Equally possible is that Congress could send militia members to FEMA concentration camps when they start rounding up "subversives" after martial law has been declared.

Fema camps aren't real it's been proven time and again. They wouldn't send Militia members because we would win thats what would be the plan frm the beginning. Go in win and go home not make money

You could say a Militia has already deployed itself.

Down in AZ a Militia routinely patrols the US Mexican border to mixed reviews. Most officials see them as a bunch of nuts with guns. but they do serve a function. Observing illegal border crossing and notifying the border patrol.

I've never seen any numbers on their impact but there has to be some.

I always thought it was a mistake on the governments part not to treat them as a civilian corps of volunteers. they could have trained them as observers but they didn't. they have always made it clear they want nothing to do with any Militia!

It is partially true. The President is Commander In Chief of all armed forces. Congress does have the duty to arm, train, provide needed material, etc. for militias (as well as regular military).

And here comes the however, Militias are loose organizations of people. They are free to choose to accept or reject any Presidential Order for whatever means. Denying the order may make that militia a domestic enemy to the US, but then again it may not. It really depends on what the order is and how it was expressed.

Every militia is bound by how they interpret the purpose of their existence. To use a hypothetical, an ATS Militia may be formed with the duty to protect the servers and internet connection on the grounds of freedom of the press. The order could come that we had to mobilize to protect CNN from a mob of outraged film buffs that have had enough of Turner's colorizing classic films. We are free to refuse that order (Turner refuses to donate to our servers because we reduce his viewership), but we may be arrested or attacked for refusing a lawful order. Or they may ask a different militia to fill the order, but refuse our request for support if GLP were to attack us.



[edit on 19-3-2010 by Ahabstar]

good, I say let the militias patrol the US-Mexican border with the full support of the US government!

personally militias aren't my thing. I'd rather be a mercenary

Um, NO... the Militias are "Necessary for the security of a FREE STATE", not the pleasure of the US Congress. There are limitations to Congressional use of the militia as evidenced in the statement below and it was originally intended that the militia would be for domestic use only.

To further address the following:

"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;"

Now, read these words, from the Declaration of Independence:

"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."

So, you see, your premise does not follow, it is non-sequitur and not absolute. You are trying to take text and make it purely black and white without placing it in context to the sum of the founding documents. Look at the "Execute the laws of the Union" portion of the text. That refers specifically to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Right now the Federal Government has usurped states rights and granted itself authorities NOT designated to it by the Constitution. As a result, it is the obligation of the militia to ENFORCE and "Execute the laws of the union" on behalf of the states that they are constituted in. In fact, the behavior of our current federal government would contitute insurrection in its basic form and REQUIRES that the militia protect against such.

I understand what you are attempting to convey here, but you are leisurely employing only a portion of the intent to support your claim without understanding the greater context in which it was originally placed.

Please point me to a section of the US Constitution that states a standing army is actually Constitutional. I would like to see that.

The US Army has always existed. Despite what you may have been taught, the Continental Army was not disbanded in 1783. A single regiment of infantry and a battery of artillery were retained in addition to some medical, logistics, etc troops.

Also it was called the "Legion of the United States" until 1798. It was later expanded into 4 "sub-legions" each of which was very similar to a modern day Brigade Combat Team complete with infantry, dragoons (cavalry that could serve as both mounted infantry and heavy cavalry), riflemen, and artillery.

I have to disagree. Congress has no authority over the militias as they are soley organizations of the states and answer only to the governors of their states. IF the governors decide to allow Congress to use them then I suppose they could be sent off anywhere to fight however I don't think most governors would do that as I believe that would be in violation of their state constitutions.

I am trying to explain that the United States Congress has the legal authority to use militia groups in a war.

It has been done in the past, it can be done again.

If you are a member of a militia, and you believe in your 2nd Amendment right to it's fullest, you also must accept the fact that Congress can use you in a war.

Congress does have the constitutional authority to regulate militias.