Collective Right

[sarisataka]

It has been argued that in the BoR, people refers to the general population, i.e. a collective right not applied to the individual. Rights belonging to the individual are covered with the term persons.
If that is true, are these the meaning of the amendments?

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

An individual may not assemble nor petition for redress of grievances. That is only a right of a group.

Amendment II

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.

Individuals are not guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms unless in a militia (National Guard?). If they are members of the militia, however, they should keep their arms in their personal possession.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

An identified group of people (by geography, race, income, political beliefs or other criteria), are to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. Individuals, however do not have this protection. Searches and seizes may be preformed on individuals as long as it is not based on a set criteria identifying them as a people.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Groups may have other rights, which shall not be denied or disparaged. Individual rights may be so.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

As per Amendment IX

[gratuitous]

1. Heh, heh, heh

"Well regulated militia." Heh. Apparently that language was put in there for no real reason, and can be, like, totally disregarded, and no, it doesn't mean what it plainly says (or arguably says), because while there can be and are reasonable limitations placed on speech, nothing of the sort can be applied to the Second Amendment.

Heh.

[sarisataka]

2. But do the limitations...

apply to the same terminology of the other amendments?

If so, I can buy into the "collective right" theory as it would be consistent.

[Igel]

3. Comments.

You're letting the punctuation dictate your reading of the 1st Amendment.

By that token, you're forced to say that "peaceably" has to modify both clauses, "to assemble" and "to petition." I seriously doubt they were concerned about "peaceably to petition." Moreover, it's fairly difficult for a person to assemble, at least with the relevant meaning. That can only be done by "people."

2nd Amendment: This has been a vexed problem, how to deal with the nominative absolute construction that prefaces the main clause. It adduces some reason, possibly primary or possibly as an example. That it starts off with "militia" seems to drive the plural "people." I don't know if that's probative. The judiciary interpreted it as an individual right for over 100 years, then as a collective right (belonging to the states, oddly), then back as an individual right. Considering the relevant definition of "militia," the problem is insoluble: All adult white free males were part of the militia, and the right to bear arms was both exhaustively individual (as all of the rights are) as well as inherent in the group.

4th: Nobody's interpreted this amendment this way. And I'll stop here and point out the problem head on.

The "people" seems to harken not to modern racial and ethnic politics, nor to Marxist class distinctions between the proletariat and the ruling classes, but to the the preamble. Persons may stand for office; persons may be counted. In these there is individuation. But "we the people" have rights and establish the government. There's your "the people." There the contrast is "people" vs. "government," even though the workers in the government are also part of "the people."

The reading you're trying for requires "a people" or "the peoples". But "we the peoples" didn't establish anything; the right of "a people" to be secure in their persons isn't at issue, nor the right of "peoples" or "a people" to petition for redress.

[sarisataka]

4. That makes sense

that rights can be collective and individual.

What bothers me is that so many people are willing to accept the BoR as applying to either individuals or the states except the one that, given the norms of the time, would say 'the military may be armed'.

I always assumed 'people' as in We the People applied equally to the individuals as well as the whole. (At least that is how my 4th grade teacher explained it). The explanation that 'people' only refers to the group at large seems counter to the intent of the BoR.