cannonfire
New member
And free government means that the people are ruled only by laws which they consent to
So if I didn't give my consent on a law, I don't have to follow it?
And free government means that the people are ruled only by laws which they consent to
So if I didn't give my consent on a law, I don't have to follow it?
If the founders intended for individual states to be able to choose whether or not to follow federal rule, why doesn't the Constitution contain any provisions allowing states to legally void federal laws without Congressional intervention, dissolve Congress, and/or secede?A free State is a State with free government. And free government means that the people are ruled only by laws which they consent to. I hardly see how the Second Amendment was intended to secure free government against foreign rule by not to secure it against federal rule.
I was not talking about resisting federal rules, I was talking about resisting federal RULE as in being ruled over as in monarchy. Of course, Virginia consented to a central government with certain enumerated powers, I am not talking about resisting that ... I am talking about Virginia resisting a central government that is out of control and removed from anything which we ever freely consented to.If the founders intended for individual states to be able to choose whether or not to follow federal rule, why doesn't the Constitution contain any provisions allowing states to legally void federal laws without Congressional intervention, dissolve Congress, and/or secede?
I think you're saying that rule of law precludes nullification. I don't remember saying anything about nullification, but I am not sure that I agree with your premise. In a free State, the people are ruled only by laws which they CONSENT to. You seem to be saying that Virginia consented to a federal government with enumerated powers, and as a result we are bound to accept the federal government exercising undelegated powers. I don't see how you remove consentual government from rule of law. As an analogy, if California passes a law regarding Virginia's intrastate affairs, then rule of law requires Virginia to ignore that law because California would be exercising a power over Virginia that Virginians never consented to. How is it different if the US does it?The American system of government is based on the rule of law.
Who said anything about overthrowing the federal government? I really don't see how one State could overthrow the other 49.to overthrow the federal government by force of violence ... is not a legal remedy.
I think I am discussing the topic by commenting on the meaning of the Second Amendment's term "free State", and by commenting on the intent of militia.Hugh, we are not going to re-fight the civil war. This thread is not about the sovereignty of the Commonweal of Virginia or Virginians.
If you are not here to discuss the topic of this thread, then I suggest you leave.
Hugh, perhaps we need to agree on a definition of a "domestic" threat.I think I am discussing the topic by commenting on the meaning of the Second Amendment's term "free State", and by commenting on the intent of militia.
Someone said that a "free State" meant individuals in a state of freedom, someone else said that it meant being free from external/foreign threats but not from federal threats. I think it has to do with free government at the state level and state sovereignty. And I think militia was intended to defend our free States against both foreign and domestic threats.
carguychriss said:For argument's sake, let's say ...
OTOH, if a constitutional federal government is in place, ...
Most anti-second amendment advocates refer to the first half of the clause, saying it only applies to militias. They are exactly correct, but not in the way thay think they are.
The problem wasn't taxation in and of itself; the problem was that the English monarchy didn't care what the colonists thought about the taxation, or what they thought about most anything. The American Revolution occurred because the colonists wanted to determine their own destiny.find it unlikely that those who ratified the COTUS had only one opinion on this point. After all, the government against which they had recently taken up arms was a legitimate sovereign whose foremost error was imposing a modest level of taxation in order to pay for war against the colonists enemies.
The idea that a federal government would take more than a quarter of someone's income would have stressed their imagination.
Agreed; I don't think anyone here is debating that. Most of the last 2 pages of this thread have been dedicated to arguing why the militia clause was even necessary if it doesn't affect the RKBA.It is a complete fallacy to think that one only had the right to bear arms because they were a member of a militia.
Hugh, perhaps we need to agree on a definition of a "domestic" threat.
For argument's sake, let's say that elements of the US federal government choose to openly and blatantly abrogate the Constitution- the President declares himself "President for Life", and with the help of a junta of US Army generals, marches an army on the capital, forces the Congress and Supreme Court to dissolve, imprisons the congressmen and justices, and replaces them with handpicked US Army officers. If something like this were to happen, the states could then call forth their well-regulated militia to restore a constitutional government. I can agree that the militia clause of the 2A was written with this sort of scenario in mind.
OTOH, if a constitutional federal government is in place, the Congress has the power to call forth and organize the militia under Article I, Section 8 and the President is the militia's commander in chief under Article II, Section 2. Any action by the militia against a duly elected and constitutional federal government is by definition an illegal and treasonous act.
Again, nobody is talking about desposing of the federal government by force. But ... I think it was 25 years before the "civil war" that South Carolina declared that they were justified in secession because of federal taxation. I think it was unfair how the tariffs were such a burden on South Carolina as compared to other States. And the money was going to infrastructure up north. I don't see any way that South Carolina could have resolved this situation by electing different representatives. Of course, again, they said they were justified in secession, they did not say that they were justified in "taking up arms and disposing of the federal government".If one dislikes the level of federal taxation, the constitutional solution is to elect representatives who will legally change it, not to take up arms and depose the federal government!
What about this scenario ... the US gets to where the blue States are controlling the government such that 1/4 of the States are ruling over 3/4 of the States ... and the 3/4 of the States call for a constitutional convention and propose and ratify amendments to the US Constitution which are intended to strengthen our federal system so that the minority of the States can't rule over the majority of States ... now suppose that the federal government refuses to respect the properly ratified amendments, because Congress had no say, and it was all done in a purely federal manner with each State having one vote (i.e. they might cry that the people had no voice or some such nonsense) ... and further suppose that the 1/4 of the States contain the majority of citizens, such that they have numerical superiority, and so they resort to force, sending the US military into the 3/4 of the States e.g. Virginia, put us under military rule, and tell us we have no representation in congress or any other rights until we agree that our properly ratified amendments are nullified and we agree to abide by their view of government ... in this scenario, most people might think that we had a constitutional government in place, but most states might see it differently ... if Virginia sees it differently, if Virginians believe that the US federal government chose to openly and blatantly abrogate the US Constitution, then would we be required to submit to US military rule, or would we have a right to resist?