These essays haven't been tagged by school. Click school logos above to see tagged essays. The homes welcomed my stare, and, into their fenestra I attempted to see who had the nicest kitchen.
This question, however, was not even raised until long after the Bill of Rights was adopted. Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people.
English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting the government to raise armies consisting of full-time paid troops only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training.
The onset of war does not always allow time to raise and train an army, and the Revolutionary War showed that militia forces could not be relied on for national defense. The Constitutional Convention therefore decided that the federal government should have almost unfettered authority to establish peacetime standing armies and to regulate the militia.
This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal usurpation.
The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force. Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions.
First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia.
Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression. Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Much has changed since The traditional militia fell into desuetude, and state-based militia organizations were eventually incorporated into the federal military structure.
Furthermore, eighteenth century civilians routinely kept at home the very same weapons they would need if called to serve in the militia, while modern soldiers are equipped with weapons that differ significantly from those generally thought appropriate for civilian uses.
Civilians no longer expect to use their household weapons for militia duty, although they still keep and bear arms to defend against common criminals as well as for hunting and other forms of recreation. The law has also changed. While states in the Founding era regulated guns—blacks were often prohibited from possessing firearms and militia weapons were frequently registered on government rolls—gun laws today are more extensive and controversial.
Another important legal development was the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Second Amendment originally applied only to the federal government, leaving the states to regulate weapons as they saw fit.
Until recently, the judiciary treated the Second Amendment almost as a dead letter. A 5—4 majority ruled that the language and history of the Second Amendment showed that it protects a private right of individuals to have arms for their own defense, not a right of the states to maintain a militia.
Justice Thomas rejected those precedents in favor of reliance on the Privileges or Immunities Clause, but all five members of the majority concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment protects against state infringement of the same individual right that is protected from federal infringement by the Second Amendment.
In each case, the Constitution expressly protects a liberty that needs to be insulated from the ordinary political process.What does Brown Squirrel do when Bear says he will eat Brown Squirrel for teasing him? you should never tease people because it could come back to hurt you.
What do you think the message, or moral of this story? Related Essays. Psych midterm uri. Diversity & Community. Be Informed - Graduate Student Unionization; Brown Alumni Association; Brown Center for Students of Color; Campus Life & Student Services.
Dec 06, · Hopefully these answers from friends of mine helped you decide whether or not you want to apply to Brown or finish up those last few essays on the application (which by the way, you should:P) Want to find out why I chose to apply and GO to Brown (aka. The grizzly bear is a North American subspecies of the brown bear.
These awe-inspiring giants tend to be solitary animals—with the exception of females and their cubs—but at times they do congregate. Jan 01, · Welcome. Anti Essays offers essay examples to help students with their essay writing. Our collection includes thousands of sample research papers so you can find almost any essay you want.
The big brown bear has a peculiar pacing gait. In this, first the two legs of one side are raised and brought forward together, and then the two legs of the opposite side. The brown bear will sometimes gallop for about 2 km.
straight up a steep slope without stopping to rest.