Criminalizing Rights to Peaceably Assemble? Militia Now Viewed as "Gangs"

reply to post by marker3221


So you think the militias if the SHTF would resort to terrorism? Is that your whole point to your comment?

What is terrorism again-


–noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.


Let us just keep things defined shall we.

reply to post by marker3221


We'll respectfully disagree - nothing more need be said.

Originally posted by kozmo

Originally posted by piddles
reply to post by kozmo

 

alright, they were needed to help establish this country. what about now? how are they relevant now? How have militias helped since the 1900s?

I fail to see the relevance of militias nowadays when they aren't even half as armed as the gov't they would seek to overthrow. It was different when everyone just had muskets and cannons.

Also do you acknowledge that militias have made their presence more well-known since Obama has been elected? Do you think it's feasible that a great deal of these people are band wagon jumpers, not dissimilar to the tea party members, rather than people who truly care?

edit: I also feel I should add that I am not ignorant of history, I kind of already understood the militia's importance like 200 years ago, and my initial question was more what they done recently.

[edit on 27-4-2010 by piddles]

Wow, your post is filled with misnomers. Please allow me to address each of your points in order.

First, how are they relevant now? Well, without getting too far off topic, something happened to the United States of American in 1913 and was finalized in 1933... The US became a Corporation under UCC. The country went bankrupt, went under state of emergency, suspended the Constitution, implemented the Federal Reserve and Supreme Court directed all courts to begin adjudicating under Uniform Commercial Code and dispose of all previous rulings decided under Common Law. So, what exactly does all of that mean? It means that our government has been functioning under false pretenses for over 75 years! It also means that the military has been abrogating its responsibility to protect the COnstitution from ALL enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC! So, what makes the militia relevant today is that they are the LAST line of defense of the Constitution and likely the only group to restore the TRUE rule of law!

Next, how have they helped since the 1900s? Well, so far, they have managed to keep the government scared and thus, in line. So scared in fact, that they are now looking for ways to make them illegal. The government knows full well that an armed and organized populace pose a grave danger to their plans to implement a global government and surrender our sovereignty.

Regarding weaponry... the milita of the 1700s was LESS than HALF as well armed and trained as the British troops and we know what happened there. Secondly, with groups like Oath Keepers, there is NO guarantee that the military would turn their weapons en masse on American citizens. Finally, I believe that the Taliban is far less armed than the US Military and we can clearly see how well they are doing against a superior army. It is NOT weapons that win a battle, it is the will of the people fighting - their cause, if you will.

The militia has NOT made itself more well-known since OBama's election - the media has! The militia has always been there. What you are witnessing now is pure propaganda AGAINST the militia in the hope that the government can villianize them to the point of shaming anyone involved and turning public sentiment against them. For an example in world history, take a look at what Hitler accomplished when disarming the German citizenry and the propaganda that accompanied his progroms.

And NO... I believe that these ARE people who truly care!

I had a much longer reply but google chrome tends to be a bit buggy at times.


um scaring the gov't doesn't help people. it makes the gov't feel like they need to control the people even more. I have never won over any kind of friends or helped anyone by scaring them, it only sends the wrong message. Also you had to have a big gov't rant before you said that what they do is scare the gov't. That doesn't make your answer bigger fyi

tactics: starting to realize we probably shouldn't argue about a hypothesized battle, that's dumb.

media: so the only thing the militias have done in the past 100 years is scare the government and you're wondering why they're called terrorists? Also I fully believe that media hasn't even put half as much time into this as you say they do considering all I can find is one article saying militias are increasing and another one saying conservatives disagree. I also noticed that most of these people are right wingers when I try to get information on them.

too many coincidences for me to ever take seriously as defenders of liberty and more like wingnuts with guns in the middle of nowhere. however awesome and meaningful it started out as, it doesn't quite have the same air of nobility. I'm reminded of Christians taking old pieces of work out of context to twist for their own reasoning.

reply to post by endisnighe


whoop dee you defined terrorism. way to drive home someone else's point.

reply to post by piddles


Without saying it, I thought people would see that government itself uses terrorism to further their ends.

Myself, thought it was obvious. Oh well. That is what you were supposed to infer. I see it did not work. Now you know my meaning.

Originally posted by kozmo
Folks, this is it - the final nail!

Proposed Bill Seeks Punishment for Unauthorized Militia

That's right gang, now you will need permission from the government to form a militia and to participate in one. Forget all about your right to Peaceably Assemble. If you are in an unauthorized militia you might as well be in gang - despite whether or not you are doing anything illegal. Once again, you are deemed guilty of committing a crime and will have to prove your innocence.

The way I read this is that the government is prepared to violate your 1st Ammendment, 2nd Ammendment, 4th Ammendment, 5th Ammendment, 6th Ammendment, 8th Ammendment, 9th Ammendment and 10th Ammendment rights in order to affect this witch-hunt.

Perhaps the government has forgotten that WE THE PEOPLE are a self-governing Republic where the government works FOR the people, not the other way around. The 1st Ammendment guarantess Freedom of Speech and the Right to Peaceably Assemble and a Right to Redress of Grievances. This Bill negates those rights for those who choose to assemble under an orginized militia. Next, the 2nd Ammendment begins with "A well regulated militia, being necessary to a Free State..." means that it is up to the States respectively to regulate (Or make REGULAR) the fomration of militias to ensure that state sovereignty isn't threatened by a tyrannical federal government or foreign entity.

The ability to formulate a militia by the people has been a fundamental right sinc ethis country's founding - now the government is attempting to do away with this God-given right, but to what end?

I am interested in hearing your perspective on BOTH sides of this issue.

This is BS. Many states have similar bills. The right to form a militia is not guaranteed to you by the first amendment. Instead, a militia could endanger citizens, police officers, officers of the state, of the country, it would require more money to regulate and build a police force to make sure they didn't get out of hand. The state has a right to secure the welfare of its citizens. It's clear, at least in my mind, that the government's interest in the above things far outweighs the right of the citizens to form a militia.

Originally posted by Ryanp5555

This is BS. Many states have similar bills.

Izzat so? How many states 'have similar bills'? Which states? Got evidence, or is this just an unsubstantiated opinion?

The right to form a militia is not guaranteed to you by the first amendment.

Correct. The first amendment guarantees the right of assembly. It does not specify capacity or group size, nor does it specify the type of organization to assemble, it just guarantees the right of assembly.

Militia formation is specified elsewhere.

Instead, a militia could endanger citizens, police officers, officers of the state, of the country, it would require more money to regulate and build a police force to make sure they didn't get out of hand. The state has a right to secure the welfare of its citizens.

Could endanger? So can driving. Should we then ban driving as well? Even that is a poor analogy, as driving is a privilege, whereas the topic under discussion is a right. Are you in the habit of giving up rights because of "maybes" in other areas as well?

It probably hasn't occurred to you that militiamen ARE citizens, and in this case the government itself is endangering them, or more to the point, their right to assemble.

Money to regulate and build a police force? Last time I checked, we already HAD a police force. What became of them? Have they disappeared? Are you advocating a police assault en masse on the citizenry? Sounds rather violent to my ears. Be that as it may, the police around here, in my area, aren't about to start rounding up militiamen. Matter of fact, they seem to be more inclined to assist them. That doesn't bode very well for any external forces that might come in and try to start a roundup.

What country are you in? Does the State there "secure the welfare" of it's citizenry by rounding them up and arresting them? If not, why should we do such here in the US?

It's clear, at least in my mind, that the government's interest in the above things far outweighs the right of the citizens to form a militia.

Ah, the heart of the matter. Even YOU recognize that it has come to an "us versus them" situation between the government and the citizenry. You said it yourself - "the government's interest... outweighs the right of the citizens".

Good of you to inform us as to which side YOU have chosen in that polarity.

reply to post by endisnighe


A group of armed militia who intend to take on the United States Army in armed conflict simply cannot do so by open warfare - impossible. To say anything else is denying reality.

The only viable tactic for such a scenario is for the militia group(s) to adopt guerilla warfare (see Irish War of Independence 1919 -21) isolated attacks/ambushes either with small arms fire or explosives.

This tactic (weather right or wrong) IS classified as Terrorism. The IRA, UVF, ETA, FARC etc are all classified as terrorist organizations mainly since they use this very system of warfare.

That is the only way groups made up of civilians with limited firepower (which the above quoted groups are, in actual fact) can possibly hope to sustain any kind of armed conflict agaisnt a "legitimate" army.

It's not a question of resorting - there is no other choice. Period.

Forget textbook definitions in cases such as this they are an absolute waste of time, look at the practical & viable options and the picture is pretty clear.

Marker


PS. To answer your question direct; the point to my comment is that I believe that no-one who has written on this thread regarding militias has ever considered this point seriously in a practical & realistic fashion, doing so in 5 mins flat you will concur (if you are of rational mind that is) that a militia war is most probably unwinnable and to even make it a sustainable war would have to adopt unconventional tactics that would border on, if not be classified as, Terrorism.





[edit on 28-4-2010 by marker3221]

[edit on 28-4-2010 by marker3221]

Calling them "gangs" affords them far too much respect if you ask me. "Cells" would be much more appropriate.

reply to post by Ryanp5555

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.

That is the SECOND Amendment. It is obvious you don't know much about our Constitution.

It's clear, at least in my mind, that the government's interest in the above things far outweighs the right of the citizens to form a militia.

The CITIZENS ARE the GOVERNMENT. Of course, it is obvious that you don't understand that either.

Your attitude is why the communists and Nazis were able to take over countries so easily.

The militia is the last group standing between the Citizens and total tyranny.

Love live the free militias.

reply to post by marker3221


Sun Tzu and the Art of War. Read it. Learn it. Use it in business and everyday life.

First off, of course there would not be direct actions against a superior force. That is just obvious. No true military mind would commit any forces to something that did not provide a certain outcome.

This for discussion only-how do you take out a force, by going after the body? Or the head? That is all it takes. Of course people are going to say that anyone that distrusts the government if attacked would all of a sudden commit terrorism.

It is called propaganda and you are doing a good job of spreading it.

This is for discussion only ADL. SO FRELL THE FRELL OFF!

reply to post by nenothtu


Greats points made.

I really think that the average citizen has completely forgotten that the US Government is of the people, for the people, and by the people.

And when I say people, I mean people. NOT CITIZENS of the Federal Government.

It is such a sham that the Feds have pulled off on the people of this country by making us citizens.
We have a country full of people who actually think that the rights that we have are granted to us by the Constitution and not God.

What a load of P.O.O.

The US Constitution was written with the expressed idea that it was to limit the power of the Federal Government.

We were intended to be state citizens.

*see Barron v. Baltimore

The Incorporation of DC in 1871 was exactly what the Founding Fathers did not want to happen.

And if I remember correctly...

Were not militias the reason that the we won the War for Independence?

And Mark3221....

What are you thinking?

Why even equate terrorism with militias?

Are you trying to give ammo to the ADL?

A militia is formed for DEFENSIVE purposes only.
Terrorism is very much offensive.

[edit on 4/28/2010 by Josephus23]

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Ryanp5555

This is BS. Many states have similar bills.

Izzat so? How many states 'have similar bills'? Which states? Got evidence, or is this just an unsubstantiated opinion?

The right to form a militia is not guaranteed to you by the first amendment.

Correct. The first amendment guarantees the right of assembly. It does not specify capacity or group size, nor does it specify the type of organization to assemble, it just guarantees the right of assembly.

Militia formation is specified elsewhere.

You are correct. Perhaps I should have made myself clear. In order for the government to regulate against the first amendment, and this is only the main test there are tests within this test to determine it, the government must have a necessary and compelling reason which outweighs the interests of the public. If the government can show that it does, than guess what? Statute is legal.

Instead, a militia could endanger citizens, police officers, officers of the state, of the country, it would require more money to regulate and build a police force to make sure they didn't get out of hand. The state has a right to secure the welfare of its citizens.

Could endanger? So can driving. Should we then ban driving as well? Even that is a poor analogy, as driving is a privilege, whereas the topic under discussion is a right. Are you in the habit of giving up rights because of "maybes" in other areas as well?

It probably hasn't occurred to you that militiamen ARE citizens, and in this case the government itself is endangering them, or more to the point, their right to assemble.

No it's not. Your missing the point. The government does have a necessary and compelling reason to regulate against the first amendment here. As I stated, they have a fundamental interest in protecting the welfare of its citizens. If the US government allowed Militias combining that with the second amendment would give rights to arm these military's within the US. The government has a fundamental right to protect it's citizens, it's army's, and the rights given to it via the Article I of the US constitution. The citizen's rights that are being infringed here are very minimal, merely the right to form a militia.

You still have the right to assembly. You can still fight against things you don't believe in within a group, however, you cannot form a militia. The difference is that you cannot form an army with citizens (aka a militia). As stated before, Article I also provides that Congress can make laws regarding the military.

Money to regulate and build a police force? Last time I checked, we already HAD a police force. What became of them? Have they disappeared? Are you advocating a police assault en masse on the citizenry? Sounds rather violent to my ears. Be that as it may, the police around here, in my area, aren't about to start rounding up militiamen. Matter of fact, they seem to be more inclined to assist them. That doesn't bode very well for any external forces that might come in and try to start a roundup.

Not even close to what I meant. The government would have to add extra police force b/c these citizen army's would be roaming around. The government would have to spend more money to regulate them, to establish who gets to make the law. Hell, the mere existence of these groups could undermine the faith the citizens have in the government.

What country are you in? Does the State there "secure the welfare" of it's citizenry by rounding them up and arresting them? If not, why should we do such here in the US?

The State secures the welfare of its citizenry by rounding up people who are breaking the law all the time. You are masking the fact that these citizen ARMIES are not everyday citizens. Most citizens are not part of a militia. And as stated before, the government's interest is much greater than the citizen's interest in being allowed to join a militia.

It's clear, at least in my mind, that the government's interest in the above things far outweighs the right of the citizens to form a militia.

Ah, the heart of the matter. Even YOU recognize that it has come to an "us versus them" situation between the government and the citizenry. You said it yourself - "the government's interest... outweighs the right of the citizens".

Good of you to inform us as to which side YOU have chosen in that polarity.

It's not an us vs. them situation. It is a matter of constitutional interpretation. The courts have laid out tests. These tests are actually quite equitable. If the government has a substantial interest that outweighs the citizens, and if the law was created for a necessary and compelling reason, then the statute is valid, even if it is a violation of your first amendment rights. It's that simple. That is the law.

And to the other poster, no where in the Constitution does it secure the right to form a militia. Here is the Second Amendment verbatim:

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 Second Amendment lays out that the right to bear Arms shall not be infringed. Not the right to form a militia. It only touches on the necessity of a militia, but in no way secures that right to its citizenry. The drafters knew how to secure that right, as can be seen even in the language of this amendment. Had they wanted to, they would have wrote in:

Section1: A well regulated militia, being necessary tot he security of a free state shall not be infringed.
Section 2: The right of the people to keep and Bear Arms, in order to maintain a well regulated militia, shall not be infringed.

Or some variation thereof. They didn't. Thus, it must be seen that it was done with purpose. Thus, you don't have a fundamental right to maintain a militia. And your right to assemble is being lawfully infringed.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by Ryanp5555

 

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.

That is the SECOND Amendment. It is obvious you don't know much about our Constitution.

It's clear, at least in my mind, that the government's interest in the above things far outweighs the right of the citizens to form a militia.

The CITIZENS ARE the GOVERNMENT. Of course, it is obvious that you don't understand that either.

Your attitude is why the communists and Nazis were able to take over countries so easily.

The militia is the last group standing between the Citizens and total tyranny.

Love live the free militias.

As I explained in my post below, the second amendment clearly does not establish the right to a well regulated militia. The government has a fundamental interest in regulating this sort of activity that far outweighs the citizens. I'm not using made up words, these are tests laid out by the Supreme Court. This whole post makes wild generalizations and really provides no substance.

reply to post by Ryanp5555


Wow, just WOW!

The right of the government?

The federal government has 19 enumerated powers. 19, no more no less.

The bill of rights were not even in the Constitution originally.

Wanna know why? People like YOU! The Constitution's original intent was to LIMIT the powers of the federal government and the state governments. But the problem reared their heads right quickly. Some would have said your ideas here were the EXACT reasoning behind the Bill of Rights.

Your collectivist attitude is EXACTLY why individual rights were first and FOREMOST in the minds of the creators of the Constitution and in people that pushed for the creation of this country.

Your statement about militias roaming around. WHAT? Guess what, I am a member of a militia of ONE. Are you going to outlaw me?

The point of a militia (citizen military) is to guard against tyranny in any shape or form. Including domestic tyranny. With an effective tax rate on the citizens of 50-75% now, the markings are on the wall to just eliminate any and all individual property.

How do you expect this collectivist attitude is going to solve the problem of a debt of over 120 Trillion?

We can already see the forest, can you see past the trees?

The trading of a gas as a commodity is the solution to the problem. Do you understand the meaning of the Cap and Tax coming?

As Obama put it, it would NECESSARILY make costs of EVERYTHING skyrocket. Not just energy but EVERYTHING.

Now tell me, when everyone is broke and cannot even buy food anymore, what is going to happen?

GS and others in this REGIME of TYRANNY, including the Repubs (this is not a Dem/Repub thing) have instituted Carbon Credit exchanges already. They are now only voluntary. This is going to be the final nail in the control coffin.

Tell me, are you going to just sit there and take it when every freedom you have is taken for the GOOD of the collective?

Remember, you are not going to have a choice of opting out of paying this new taxation system (that is what it is, it has NOTHING to do with pollution or global warming) that will make everything probably TRIPLE in costs.

[edit on 4/29/2010 by endisnighe]

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by Ryanp5555

 

Wow, just WOW!

The right of the government?

The federal government has 13 enumerated powers. 13, no more no less.

The bill of rights were not even in the Constitution originally.

Wanna know why? People like YOU! The Constitution's original intent was to LIMIT the powers of the federal government and the state governments. But the problem reared their heads right quickly. Some would have said your ideas here were the EXACT reasoning behind the Bill of Rights.

Your collectivist attitude is EXACTLY why individual rights were first and FOREMOST in the minds of the creators of the Constitution and in people that pushed for the creation of this country.

Your statement about militias roaming around. WHAT? Guess what, I am a member of a militia of ONE. Are you going to outlaw me?

The point of a militia (citizen military) is to guard against tyranny in any shape or form. Including domestic tyranny. With an effective tax rate on the citizens of 50-75% now, the markings are on the wall to just eliminate any and all individual property.

How do you expect this collectivist attitude is going to solve the problem of a debt of over 120 Trillion?

We can already see the forest, can you see past the trees?

The trading of a gas as a commodity is the solution to the problem. Do you understand the meaning of the Cap and Tax coming?

As Obama put it, it would NECESSARILY make costs of EVERYTHING skyrocket. Not just energy but EVERYTHING.

Now tell me, when everyone is broke and cannot even buy food anymore, what is going to happen?

GS and others in this REGIME of TYRANNY, including the Repubs (this is not a Dem/Repub thing) have instituted Carbon Credit exchanges already. They are now only voluntary. This is going to be the final nail in the control coffin.

Tell me, are you going to just sit there and take it when every freedom you have is taken for the GOOD of the collective?

Remember, you are not going to have a choice of opting out of paying this new taxation system (that is what it is, it has NOTHING to do with pollution or global warming) that will make everything probably TRIPLE in costs.

The funny thing is you act like I'm part of some grandeois scheme against the constitution. What I'm telling you is constitutional law. Let me ask you: How many years of American Law School have you gone through?

Now that we've established that only one of us know what we are talking about we can get to the heart of the issue: Interpretation of the US Constitution.

You say the Government was given 13 enumerated powers? Really? Where do you see those "13 enumerated powers?" Article I Section 8 lays out 19 enumerated powers with an elastic clause at the end. If Congress can find any means that justify the end, they can create a law. Keep in mind, there just has to be some a conceivable reason for that law in order for it to be constitutional. It's a pretty easy standard for Congress to meet as long as they are trying to be. So, lets go through and list why Congress has the power:

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"

This means that Congress can create any law that is necessary and proper for the support of armies, including regulating any citizen army.

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"

This means that Congress can create any law that is necessary and proper regarding the calling forth of Militias, including, that there shall be no militias.

"To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces"

Notice how here, they doesn't specify the navy or army while they do in the other clauses. It's clear from above that they knew the difference between the militia and the army, so why not say army and navy? They don't. Regardless, they can regulate and make rules for the citizen army as seen clearly stated in this rule.

"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"

So, here, Congress has direct control over the Militia. They get to GOVERN such part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States. They get to decide whether or not they should be around, as part of their governing powers.

Okay, Step 1: You can see that Congress CLEARLY has the power to regulate the militia. The elastic clause gives them the power to make any law that is necessary and proper with any of the enumerated powers.

The next step would be to see if the law is unconstitutional in any way. You could argue Due Process, it fails there just as it does for the first amendment, with a very similar analysis. I'm not going to run through the analysis of the first amendment with you again, I've already done it.

Listen, your problem isn't with me. I'm objectively telling you that this law would not run afoul of any law in the Constitution. The question really isn't what the framers want, the Constitution was meant to be a dynamic document, changing through out the course of history. That is why such things as the elastic clause were included.

Your claim that the government doesn't have any rights is unfounded. For instance, they have the right to uphold Congress' enumerated powers over your rights in the bill of rights. Again, in order to do so, they must have a necessary and compelling reason for the law, which should match the reason it was legislated for, and it must outweigh your interests. I've shown you that it does. I hope this clears things up.

So, if you have a problem with what I'm telling you, it is because I am opening your eyes to how the Constitution is interpreted. I am a fan of smaller governments, but the only way to force that change is either through amendments or a change in the constitution, which just isn't going to happen.

reply to post by Ryanp5555


So you are a member of the priest class of lawyers?

Or are you a Constitutional Scholar like our dearly beloved Chief in Thief right now.

First off, people that state that the Constitution is a malleable thing without stating the Amendment process is the ONLY thing meant to be malleable about it, are liars and traitors to the Republic for what this country was created for.

No, the Constitutional Law and Constitutional manipulations that have been going on ARE NOT LAW. They are what is known as Color of Law.

Case law and precedent was NEVER part of the original intent, get that descriptor there, ORIGINAL INTENT.

If the Constitution was meant to be so DAMN malleable, why then even have the Amendment process, hell why even have the DAMN Constitution?

Sorry, do not know why I wrote 13, oops.

As for your interpretation of these components-

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

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;

EXPLAIN TO A DOLT LIKE ME THIS PART

for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States

Someone as STUPID as me must infer that it means NOT ALL COMPONENTS OF THE MILITIA to be in the service of the government.

Hmmmm. I must be a dolt and stupid nincompoop.

Then answer me why we have a standing military? Explain that one!

EXPLAIN THIS ONE ALSO

reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

So has Congress stated that Militias are unlawful? Hmmm, since they have NOT, the STATE is not allowed to make them unlawful.

Also, by the first component, it states not ALL parts are in the service of the government.

Explain this part-

SINCE I AM SUCH A DOLT

but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Explain this part-

SINCE I AM SUCH A DOLT

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Now, the WHOLE PROBLEM right now is the supposed WAR ON TERROR. Please explain to a dolt like me the reasoning that allows our government to police the world? To force our ideals on others? To have 700+ foreign military bases in over 130+ countries?

Yes, our federal government does do ANY DAMN THING THEY WANT.

For you to state here they are doing it with Constitutional OKAY is hypocrisy.

As for what you have stated, the Constitution is any EASY document to understand, and I do not need a PRIEST CLASS LAWYER OR JUDGE OR SUPPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR TO INTERPRET IT FOR ME!



[edit on 4/29/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by Ryanp5555

The funny thing is you act like I'm part of some grandeois scheme against the constitution. What I'm telling you is constitutional law. Let me ask you: How many years of American Law School have you gone through?

Now that we've established that only one of us know what we are talking about we can get to the heart of the issue: Interpretation of the US Constitution.

Gee, I didn't see you give the member you responded to, any chance to answer your question. In fact, you never even said YOU attended law school. The field is still level between the two of you- one person's opinion against another's. In addition, unless you are a lawyer specializing in Constitutional law, your OPINIONS are rather meaningless. Even if you are a lawyer, you might be an ambulance chaser, hardly in a position to lend expect opinions on this matter. You certainly ARE entitled to your opinion, but at this point, it carries no more weight than anyone else on an anonymous board.
So let's not bring credentials into this debate, since no one, you, me or other members have chosen to prove them, and I would not suggest that you do prove them.
This is not intended as an attack, but rather as statement of fact. Using unproven credentials lend no weight to anyone here. Back up your statements with facts and links.

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by Ryanp5555

 

So you are a member of the priest class of lawyers?

Or are you a Constitutional Scholar like our dearly beloved Chief in Thief right now.

First off, people that state that the Constitution is a malleable thing without stating the Amendment process is the ONLY thing meant to be malleable about it, are liars and traitors to the Republic for what this country was created for.

What are we debating here? I thought we were debating whether or not the law was constitutional. As I've explained, by the standards the courts use today, it most likely is constitutional (can't say that for sure b/c the Supreme Court hasn't passed judgment).

And if you say that the only part of the constitution that was meant to be changed was the amendments how do you explain the necessary and proper clause? How do you explain laws that passed even during the framers time?

No, the Constitutional Law and Constitutional manipulations that have been going on ARE NOT LAW. They are what is known as Color of Law.

They most certainly are law in the United States of America. You can give it whatever name you'd like, but when you violate the law you will be penalized for doing so, regardless of whatever title you'd like to give it.

Case law and precedent was NEVER part of the original intent, get that descriptor there, ORIGINAL INTENT.

Well, Article III Section 2 may disagree with you.

If the Constitution was meant to be so DAMN malleable, why then even have the Amendment process, hell why even have the DAMN Constitution?

What are you arguing here? That the necessary and proper clause doesn't exist? What do you suppose that it means when it says:

The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Immediately after the enumerated powers of Congress? How do you justify this clause with your current expectations?

Sorry, do not know why I wrote 13, oops.

As for your interpretation of these components-

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

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;

EXPLAIN TO A DOLT LIKE ME THIS PART

for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States

Someone as STUPID as me must infer that it means NOT ALL COMPONENTS OF THE MILITIA to be in the service of the government.

Hmmmm. I must be a dolt and stupid nincompoop.

First off, I never implied you were any of those things. Second off, yes, it does say that, in that one enumerated power. But look at the one above it, it is missing the same language of in the Service of the United States. It's clear that they knew how to use that language, but yet they did not. Why? If they meant only those employed in the United States, why didn't they say that?

Then answer me why we have a standing military? Explain that one!

EXPLAIN THIS ONE ALSO

reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

Yes, we have a military b/c again it is a power proscribed by the Constitution. Congress can proscribe laws that are necessary and proper to maintenance if they'd like. Heck, maybe they could even abolish it if they felt it was necessary and proper. Maybe not though.

And the second part of your question it clearly staes reserving to the States respectively the Authority of TRAINING the militia [...]. It doesn't say the state has the power to RAISE a militia, only train one. Instead it leaves the discipline needed to train the militia to those proscribed by Congress. So, if Congress says, training a militia is not allowed, doesn't that mean that the States have to follow that discipline?

Further, it left open the power to regulate the militias to Congress.

So has Congress stated that Militias are unlawful? Hmmm, since they have NOT, the STATE is not allowed to make them unlawful.

Also, by the first component, it states not ALL parts are in the service of the government.

Explain this part-

SINCE I AM SUCH A DOLT

but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Again, I have never called you any names, I don't know why keep writing that. Try not to take this so offensively.

Actually, I gotta get going I have a train to catch, I will address the rest of this later.

Explain this part-

SINCE I AM SUCH A DOLT

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Now, the WHOLE PROBLEM right now is the supposed WAR ON TERROR. Please explain to a dolt like me the reasoning that allows our government to police the world? To force our ideals on others? To have 700+ foreign military bases in over 130+ countries?

Yes, our federal government does do ANY DAMN THING THEY WANT.

For you to state here they are doing it with Constitutional OKAY is hypocrisy.

As for what you have stated, the Constitution is any EASY document to understand, and I do not need a PRIEST CLASS LAWYER OR JUDGE OR SUPPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR TO INTERPRET IT FOR ME!



[edit on 4/29/2010 by endisnighe]

Finally! Someone on the opposing team who can debate like an adult and make a cogent argument! I commend you, sir!

Originally posted by Ryanp5555

You are correct. Perhaps I should have made myself clear. In order for the government to regulate against the first amendment, and this is only the main test there are tests within this test to determine it, the government must have a necessary and compelling reason which outweighs the interests of the public. If the government can show that it does, than guess what? Statute is legal.

Since the government is alledged to BE the public, I'm not clear on how public interests can outweigh public interests.

If the US government allowed Militias combining that with the second amendment would give rights to arm these military's within the US.

That is correct. It does.

The government has a fundamental right to protect it's citizens, it's army's, and the rights given to it via the Article I of the US constitution. The citizen's rights that are being infringed here are very minimal, merely the right to form a militia.

Partially true. The government does have the rights you state, but they are no preemptive rights. In other words, the government cannot "crack down" on militias simply because they think said militias 'might' transform into a danger. In terms relating to individuals, I can't go out and shoot a man walking across my yard, even if he's carrying a firearm, simply because I think he 'might' break into my house. I can't preempt that individual based on a 'maybe'.

You still have the right to assembly. You can still fight against things you don't believe in within a group, however, you cannot form a militia. The difference is that you cannot form an army with citizens (aka a militia). As stated before, Article I also provides that Congress can make laws regarding the military.

Congress has already made such law. The Second Militia Act of 1792 requires that every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45, with the exception of congressmen, coachmen, and ferrymen maintain suitable arms and equipment at their own expense, and meet for drills twice each year under the auspices of their local commanders. Those failing to do so are subject to courts-martial. That's federal law.

This bill in question is proposed state law, which federal law holds primacy over, unless I'm mistaken. Most states have their own militia regulations, which are valid unless they voilate the small body of federal laws on the matter.

Not even close to what I meant. The government would have to add extra police force b/c these citizen army's would be roaming around. The government would have to spend more money to regulate them, to establish who gets to make the law. Hell, the mere existence of these groups could undermine the faith the citizens have in the government.

I'm not aware of any roving packs of militiamen. Can you direct me to evidence of such? In the absence of verification that such exists, I'd have to call that notion a speculative 'what-if'.

Military/militia regulation is generally promulgated by the command structure, and does not 'cost extra', unless by this you mean they will have to commission more militia officers and pay them? 'Who get to make the law' has already been established, long ago.

As far as militia existence undermining faith in government, I'd have to say that the government itself is doing a pretty good job of that already, without assistance, by their own actions.

The State secures the welfare of its citizenry by rounding up people who are breaking the law all the time.

Ah, therein lies the rub. Militiamen are not breaking the law, they are supporting it. The essence of the question seems to be whether or not the government should be allowed, yet again, to criminalize currently lawful activity, thus making criminals out of those currently engaged in such activity.

You are masking the fact that these citizen ARMIES are not everyday citizens. Most citizens are not part of a militia.

Ah, but they ARE everyday citizens! Simply because the majority fears engaging in such activity in no way diminishes or enhances the citizen status of those who do. The MAJORITY of the US populace is urban, so what you have said is no different than saying 'rural Americans are not everyday citizens' in an attempt to criminalize rural living.

In the absence of evidence of guilt, an individual is generally held to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Criminalizing militias, besides overturning established law, makes militiamen guilty of a crime by the associations they have chosen, not any illegal activity they have engaged in.

And to the other poster, no where in the Constitution does it secure the right to form a militia. Here is the Second Amendment verbatim:

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 Second Amendment lays out that the right to bear Arms shall not be infringed. Not the right to form a militia. It only touches on the necessity of a militia, but in no way secures that right to its citizenry.

Militias are generally state entities, and there is really very little federal law on the subject. The federal government has commanded the formation of militias, and has reserved the right to federalize those formed in the event of an external threat, but not much else.

Your analysis of the second amendment is pretty close. As I'm sure you are aware, the SCOTUS has held in DC v. Heller that the first part of that amendment, touching upon 'the necessity of a militia' (your words, and they are important) is a preambular clause, setting forth one reason from many possibilities to justify the second part, which is the actual operative clause.

This means that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" implies a right already held, and universally recognized. Otherwise, it couldn't be used as a justification for the right being enumerated. If a non-right is used to justify a right, then when the non-right, the justification, falls, so does the enumerated right.