Does the Well-Regulated Militia exist as a bulwark against a tyrannical government?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe this has been seen before. Thought is was thought provoking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRYR4bV317g

I have heard the argument many times that part of the reason for a well-regulated militia was to prevent our government from subjecting us to tyranny. In the clip the academician says that that idea is a myth and explains why the COTUS (article 1 section 8)contradicts that idea. How can the COTUS raise the militia to suppress insurrections if the militia is rebelling against a tyrannical government?
 
Last edited:
The meaning of "well regulated militia" can be a real head scratcher if you haven't read Heller.

Scalia for the court said:
Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or
method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights
§13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a wellregulated
militia, composed of the body of the people,
24 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Opinion of the Court
trained to arms”).
 
Because TennesseeGentleman had not read the rules, because TennesseeGentleman made a public admission of that fact within a short time period, and because TennesseeGentleman then attempted to remedy the situation, in good faith... I have merged his two posts.

A little hint: You have, I believe, 24 hours in which to edit your post. In the case above, instead of creating a new post, the ideal woould be to simply edit your post, to include the required information. Yes, I will still accept two posts for those that make the attempt to stay within the rules of L&P, provided however, they are made within a reasonable amount of time. Reasonable would be defined as within a couple of hours of recognition of the drive-by.

To answer the basic question posed by the OP, I offer what Scalia wrote in the Heller decision (the entire section is a must read, for those of us that may have had a different interpretation):
a. “Well-Regulated Militia.” In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” That definition comports with founding-era sources. See, e.g., Webster (“The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades . . . and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations”); The Federalist No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison)(“near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands”); Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) (“[T]he militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms”).

Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that “[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, §8, cls. 15–16).” Brief for Petitioners 12.

Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise . . . Armies”; “to provide . . . aNavy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given thepower to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first militia Act, which specified that “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.” Act of May 8,1792, 1 Stat. 271. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them.

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule ormethod”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).
While the above is Scalias reasonings, and as such is dicta, I feel it will be used by the lower courts, anytime they need to reference what a "militia" is.

TennesseeGentleman, I did not view your link. I'm on dial-up and rarely waste my time with such time-consuming downloads. Therefore, if what youtube had is different than the above, it is now irrelevent.
 
Because TennesseeGentleman had not read the rules, because TennesseeGentleman made a public admission of that fact within a short time period, and because TennesseeGentleman then attempted to remedy the situation, in good faith... I have merged his two posts.

I know ignorance of the law is no excuse but thanks for benefit of the doubt. Won't happen again. Thanks to Jermtheory for pointing it out to me. I read ALL the rules this time.:)

TennesseeGentleman, I did not view your link. I'm on dial-up and rarely waste my time with such time-consuming downloads. Therefore, if what youtube had is different than the above, it is now irrelevent.

:oWell, I screwed up again by not clearly stating the title of my post but rather using the title of the Youtube clip.

The title is now: Does the Well-Regulated Militia exist as a bulwark against a tyrannical government?

What is discussed in the clip is that the COTUS Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress the power to raise the militia to suppress insurrections. How then could the militia be a bulwark against governmental tryanny when it appears that it's duty is to protect the government.

John Payton, Director-Counsel and President, NAACP Legal Defense Fund said that the militias were not formed because of the fear of government tyranny but to defend the state.
 
Read the Declaration of Independence for some insight into their thoughts on the matter:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.


Just how do you think the founders envisioned a people throwing off a Despotic government, if not with arms? To be truthful, the founders never envisioned this Nation with a standing army, which is the enemy of Liberty.
 
Just how do you think the founders envisioned a people throwing off a Despotic government, if not with arms? To be truthful, the founders never envisioned this Nation with a standing army, which is the enemy of Liberty.

The Declaration of Independence is not the COTUS so it is not our law. Do you think our standing army today is a threat to our liberty? I agree the founders feared it.
 
Does the Well-Regulated Militia exist as a bulwark against a tyrannical government?

This is a better question. No, an armed populace does, though. A necessary precursor to armed resistance to government would be arms in the hands of people outside the government.
 
You tell me...

Yeah, I have seen that one. Bad stuff and I fully support the NRAs lawsuit against that stupid mayor. However, let me ask you this. As bad as the Katrina Gun Grab was ..should the gun owners of New Orleans shot it out with the NO Cops? My point is: Did the fact that people were armed stop the NO Police from grabbing their guns? Or should we address that thru the courts and in TN at least we passed a law to forbid a public official from ever doing that.
 
The Declaration of Independence is not the COTUS so it is not our law.

The Declaration tells you why they became a nation, the SCOTUS tells us how. To understand the Declaration and the other documents that have been left to us, such as the Federalist Papers, John Locke's writings, among others, is to understand the COTUS itself.

and yes, I do consider the standing Army we have today to be an enemy of liberty. The IRS, ATF, FBI, US Army, DEA, all of these organs are the standing federal army, and are the antithesis of a free people.
 
and yes, I do consider the standing Army we have today to be an enemy of liberty. The IRS, ATF, FBI, US Army, DEA, all of these organs are the standing federal army, and are the antithesis of a free people.

If you had lived in New Orleans during the Katrina diseaster would you have shot it out with the NO Police rather than surrender your guns?
 
I would do everything I could, short of giving them up, to avoid such a conflict.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
 
TG? Good change in the question. More to the point, I would think.

However...

Jack Balkin has an interesting take on Scalias intrepretation of original public meaning (or as Balkin calls it: original meaning originalism). You can read it here. This, IMO, is one of the most thought provoking paragraphs he writes (emphasis is mine):
Jack Balkin said:
It turns out that there is an original principle that everyone agrees the framers and ratifiers had: it was to prevent the federal government from disarming citizen militias organized by the states. This would deter federal tyranny, insurrection, and foreign invasion. Call this the principle of preservation of state militias. There is a second principle that almost everyone agrees was an original purpose: to prevent the federal government from disarming citizen militias that were not organized by states, but that might arise spontaneously to fight a tyrannical federal government, tyrannical state government, anti-republican insurrection, or foreign invasion. Call this the principle of republican insurrection. Both of these principles are civic republican ideas: they assume that citizens formed militias as a public duty they owed to each other and to the republic. Citizens would band together, either organized by states, or spontaneously, to protect each other and the republic from invaders or tyrants. It was not a purely individualist or liberal right to be free from state interference as we imagine rights today. Rather, it was a right that arose from a common duty of political obligation.
To be fair, you should also read Larry Solum's 3 part take on this "originaliam" doctrine (and his argument against Balkin). Part I is here, with links to the other 2 parts.

Agree or disagree with him (Balkin), but it is a thought that won't go away. Should Mr. Balkin be correct, then the unorganized militia is in fact just that bullwork against a home-bred tyranny.
 
the only point attempted to be made in that video,was that the 2nd Amendment is an antiquated and racist concept.

paraphrasing...."its only purpose was for white men supressing slave insurrection's".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top