What is a real Militia?

[Hugh Damright]

However, abolishing the central government would not abolish the State governments.

Hmm ... the US Constitution is a compact between the States, and if someone besides the States can abolish their contract, then it seems to me that the States authority would have been abolished too.

But I think what many folks envision is not the people abolishing the US but rather altering it, and then using it to force their idea of libertarianism upon everyone. But I consider that to be the problem, not the solution.

So, while we can reason the whys and wherefores of the Militia, in our modern times, the militia has become all but irrelevant. As have the idea of State sovereignty itself.

I tend to agree that militia does not secure a State against a modern military. I do not agree that the idea of State sovereignty is irrelevant. To me, that is like saying that our constituted frame of government is irrelevant. Not to me it ain't!

 

[Al Norris]

Hmm ... the US Constitution is a compact between the States,

Um, no. While the original delegates to the convention were state reps, the Constitution was not ratified by the states. It was ratified by conventions of the people of the states.

Article VII: The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

You may argue that the people of a state is the state, all you want. But the fact is, the Governments of the States had no part in the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. Rather the Governments of the States were bound by the decision of the people, assembled in conventions.

Thus, any contract is a contract between the people and not the governments.

But I think what many folks envision is not the people abolishing the US but rather altering it,...

As in bringing it back to its constitutional roots. Yes, that would be a good thing.

I do not agree that the idea of State sovereignty is irrelevant.

As long as the 17th amendment is in place, states sovereignty is irrelevant. What voice within the central government does the States have, when the Senate is elected by popular vote? No, both houses are at the whim of the people... As fickle a bunch, as we are! Control of the Senate, was a direct power of the States and thus maintained their sovereignty.

Now add to all of this, the conversion of the States Guard into a federal entity....

 

[rem33]

As long as the 17Th amendment is in place, states sovereignty is irrelevant

Antipitas

Didn't Texas reserve the right to secede if at such time in the future they decided to? Didn't they become a state but, and I am not sure how this would work, but remain a republic themselves in some way. We do see the republic of Texas sometimes. MY grandmother was born there in 1889 and even though I was just a kid she still loved Texas, and spoke highly of her native state.

 

[pipoman]

So, while we can reason the whys and wherefores of the Militia, in our modern times, the militia has become all but irrelevant.

I just read down in this thread. Al while I agree that from a state sponsored standpoint the militia isn't really viable. From a position of threat of civil disobedience I feel that those who exercised their right of assembly back in the early/mid 1990's served a purpose.

They posed an interesting dilemma to a freedom grabbing movement within our Government. The end result was to severely cripple that movement. On the continuum of rights preservation at the extreme right side you found the Timothy McVeigh types and his sympathizers. As you moved to the left (on this continuum) you found those who were forming "militias" . Then those who were participating in them. Then those who were sympathetic to their ideals. There were those who were quietly stock piling ammo and weapons on their own. Those who were loudly and quietly speaking out against the freedom grab movement. Many, many normal people in every walk of life were contemplating their position as to participation. From the center of the continuum there was a steady push to the right. All of these people did get the attention of those heading the freedom grab and ultimately forced the movement down. In this respect I believe the Militia is relevant in today's World, though it bore little resemblance to the Militias of Revolutionary times.

 

[rem33]

I wish memory would serve better, but there was a county in Nevada a few years back that had a quarrel with the the federal government. I believe BLM was denying this county from fixing/ building a dirt road. The county rebelled so to speak and with armed guards took equipment out and worked on the road. Tensions were tight but no one stepped in and tried to stop the county folks. I saw a picture of guys sitting on a dozer or other piece of equipment rifles in hand, while work was happening.
Now in a way isn't this the local militia exercising it's rights against a government overstepping it's bounds into local affairs? Or am I full of it?

 

[Hugh Damright]

You may argue that the people of a state is the state, all you want. But the fact is, the Governments of the States had no part in the ratification of the Constitution of the United States.

I never said that the State Legislatures ratified the US Constitution, yet it was ratified by the States. We have been over this before. Webster's 1828 dictionary, which we both respect, says that a "State" is a body of people, and that the US is a compact between the States. You can deny this truth all you want, but the fact is that the US Constitution is a compact between the States.

As in bringing it back to its constitutional roots. Yes, that would be a good thing.

No, what most people want is to bring back what never was. The US was not created to force libertarianism upon the States.

As long as the 17th amendment is in place, states sovereignty is irrelevant. What voice within the central government does the States have, when the Senate is elected by popular vote?

The Senate is elected by the States ... not the States Legislatures, but still by the States. Virginia's Senators are elected by the State of Virginia i.e. Virginians. Whether the Senators are elected by the Virginia State Legislature or by the people of Virginia, Virginia's Senators represent Virginia, the State of Virginia.

The Constitution explains that amendments may be ratified by the States, either by the State Legislatures, or by State Conventions. Also the State Legislatures can call for a Constitutional Convention.

And what do you mean by "State sovereignty" if you think that the word "State" means "State Legislature". Is your definition of "State sovereignty" that the State Legislature is sovereign? That is not what it means!

 

[Doug.38PR]

You may argue that the people of a state is the state, all you want. But the fact is, the Governments of the States had no part in the ratification of the Constitution of the United States.

Antipidas,
you have stated this before on other threads. I really think you are splitting hairs making it into something it wasn't.

Regardless of whether the representatives to the Constitutional convention were sent directly from the state legislatures or from some other state convention or body, the fact was they were sent by people OF THEIR RESPECTIVE STATES in some kind of organized fashion. They were not sent by the people of America as a mass.
The state legislatures AND the representatives of the Constitutional Convention are both REPRESENTATIVES of the people OF THEIR RESPECTIVE STATES.
STATES ratified the Constitution and created the union, not the people as a whole.

 

[BlueTrain]

If there was indeed a county in Nevada that had a quarrel with the federal government (or any other government), what the militia did or did not do or what the county did or did not do does not change my belief that the militia is not something separate and apart from government. A militia cannot be an armed body of men that answers to no government. The leader of such a body could be called a warlord as the term is generally used. They would be in effect a self-appointed government of sorts, a power or force unto themselves. Besides, it does not follow that any such group would be conservative or on the right. Most people here would call any such armed group to be revolutionary, leftist, communist, socialist and several other terms.

The American Revolution was basically a thing carried out by the states acting together, in congress. The same people were governing the country before, during and after the war, mostly, although there were significant changes in how the governor was put in office. Same thing basically for the Civil War. In no sense did either the American Revolution or the Civil War overturn or attempt to overturn the established social order as did the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution of 1917, other than the aspect of slavery. Even so, the same social order in the South returned in most ways a decade after the war. That is all something of a simplification but you get my point.

The basic concept of a militia is a GOOD THING but it involves a relationship with local and state government that should not be denied. At the same time, I would also suggest that the true concept of a militia does not seem to be in effect at the moment, which is a BAD THING. The reasons for the militia being in abeyance just now are probably varied and may be both good and bad, but not irrelevant and unimportant.

Now, one of the reasons for the outbreak of the revolution was the attempt by the British to seize stores of arms in Lexington and also in Williamsburg, those stores being militia weapons. It has already been established that the constitution empowered congress to organize, equip and appoint officers for the militia (which is probably mentioned in state constitutions as well). Those points raise the interesting question of private ownership of firearms or at least, arms. I won't attempt to answer that one but it is a point that I don't think has been mentioned so far in this interest thread. One could argue that the right of individual to have arms could be a right the same as voting, which has about as much coverage in the constitution, and has nothing to do with the militia.

Maybe the militia idea is due for something of a revivial. The question is, what about us old folk?

 

[shield20]

The "real Militias", and WHY they are important...

"fundamental principles of the Constitution can never be unimportant, and, indeed, may well be regarded as "absolutely necessary to preserve the advantages of liberty, and to maintain a free government." Thomas M. Cooley Constitutional Limitations (1868)

“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." The People Bill of Rights (1791)

Article 1 Section 8
"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; "

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; "
The People US Constitution (1788)

Some notes:

-There are only six permanent “American” institutions recognized in the Constitution: We the People (of the United States, and of the several States), the States, the United States, the Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, and the Militia of the several States.
- Only four of these institutions pre-date the Constitution: We the people, the States, the United States, and the Militias of the several States.
- There is/was no “federal militia” recognized by the Constitution – none, ever; it is not mentioned, not recognized, not created, and not provided for. The National Guard is NOT the Militia of the several States, for it is federal in creation, federal in funding, federal in control, serves as the Reserve for the federal Armies and Air Force, it serves overseas, and in other manners not specified by the Constitution.
- There are separate provisions for Congress to raise and support “Armies”, to provide and maintain (up-keep) a “Navy”, “to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces” just noted, and there is a mention of “Troops” not allowed to be kept by States; none of these entities are Militia, none are mandated as necessarily permanent, nor are they assigned specific roles.
- The right of the people to keep and bear arms, like all rights, was not created by the constitution or the Bill of Rights. Like all Rights, this one too pre-dates these documents.

Why the Militias of the several States are important:

What the Miltias were, and the duties of the “Militias of the several States” are spelled out in the Constitution; their importance is further recognized, and their capabilities further protected, in the 2nd Amendment. They are, under the command of the President whenever Part of them may be called forth:
- To execute the Laws of the Union
- To suppress Insurrections, and
- To repel Invasions.
Militias are additionally recognized:
- as being NECESSARY to the security a free State

It is no coincidence that these purposes fit in exactly with the guarantees the United States make to the States, as enumerated in Article 4, Section 3, to wit:
- “guarantee to every State in th[e] Union a Republican Form of Government” (the security of a free State against tyranny)
-“protect each of them against Invasion”, (repel invasions)
-“protect them against domestic Violence.” (suppress insurrections)

The Militias’ duties also serve to execute/ensure much of the purpose of the Constitution itself as enumerated in the Preamble:
- to establish Justice (execute the Laws of the Union)
- insure domestic Tranquility (suppress Insurrections)
- provide for the common defence (repel Invasions)
- to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity (the security of a free State, of a free people, against tyranny)

The absolute importance and permanency of the role of the Militias is confirmed by the wording in the declaratory clause of the 2nd amendment, where it is stated “a well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State”. Note “being necessary”; not “being one of the ways”, not “being the best way”, but “being necessary” – this clause states that the Militia of a State is required so that State can be free. Remember there were only 13 Militias in 1791, all of them State Militias.

So, as articulated in “the supreme Law of the Land”; “the Militia of the several States" are constitutionally mandated to provide security against all "Insurrections” & “domestic violence", to provide defense against "Invasions", to ensure the “the Laws of the Union” are executed; and are recognized as being necessary to secure “a Republican form of government”, and “a free State”.

The importance of the Militias can not be understated; nor can the vital role they are required to fulfill. Their purpose defines why "every...terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American."


So what are the Militias?

So we know they are important. What then were the Militias? Who are they now? Well, quite simply, they are us! Although State Militias pre-date the Constitution and the Militia Act of 1792, it makes some sense to refer to the latter document to see what was common practice at that time, and understood to continue "at the (new) federal level": “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years…[exemption] shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia”. [It should be noted that the emphasized section has expanded to include most citizens.] Hence, We the people ARE the militia. WE are the ones given such awesome duties as those described above. It makes perfect sense, doesn't it? After all, “we the people” are the source of all power in the government. WE are the “all men that are created equal” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. WE are the ones “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,…among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. WE are the ones who decided that “in order to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men”. WE are the ones consenting to be governed, and the ones from whom governments derive “their just powers”. It is perfect common sense that WE who hold the power are recognized and required to be the ones to secure it!; WE are the ones to protect OUR liberties and to protect OUR Rights, whenever necessary.

So, like the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution recognizes the importance of the people being the ultimate authority, and so secures the power and importance of the citizen, of the people, of the Militias. It mandates that Congress shall have power “to provide for calling forth the Militia”, which they first did in the Militia Act, so WE can “execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”. It mandates that WE would always have the capability of fulfilling those functions by securing to the people the Right to bear arms by giving Congress the power to “provide for organizing, *arming, and disciplining, the Militia”; the people ALREADY had the right to arms - it was just 1st articulated here in this clause with respect to Militias. The 2nd amendment additionally declares and protects these capabilities, AND further recognizes the protected Right as personal and individual; it declares that in order to fulfill their duties, it is NECESSARY that there be Militias of the several States, and that they be well-regulated…i.e. the people MUST be well-armed and well-trained…they MUST be “under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated Militia”. Further, the 2nd amendment restricts infringement by ALL governments and bodies, including the States and localities (it IS the Supreme Law of the Land) primarily from interfering with the roles of the Militias, by specifically protecting an unalienable and individual Right of ALL the people - to keep and bear arms.


Again - as explained above the National Guard is NOT the Miltia. Slowly but surely since the Dick Act, it has indeed usurped the role and the importance of the Militias - finalized by the Warner Act of 2007 - where the Miltias have been obsoleted because all mention of their being called forth by the President has been removed (they are defined -"unorganized militias" - but no provision for being used). We can clearly see further however the huge error of relying on the federally armed National Guard to fulfill the roles specified by the Constitution - as the Guards are in Iraq and Afghanistan are certainly useless to repel invasions, execute the laws, suppress insurrections, etc. here at home. These days State Defense Forces are the closest thing to the original Miltias we have left.


“A free republic will never keep a standing army to execute its laws. It must depend upon the support of its citizens” Yates Brutus 1 (1787)

The Militia clauses in the Constitution protect we the people's Right to "every terrible implement of war", to the "military equipment in common use" - and ARE why the NFA, AWB, other personal arms/weapons bans, gun-free zones, registration schemes etc. etc. etc. - at ANY level - ARE unconstitutional; AND why according to the USSC, if Miller had been carrying a BAR instead of a sawed-off shotgun, M4s and M16s would be should be perfectly legal. My unalienable Right to keep and bear arms certainly does not depend on my being in the Miltia, but the requirements and importance of the only Constitutionally recognized Militia certainly shows that there is NOT a "compelling interest" of govt to infringe on that Right - EVER.

 

[shield20]

*A little clarification is required here: note that Art 1 Sec 8 clause 16 says Congress has the power “to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them in service”. It was NOT the government’s role to actually arm the Militias, only to provide how that was to be accomplished. The 1st act they took towards accomplishing this duty was to propose the 2nd Amendment - which ensured the Right of the people to be armed - always. Then they passed the Militia Act of 1792 to more specifically spell out how this was provided for, just as it always had been - by the individual himself: “...That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges”. This too makes sense. Some may wonder why the people would not mandate that the government provide the arms. It is obvious! The Militia’s vital roles include its use in guaranteeing to the States “a Republican Form Of Government”; ensuring the security of a free State, and in securing to the people their freedom and their Rights; it was seen that a free State, the free people, would be pitted against one of the three threats to that freedom and injustice: insurrection, invasion, or usurpation and tyranny. The most likely usurper, the most likely tyrant to be faced would be (of) the government! Obviously We the people would NOT allow those would-be tyrants to control the flow of arms in any way, not the flow to those very individuals who would find it necessary to oppose them, whose duty it was to oppose them – US! What good could the Militias serve if the tyrant held the key to their arms? Individually the people would arm themselves, and as the Militia they would fulfill their duty.


"Is there a man in this House who would wish to see so large a proportion of the community, perhaps one-third, armed by the United States, and liable to be disarmed by them?" Masters would assist apprentices, and "as to minors, their parents or guardians would prefer furnishing them with arms themselves, to depending on the United States when they knew they were liable to having them reclaimed."

Jeremiah Wadsworth of Connecticut

 

[aftv2005]

Shield20,

I appreciate your discussion of the militia. There is only one point that I wish to expand on. You said, "These days State Defense Forces are the closest thing to the original Militias we have left."

I agree that on the surface, they may bear the closest resemblance to the original militias. However, state defense forces exist only by the permission of the federal government as evidenced by the language of Title 32, Section 109, chapter 1 and paragraph C of the U.S. Code:

(c) In addition to its National Guard, if any, a State or
Territory, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, or the District of
Columbia MAY, as provided by its laws, organize and maintain
defense forces. A defense force established under this section MAY
be used within the jurisdiction concerned, as its chief executive
(or commanding general in the case of the District of Columbia)
considers necessary, but it may not be called, ordered, or drafted
into the armed forces.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/32/chapters/1/sections/section_109.html

There is legislation pending in Congress to "to improve the readiness of State defense forces and to increase military coordination for homeland security between the States and the Department of Defense." H.R. 826 finds the following:

(1) Domestic threats to national security and the increased use of National Guard forces for out-of-State deployments greatly increase the potential for service by members of State defense forces established under section 109(c) of title 32, United States Code.

(2) The efficacy of State defense forces is impeded by lack of clarity in the Federal regulations concerning those forces, particularly in defining levels of coordination and cooperation between those forces and the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security.

(3) The State defense forces suffer from lack of standardized military training, arms, equipment, support, and coordination with the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security and other Federal agencies as a result of real and perceived Federal regulatory impediments. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:55:./temp/~bdXDlV::

Whereas, state defense forces (as the National Guard) exist only through the benevolence of federal law/government, and are therefore, in reality, subject to "federal regulatory impediments", the militia on the other hand, is not bound by federal law, but subject only to the Constitution and the state, so long as the state does not infringe upon its existence.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government." -- Thomas Jefferson, .


Diana

 

[shield20]

aft,

Agreed! Thankks for the info - I have not done much..."research" into the SDFs.

So what we need is a greater interest in the SDF by all levels of govts, if they are indeed to become the real Militias as described in the Constitution. I would love to see that - the people back to fulfilling their duty by taking some greater role in their security (besides just paying taxes) - less reliance on the feds means greater power in the hands of the people - where it belongs. There are a few murmers of such a thing by some politicians and commentators. With tours in the Gulf being lengthed, the troop surge, Iran threat, etc., as well as the constant/increasing security issues here at home - I think we are at/past a point such a move is needed. We have a long way to go though as a nation policy-wise to see the wisdom the framers saw; hopefully enough will see BEFORE another serious incident once again shows the importance of these institutions.

Those in charge have to get over themselves and admit they might just have to trust the people they work for; and those lazy dependents so willing to rely on others for their liberties may just have to step up to the plate and take on a little self-responsibility.

 

[aftv2005]

"So what we need is a greater interest in the SDF by all levels of govts, if they are indeed to become the real Militias as described in the Constitution."

I think you missed my point. We don't need MORE government interest. We need LESS. State defense forces are not the Consitutional militia and I'm sure not dependng on them to protect my Constitutional liberties.. The more government interest in our lives, the more need for citizens to understand their duty to revitalize the real militia.

Diana

 

[badbob]

I agree aftv. On another vein, but the same topic, the quickest way to end a dictatorship is to force them to act more like a dictator. I think that is what is happening now, they are being forced to show their hand and "the people" are responding. What .gov would like to be hidden is being dragged out into the open. The militia, in it's truest sense, is the people voting for a change in represention in government.
Somehow, regretfully, voting for seachange in Washington has been misconstrued as condoning the farther selling out of America. Business as usual with different thugs in charge. "New boss same as the old boss". Eventually, I suspect, the "vote" will become more adamant.

badbob

 

[shield20]

How the Militias of the several States were (to be) set-up is spelled out very clearly in the Constitution - provisions for how to be organized, armed disciplined, when to be called forth etc. Are you saying what we need are militias totally of/by/for the people - that are separate from the States or Feds in all manners (but is hopefully recognized as legal)? Or militias subject to govt involvement ONLY as articulated in the Constitution (which is pretty extensive actually)?

 

[Al Norris]

It makes a difference in what we mean by "State." This can be seen by the arguments Hugh Damright and I have, almost every time the word comes up in discussing constitutional interpretation.

Hugh claims the word used by the Constitution means: that a "State" is a body of people," as defined by the 1828 Webster's dictionary.

What it actually says in definition #5 is: "A political body, or body politic; the whole body of people united under one government, whatever may be the form of the government."

While on the surface, one could get the meaning that Hugh uses, there is more. The 1828 Webster's goes on to say: "More usually the word signifies a political body governed by representatives; a commonwealth; as the States of Greece; the States of America. In this sense, state has sometimes more immediate reference to the government, sometimes to the people or community. Thus when we say, the state has made provision for the paupers, the word has reference to the government or legislature; but when we say, the state is taxed to support paupers, the word refers to the whole people or community."

OK. So which definition does the Constitution use?

Article I section 2 reads: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States," which may indicate a body of people. This is further refined by adding the rest of the sentence: "and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."

The Constitution is talking about the people electing representatives (to the Congress). Yet it is the body politic of a geo-political government, known as a State that elects the Senators (section 3): "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, or six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote."

In no way can this be made to mean that Senators "are elected by the State of Virginia i.e. Virginians." No, under the original form, the Government of the State of Virginia elected it's Senators to Congress, not the people of Virginia (or the people of any other State).

The whole purpose of this setup was to allow the people of the various States, to directly elect their individual representatives to the federal (or central) government and for the governments of the States to elect their representatives. Two legislative houses. One for the people and the peoples interests and one for the States and their interests.

To answer the unspoken question, yes the founders believed that the States had interests that were not necessarily those of the people of the State. Treaties made by the central government was just one area that the founders did not trust the people, but entrusted the collective wisdom of the State governments (through their States Senators), and as such gave to the Senate the power of denying or ratifying treaties (Art I Sec 2 - Advice and Consent).

A reading of Article IV, cannot be interpreted in any other manner than to mean that the States mentioned, were the governing political bodies of the individual States.

This reading is further enforced by the numerous mention of the powers of the central government and the powers of the States. If the Constitution was talking about the people of the states, then the word usage would have been, the people of the States and they would have used "rights" instead of "powers."

If this isn't enough, there is the 10th amendment: "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."

It would be absolutely ludicrous to think that the founders used the term "States" in the manner Hugh likes to use it, and word the 10th amendment in the manner they did. These guys were well educated. They wouldn't make that kind of faux pas, if "States" had the meaning Hugh gives it, within the Constitution itself.

And the final piece of inferential evidence? The Constitution is a blue print for the workings of the central government and its relationship to, the already in existence, state governments.

That Hugh, is also where the concept of shared sovereignty comes in. At the close of the revolution, Great Britain signed documents acknowledging the sovereignty of the 13 independent States. Those States (those governments) gave a portion of their sovereignty to the central government, in its sphere of influence, as granted by the Constitution.

 

[shield20]

"..by the rule of construction that when the Framers used a word in more than one clause of the Constitution, they presumably meant it to have the same meaning in each." "State" means the 13 orginal States or commonwealths, and any others added to the Union as specified in the Constitution. Each State had their own constitution agreed on by the people of that State - and so their own government; persons born in that State were citizens of the State. The "people of the several States" are recognized by the US Const, separate from "the State" institutions also recognized by the US Constitution as in "No state shall...". (The constitution of the United States was ordained and established, not by the states in their sovereign capacities, but as the preamble of the constitution declares, by "the People of the United States.")

The "Militia of the several States" as refered to in Article II, Section II, Clause 1: "The President shall be Commander in Chief * * * of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States" refers to the same institutions that are mentioned in Article 1 Section 8, and the same mentioned in the BOR - the organizations that are of each State.

 

[aftv2005]

"Are you saying what we need are militias totally of/by/for the people - that are separate from the States or Feds in all manners (but is hopefully recognized as legal)? Or militias subject to govt involvement ONLY as articulated in the Constitution (which is pretty extensive actually)?"

As I have mentioned before in this thread, if they are coming to take your guns or chip your children, do you really care if THEY consider you to be legal or not? Legality is only a consideration when applied to lawful, Consitutional laws. The militia has no reason to act outside of laws that are Constitutionally based. When the laws are in violation of the Constitution all bets are off.

Diana

 

[shield20]

What is unlawful and nonconstitutional is easy for us to say, unfortunately those in charge don't often agree; there are a few things I would like to do that are illegal - but I don't 'cause I have to weigh the cost if caught with the benefit of the act (gun free school zone, bayonet lugs, supressors and hi-cap mags for examples). What I am wondering now is what is "the militia" you envision? Is it "legal" by today's laws? What is its role? Will it be called forth by the President? How is it trained, organized, disciplined?

 

[shield20]

Back to this by Pipoman:

The movement caused many who were left of those active, to begin examining their own patriotic responsibility. This reflection set standards in virtually everyone's belief system at what point they themselves would be willing to rise in arms against tyranny and loss of liberty.

I just read a quote from where I got alot of points for the above 'importance of the miltia' post: http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin17.htm

Too many people wrongly assume that the purpose of revitalizing "the Militia of the several States" (or, for that matter, of forming the kind of private citizens "militia" that already exist in several States) is to fight new battles of Lexington and Concord. To the contrary: The goal must be, if at all possible, to deter usurpation and tyranny, so as to make actually fighting any battle here in America unnecessary. Deterrence is always the best defense. And preparedness makes deterrence credible.

This sounds exactly like what was described re: Clinton,and exactly like what Pip is referring to - a well-reasoned and beneficial "fear" of the people by those who serve them.