"Our age is essentially one of understanding and reflection, without passion, momentarily bursting into enthusiasm, and shrewdly relapsing into repose."
"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."
As part of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment was written by James Madison in order to appease Anti-Federalists who were concerned that individual liberties might not be upheld under the Constitution.
It was introduced to the House of Representatives by Madison on June 8, 1789, approved on September 25, 1789, and ratified by the states on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.
Its influence is drawn from the English Bill of Rights of 1689 which gave Protestants the rights to arms for the purpose of self-defense:
"That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law."
When first proposed on June 8, 1789, the Second Amendment read:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
It went through several other versions before the version we read today was finally accepted.
There is debate about how the Second Amendment is to be interpreted. Some argue it refers to the collective right of the state to arm its militia in order to protect the state against tyranny while others argue it refers to the individual right of citizens to possess arms for individual protection.
So why was the Second Amendment included in the Bill of Rights? In short, at the time of its proposal there was debate between Federalists and Anti-federalists regarding whether there would be a standing army. Anti-federalists feared a standing army would disarm state militias and turn on its people. The Second Amendment was primarily a way for Federalists to assure these Anti-federalists that this would never happen — state militias would not be taken over by a federal army.
Although the current debate has shifted from these concerns to those of individual gun rights, it is nevertheless insightful and necessary that we understand the context in which the Second Amendment was ratified.
It is easy to complain about the Constitution and those who framed it, but the reality is the Framers had an incredibly difficult job ahead of them. Here are just a few of the challenges the Framers face: they had to please states which were used to ruling themselves, they had to please the people without giving in to mob-rule, they had to give the federal government enough power to be functional but not too much as to become oppressive, they had to figure out how slaves were to be counted, they had to figure out whether states would vote equally or proportionally in Congress, they had to decide how a president would be elected and for how long, they had to protect liberty in the process, and most of all, they had to get the Constitution passed. I would like to focus on three challenges here: how to create a much stronger federal government while still ensuring the sovereignty and authority of the states, how to represent the states in Congress, and how to prevent against tyranny by the people and the government.
First, there was the issue of how to please states that up until the Constitutional Convention in 1787 had basically operated as separate countries. On the one hand, the national government had to be strong enough to solve the problems that arose from a weak national government under the Articles of Confederation, but on the other hand that national government couldn’t become so strong as to nullify the sovereignty of individual states. This challenge was ultimately overcome through a system of government called Federalism which basically split the power between the state and national government. Federalism can be defined as such:
A system of government in which power is divided between a national(federal) government and various regional governments.
Thus, states under the constitution were given their own legislative, executive, and judicial branches to pass, enforce, and interpret laws. In Federalist 28 Hamilton wrote regarding state and national governments that:
If [the peoples'] rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress.
Federalism, therefore, gave the federal government more power while maintaining the sovereignty of the states. It served as a check to make sure neither the states nor the federal government became too powerful.
A second challenge was how states were to be represented in Congress. At the Convention representatives from smaller states wanted equal representation in Congress (i.e. New York and New Jersey get equal say in Congress). William Paterson proposed the “New Jersey Plan” which would have consisted of a Congress with just one house that would resemble today’s Senate with each state being equally represented. However, other larger states favored proportional representation (i.e. if New York has 5 million people it gets 25 representatives while New Jersey with 1 million people only gets only 5 representatives). Delegates from Virginia put together what they called the “Virginia Plan” which would have consisted of a Congress with just one house that would resemble today’s house of representatives where larger states greater representation than smaller states.
This disagreement about the nature of Congress was a huge challenge to overcome and nearly frustrated the efforts of the Framers. Fortunately, a man named Roger Sherman came up with a compromise: there would be a two house Congress—one house would have equal representation and the other house would have proportional representation.
Another challenge the founders faced, was how to protect against tyranny by the people and tyranny by the government. The founders hated tyrannical governments but feared almost equally the mob-rule that comes with pure democracy. This challenge required that the founders both limit the power of the people and limit the power of the government. How did they accomplish this? First, they made America a republic. A republic can be defined as:
a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
To further limit the tyranny of the people, the founders set up Congress so that only one house would be directly accountable to the people (The House of Representatives). Representatives would be voted for directly by the people and be most sensitive to the people’s needs. Senators, on the other hand, would be voted for by state legislators (a further power given to the states).
The founders, however, also protected against tyranny by the government. The first way they did this was by separating the government into three branches (Legislative, Executive, and Judicial) and by giving each branch the power to check the other two branches and make sure no one branch was overstepping its authority. This separation of powers made it so that actions in government usually involve two, if not all, branches of government in some way. A second way they protected against tyranny by the government, as already mentioned, was to make the federal government responsible to state governments. This meant that not only are the branches of government checking each other, but the states governments are also checking the federal government to make sure it does not become too powerful.
Although there were many, many challenges to be overcome, these were three significant ones the founders had to deal with. Even though their solutions aren’t perfect, they are remarkable considering the circumstances in which they were in.
The birth of democracy is most often traced back to Ancient Greece. Athens is seen as the shining example of this newly conceived form of government in action. But Athens also hosted one of democracy’s earliest critics: the infamous father of philosophy himself, Socrates.
However, before we consider why Socrates criticized democracy we must understand what democracy is in the first place and what its strenghs are. The Merriam Webster defines Democracy as:
"A government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections."
There are several forms of democracy. The two most common forms are direct democracy (also called pure democracy), and representative democracy, which most "democratic” nations today hold to.
In a direct democracy the people of the nation, state, etc. vote directly on the laws that affect them. Ancient Athens was a prime example of this. The Athenian "assembly" (ekklēsia) as it was called, would meet several times a month and any citizen (you had to be a male, over the age of 20) could attend and vote simply by raising his hand.
In a representative democracy, the people of the nation, state, etc. don't directly vote on most laws but rather vote for representatives who will represent them in the law making process. In America (often called a republic which is technically just a representative democracy with a constitution) citizens don’t make the laws themselves but instead vote for senators and representatives from the state they live in who represent them in Congress.
Democracy has many strengths. Its most obvious strength is that it puts the power to govern in the hands of the governed themselves. Rather than a single monarch making decisions for the people, every individual gets a say in the governmental decisions that affect him or her either by directly voting for legislation or by voting for someone to make that legislation for them. In this way, a democratic government is accountable to the people. If the people of democracy feel their government has crossed a line, they have the power to correct that government either directly, or by electing new representatives.
Another strength is that it encourages equality since all people get an equal say in the way how government should be functioning. Rather than only the social and political elite having an influence in government, all people whether they are the CEO of a fortune 500 company or a fast food worker right out of high school get just one vote. In this way, all people are responsible for the government they live under. This responsibility encourages all people to be actively involved in politics even if that involvement is simply limited to casting a vote.
Democracy, however, also has some significant weaknesses. Pure democracy is especially prone to weakness. Although in a small society such as ancient Athens, which had roughly 300,00 people, pure democracy was able to work decently well, when a nation approaches a size such as 300 million like America today, pure democracy becomes incredibly impractical.
For starters consider what it would take to have voting booths installed and maintained all over the country and the amount of time voters would have to spend at these booths. Consider also the time it would take to be counting the votes of an entire nation on an ongoing basis. Also consider how every proposed bill would have to be distributed to everyone across the nation (although some bills are less than 10 pages, some are over 1000 pages). This kind of ongoing national voting would be tedious, slow, and impractical.
Not only that, but consider the complexity of many bills that require trained lawyers to spend hours studying the bill simply to understand its content and nuances. Voters simply wouldn’t have the time and knowledge, even if they wanted to, to learn and be informed about each bill. Understanding legislation requires one be well informed about economics, law, and politics which many voters are not, making rational decisions about every proposed law nearly impossible under a pure democracy.
In addition, a pure democracy would leave minority’s powerless. Because the majority would win in every single decision, no legislation to support minorities would ever be able to be passed. Some have called pure democracy, "two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner." Thus pure democracy is often called “mob rule,” or the “tyranny of the majority.”
A representative democracy tries to solve many of the problems with a direct democracy. For instance, it tries to eliminate the problem of the people’s ignorance by allowing citizens to vote for experts in law and politics to represent in making and voting on laws. This means that the majority of voting will be among a much smaller number of people (in America 535 Congressmen: 435 House and 100 Senate). This also helps to make passing laws a less tedious and more efficient process since the whole country doesn’t need to be consulted each time a law is proposed. Thus, representative democracy is a kind of compromise between citizens being fully involved in government and being fully excluded from government. Even though you don’t vote directly on laws, you still vote on those making the laws for you.
However, even a representative democracy still has problems. First, it depends on the people actually voting for the person most qualified to make laws and lead the nation. Unfortunately, in many cases, the people choose entertainers rather than experts to represent them (one only needs to think of the last US election).
Socrates, who was critical of democracy made this point inThe Republic by warning that people are easily exploited by empty promises and easy answers rather than actual solutions. Thus, the people are much more likely to elect a sweet shop owner who promises to give everyone sweets to the detriment of their health than a doctor who can provide real health.
In Book VI of The Republic, Socrates further criticizes the idea of democracy by using the example of a ship. He asks who we would rather have making decisions for a ship: the passengers (who know very little to nothing about the art of sailing) or the captain and sailors (who have made it their life's work to understand how to properly manage a ship)? The answer seems obvious enough. Socrates is making the point that not all people are equally educated to lead a country and, therefore, it seems a strange notion to give those who know nothing about ships equal say in the running of the ship. Voting is a skill which not everyone possesses. Thus Socrates is directly critiquing the idea that all people should have equal say in government. As he himself said it:
“Democracy is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequal alike." (Socrates p417)
To him, voting is something earned through knowledge rather than a birthright. Although I briefly outlined Socrates's reasons for despising democracy, the video below goes into greater depth than I will devote here.
It is important to note that Socrates did end up being executed as a result of a democratic decision, and as such, it is not surprising that his student, Plato, who adored Socrates and recorded all of his thoughts portrayed Socrates as critical of democracy. But even though this bias may be present, Socrates's arguments must be genuinely considered.
What can be said? Democracy certainly has its weaknesses but when properly instituted (such as it was in America in combination with a constitution) it is perhaps the best form of government available. History has shown communism and monarchy to be bitterly oppressive. In the end very few want anarchy and although democracy certainly has its flaws, perhaps Winston Churchill is right in saying:
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."
