It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
1) If Congress is to provide arms for the militia (or militias), then why is that Second Amendment exists at all as it would seem that it is up to the individual to procure, keep and bare arms?
2) If the Congress is control of the militia, why exactly is the President in charge of the use, placement and movement of all armed forces? Would that not also imply that the President could also order a militia to deploy on a target or protect an area of his choosing?
3) If the People are indeed ultimately in charge of the country, as established in the preamble. Could not these People also decide that a body (or all bodies) of the government have suddenly abandoned their limitations as established by the Constitution and act according by verbally demanding a recall of part or all of the current representation? Could they also determine that armed force my be necessary to accomplish this?
4) If the People were to decide to overthrow the seated government and succeed to do so by force of arms, is it still going to be called treason by the replacement even if the exact current Constitution is used by the new representation of the People?
5) If an enemy of the US is an organization or group that seeks to remove, alter or restrict the provisions and rights guaranteed and protected by the Constitution, would not a federal government that seeks to conduct themselves outside the limitations and confines of Constitution also be considered a domestic enemy?
If so, and since such a group would not call forth for its own destruction, would it not fall upon the People themselves to make such a determination and act upon it, by armed force as necessary, in oder for the Constitutional limited federal government was restored?
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Originally posted by SWCCFAN
...
Forced government healthcare taxes.
...
Thoughts?
Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
Edit: It should be noted also that if the government of the United States ever does become illegitimate I would also volunteer and fight just as hard against them in order to restore the Republic as well.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
I think what really needs to happen is that states need to secede from the union. We need to have free states that are independent from federal control in order to create a state of competition in taxation and regulation.
[edit on 20-8-2010 by mnemeth1]
Originally posted by bozzchem
Originally posted by mnemeth1
I think what really needs to happen is that states need to secede from the union. We need to have free states that are independent from federal control in order to create a state of competition in taxation and regulation.
[edit on 20-8-2010 by mnemeth1]
I couldn't agree with your post more. Unfortunately some of us live in states whose Constitutions specifically state that secession is not an option. It would require changing the state Constitution to allow for secession.
The second Amendment exists to limit the federal government from writing laws against the kinds of weapons an individual can have. The reason that it differentiates between the Militias and the people is the roll the Militia is supposed to play in the defense of this nation.
Today, the Militia according to the government is the National Guard, although I disagree with the concept of a National Guard. I feel personally that the States individually should raise their own Militias.
§ 04 Bearing arms; standing armies; military powers (1851)
The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.
In my opinion I feel that it's an incorrect use of the powers of the presidency to order the National Guard/Militia to do anything. I feel that it is up to State governors to order Militia to action.
They in fact have the opportunity to do just that in every election, they have the opportunity to recall members of congress they feel aren't preforming their duty, and every 4 years they have the opportunity to select a President that they feel is the right choice to lead this country. Individually States also have remedies for the potential recall of Senators or Representatives that they feel have compromised the will of the citizens of the state.
As far as armed force to overthrow the government, that is always a possibility, I personally don't see an instance where this is a good idea, especially if the majority of the nation is against such an idea. I feel that if a group of people want the violent overthrow of the constitutionally elected government their intentions are automatically suspect. A minority of people wanting the violent overthrow of the federal government in my opinion have no intention of freedom but to forcibly instill a version of fascism onto the people against their will.
The founding fathers were in fact called Traitors to the crown. In reality they did commit an act of treason against the crown, however, to the winners go the spoils, the reason that the signers of the declaration of independence were not hanged was because America won the war of Independence.
So, if for some reason a rebellion occurred today, and those rebels won the war, they would of course be committing treason, however, like the war of independence, that treason charge would never be acted upon because to the winners go the spoils. Therefore, by that definition, they would not be traitors, but patriots, especially if the rebellion was a populist one, and had the support of the people.
However, again, I would be highly suspect of a group who wishes to overthrow the constitutionally elected government. I would question their motives, what goals they wished for the people and how they planned to govern. After all, it was under this exact scenario that Cesar became emperor of Rome.
No, the organization or group that does this is the domestic enemy, and the co-conspirators in our federal government would be traitors to the Constitution.
There is a non violent way to handle this, if the corruption is so widespread as to affect the entirety of the legislative branch, the legislation of the states have the authority to assemble under a continental congress, as outlined in Article V of the United States Constitution
I appreciate the opportunity to debate this civilly with you, I have missed the decorum of the debate forum. I hope I was able to adequately address your points.
I think you missed my point just a bit here. If article states that Congress is to provide arms for the militia, then why would the Second spell it out a little differently, that individuals can keep and bare arm arms as part of a militia (or any other other sort of force). It would seem to imply that the individual has some sort of responsibility to their own safety and security. If we look at the Ohio Constitution and their interpretation of the Bill of Rights.
Then I must question as to what your stance on Arizona's new illegal immigrant law is. Does the state of Arizona have a right to form a militia with the express purpose of guarding their borders and interior from those here illegally since the Federal Government have declined to do so for them as provided guarantee under Article 4?
Or to phrase the same question in another way, prior to the 13th Amendment could a state legally refuse to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act and actually give armed sanctuary to runaway slaves? Or more specifically, could an individual stand on the grounds that it is both immoral and reprehensible that the government would define a human being as not only just 3/5 of a person but as property as well?
I have a very hard time accepting a person that is elected under false pretenses as "Constitutionally Elected". Failure to uphold and outright circumventing the Constitutional processes while in office is most assuredly unconstitutional under article 6. Failure of the particular body (House or Senate) to take action against those members that violate the Constitution is not overly convincing either.
Mostly because of the fact that American History has shown that the US Government can and will use armed force against the People. You may wish to take the time to research the following events.
Kent State Massacre
Battle of Blair Mountain
Little Rock Nine (actually a positive use of Federal Power over a State, but yeah there was armed force used)
The Whiskey Rebellion (noteworthy because it was the impetus for the ending of the Articles of Confederation
and the implementation of the US Constitution)
The Trail of Tears (might as well just say the whole policy on all Indians in the US but this is good single example)
And what about that little thing that happened in the early 1860's, where the Constitution was so flung so far that in came back with a missing Amendment?
Actually the technical aspect is that Ohio did indeed ratify the original 13th Amendment, however Ohio (despite every history book stating 1803 admission to the Union) was not finalized until 1953. Although that finalization did accept Ohio's admission as Mach 1, 1803.
Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
I'm in the UK media and I still think there are so many strategic and tactical holes in the US civilian militia's plans.
The guy in the story can kill a man with a pen, that's nice, a lot of good it will do to him if a Hellfire missile is fired at his head from a mile up.
You do know that the US Military deliberately trains the enlisted to not be able to pose a threat to the Federal Government after their service right? It's all good and fun to play Rambo against infantry and armored formations until the Air Force or Navy shows up.
The United States Military can escalate force far and above what the civilians ever will be able to do. Indeed the US DOD can out gun every other force on the planet.
Once an insurrection actually begins, it will be Reapers and Spectres that disarm the insurgents not MPs.
The ballot box is a much lest futile method of changing things in your country, but that would of course mean having to believe that your fellow citizen is your equal in government.
About Treason: It is defined as giving aid or confort to the enemy.
YOU LIE!
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Article III Section 3
Levying war against the United States Government by American citizens is treason.
Especially because that constitutionally elected government is in charge of the militias and is tasked with:
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;
Article I Section 8
So, if militias rise up against the constitutionally elected government of these United States they are traitors. Militias are constitutional because they are to be there for the defense of these United States, not the military takeover of the Union.
Obviously voting is not working