct. The states accepted and ratified the Constitution, not the Federalist Papers.
The “whole nation” is not disciplined. I was quite specific: if, and only if, the “whole nation” is disciplined, it is appropriate to consider the “whole nation” to be synonymous with the Militia.
“Properly” being the functional term here. “Armed and equipped” is not the same as “Properly armed and equipped”.
If you don’t like being held to pedantry, don’t make flippant categorical equivalences of precise legal language.
10USC246 is substantially less than 100%, yes.
But, “male” can be dropped from that definition tomorrow. Which means that although females didn’t meet the legislative definition, they did meet the constitutional definition yesterday. They had to, or Congress couldn’t add them to its narrower definition.
Non sequitur.
That argument devolves into absurdity. You can make the same argument for each and every word in the constitution. By prohibiting any sort of context by which to derive the meaning of language, not a single word in the constitution has any meaning whatsoever.
It is only through contemporary context that the meaning of a word can be derived, and there is no body of work closer than the Federalist papers by which to gain such context.
You shouldn’t have conceded the rest of that and focused on “properly”, because I can accept that condition. I fully agree, “properly” is the functional term.
Article I Section 8 clause 18 empowers Congress “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers”
Congress determines the “proper” way to arm and equip the militia, and this is the method they have chosen.