It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Need Militia Members NOW !!.. to fight a foreign war!

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 11:17 PM
The second amendment of the Constitution of the United States...Bill of Rights...
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 tenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States...Bill of Rights...
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.

Do you know where I am going yet?...

Since the President's call of the organized militia, or National Guard, of the several states into the service of the United States on June 18th last, I have frequently represented the military officers made respondents in the numerous habeas corpus proceedings brought on various grounds of alleged invalidity, usually minority, for the release of some member of the forces subjected to the call. I have found among eminent counsel and judges alike a lack of definite and discriminating comprehension, frankly acknowledged, as to what our militia is, and its relation, when called into federal service, to the Army of the United States. Indeed, more than once I was asked from the bench, "What is the militia anyway?" The gist of what I have attempted to say in response to such questions may be of general professional interest, especially in this moment of reawakened interest in our military establishment.

The militia is not a federal army even when employed in federal service. The Army of the United States is exclusively a federal institution, raised, maintained, and governed directly and exclusively by the federal power under the following constitutional grants:

These powers of Congress are plenary and exclusive, and the armies resulting from their exercise are the Armies of the United States. Such armies may be raised as Congress sees fit, by voluntary enlistment or compulsory draft, and they may exist as a regular establishment standing ready and available for service at all times and in all places, or temporarily for more or less definite periods and purposes. The Armies of the United States known to us in the course of our history are the Regular Army, the Volunteer Army, and, as applying to those raised compulsorily, the Drafted Army. The classification is in no sense descriptive or scientific. The Regular Army is the professional, standing establishment, continuously existing in peace and war, and, with reference to the method of obtaining the services of the citizens composing it, is as much a volunteer army as the Volunteer Army itself; the Volunteer Army is the army which Congress habitually raises for time of war to supplement the Regular Army, its existence is limited to the duration of the war, and it is composed of volunteers, hence the designation which would apply with equal appropriateness to the regular establishment; the Drafted Army, composed of all whose services are compelled instead of volunteers. These armies exist solely according to the will of Congress and are available to perform the national will whenever and wherever ordered, without limitation as to place or otherwise. From such army, or armies, the Constitution sharply differentiates the militia.
The militia is not a part of the "land forces" of the United States which Congress may govern and regulate under clause 14, section 8, Article 1, of the Constitution, for special provision is made for the government of such part of it as may be employed in the service of the United States in clause 16 of the same section. Neither is the militia a part of the "land forces" of the United States as the term is used in the Fifth Amendment, which excepts cases arising in such forces from the requirement of grand jury proceedings; for, in addition, the exception is expressly made applicable to the militia, when in actual service, in time of war or public danger. It is not a part of the Army of the United States of which the Constitution makes the President Commander-in-Chief; for the same clause expressly makes him Commander-in-Chief also of "the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States." It is primarily a state and citizen soldiery rather than a national and professional soldiery. It is primarily a state institution. The United States has only a limited control over it for the limited purposes expressed by the Constitution. It cannot be used, therefore, as a national soldiery for the general military purposes. Its federal use as such is limited to home service. The course of legislation and judicial decision has always marked the distinction.

The above describes the National Guard,...the only legal Constitutional Militia.

Now The New National Guard...

This new force created by the National Defense Act of 1916 must be considered in its relation to (1) the militia, and (2) the Federal Army. The term National Guard denominating this new force must not be confused with the same term heretofore commonly adopted by the several states and recognized by the Dick bill.

The militia, thus legislatively defined, was divided by the Dick bill into (1) Organized Militia, that part of the militia arranged in the military organizations and known as the National Guard of the State, Territory or the District of Columbia, or as otherwise denominated by local law; and (2) Reserve Militia, consisting of all militia not so organized. The corresponding terminology of the National Defense Act is (1) the National Guard, and (2) the Unorganized Militia.

But "the National Guard" under the National Defense Act is something more than was the National Guard, or organized militia, of the several states under the Dick bill. Under that bill National Guard, or any other local designation, was simply alter nomen for organized militia; but the National Guard under the recent National Defense Act consists of the organized militia of the several states not in that single, simple status as such, but with an additional federal status required of it whereby it assumes new and onerous obligations to render military service to the Federal Government, the exact scope and extent of which are not easily determined from the language of the act; that is, the National Guard under the Hay bill has the status of the National Guard under the Dick bill, plus the new status of so-called federalization created by the new bill. The National Guard, then, is organized militia placed in a special federal status. The grave question is: Whence came the federal power to impose the new and additional status of the militia of the several states? Is the source of authority to be found in the "power" to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, or in the power "to raise and support armies?" Or is it not to be found at all? Is the National Guard still but the militia of the several states subject only to the limited constitutional use of the federal government, or is it indeed an army of the United States over which the power of Congress is unlimited? The question is fundamental, and though it received scant consideration in Congress, it may be expected to persist, if not to plague. I do no more than suggest the query with its train of constitutional difficulties, whichever way it be looked at. The lawyer disposed to consider it will encounter a host of difficulties in endeavoring to keep the authority exercised by Congress within the scope of its power over the militia as such, and a task almost or quite as strenuous in attempting to reconcile what Congress did with what it can do under its power to raise armies. The act is prickly with doubt, and it is not over-cautious to say that it will be a long time before judicial authority will have shown the way of handling it with assurance.

Now you have to know what I am suggesting here...

Why do we have thousands and thousands of National Guardsmen in Iraq and Afganistan? Why are they on extended duty? Why are they working for the US Government and Military oversea's especially since the war has been declared over a long time ago?

So if the fact is that the National Guard is the only legal militia, and who's purpose is constitutionally defined as you know it's true purpose, why are they in active army duty tied and by command of the commander in chief?

This is from the Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-Seventh Congress, Second Session, February 1982, page 11.
"The militia refers to a concept of a universally armed people, not to any specifically organized unit. When the framers referred to the equivalent of our National Guard, they uniformly used the term 'select militia' and distinguished this from 'militia'".

"Debates over the Constitution constantly referred to organized militia units as a threat to freedom comparable to that of a standing army, and stressed that such organized units did not constitute, and indeed were philosophically opposed to, the concept of a militia. That the National Guard is not the militia referred to in the Second Amendment is even clearer today. Congress has organized the National Guard under its power to raise and support armies and not its power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia. (House Resolution Report No. 141, Seventy-Third Congress, First Session, February 5th, 1933.) This Congress chose to do, in the interest of organizing reserve military units which were not limited in deployment by the strictures of our power over the constitutional militia, which can be called forth only 'to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions'. The modern National Guard was specifically intended to avoid status as the constitutional militia, a distinction recognized by 10 United States Code, Section 311, Subsection (a)."

What, am I kidding ?!!


The United States military has a purpose to protect our interests in defense of and beyond our border.

The Militia had purpose to protect against invasion, and protect the states rights against federal tyranny.

If the Current National Guard is an arm of the Federal Government, than you would think the Constitution provides the states to build and 'regulate' a new Militia.

But no.

Now our military is spread all over the world, so much so that when Iraq was invaded, the National Guard was called up for FEDERAL duty in Iraq.

Now just suppose that the Federal Government becomes deviant and the Militia's services are needed (putting it mildly)?
Will the Militia be available for their duties?

Let us wonder who will protect the US land from invasion?

The Constitutional Militia?

Well guess again,...NATO!

US citizens are now exposed to the potential of unbridled tyranny. Unless a 'currently' illegal militia were to be formed.
US citizens are now prone to invasion. US citizens are now at the mercy of NATO for security.

Yes you could look at this as whimsical nondeterminism.
But in reality any new major attack in America will usher in full government control, as well as a NATO influx of armies, as the President would be required to ask for NATO help prior to him losing his sovereign nation to the aggressors.

My title to this topic, was a bit leading, but after reading this, do you not think the sarcasm was relevent?

a little more related reading....

Does everybody realize that if 911 were to happen now, or if the US were invaded, or the government were to become tyrannical, there is nothing that this part of the diluted, re-defined, and ignored sections of the Constitution can do to help us.

The army designed to be here for the citizens by the states, is no longer doing their job, and have 'given' their services illegally to the Federal Government!

Given illegally?...absalutely, becouse in 1933 the Militia should have reacted to protect the best interests of the citizens and the states.

(and no, please do not send your resume's, as this is mearly a Constitutional discussion arguement ..

[Edited on 24-4-2004 by smirkley]

posted on Apr, 24 2004 @ 11:38 AM
It just occurred to me that this is exactly why the draft WILL be re-instated.

If the US is going to be active in the international arena's, then since the National Guard seems to be the source of manpower acting as a standing army, this tells me that the military must be extremely short of the actual type of personel required to get the job done.

Kids, you dont have long, so get your affairs in order, and be prepared to become soldier's.

posted on Apr, 24 2004 @ 12:11 PM
Great post! It is appearent that much time was devoted to building your case here, and I appreicate the efforts that you spent in writing this piece. I could not agree more with all that you said.

posted on Apr, 24 2004 @ 12:22 PM
I doubt NATO would really be a problem, do you really think they would send thier own troops over here to defend us? I think not.

But, other than that, a very good read and post. Good job. Good surmise.

Another reason for them to atempt to instate an unlawful draft.

posted on Apr, 24 2004 @ 12:30 PM

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
... do you really think they would send thier own troops over here to defend us?

I started this post after wondering for a long time why this is happening.

It occured to me that there may be more than one reason for this being allowed.

The trigger was after reading about the unmarked white plane viewed by civilian witnesses after the plane that was downed in PA.

Unmarked white plane....hmmmm. When most all other aircraft had been grounded during the event. And immediatly in the vicinity of the plane's final destination and demise.

That coupled with the hints of other possible NATO existances within the US, in ATS and a variety of other sources.

[Edited on 24-4-2004 by smirkley]

posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 11:08 PM
Another irony in the present day,....President Bush allegedly joined the Guard to avoid nam as well as to attend Harvard?

Bet he wouldnt do that in today's environment !

posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 11:49 PM
I don't think NATO, maybe a 'coalition of the willing'? I don't want to hijack your thread, I think this is on topic, but what if the blacks took up arms during the decades when life wasn't so good for the blacks, wouldn't they be protected under the 2nd Amendment? The Constitution, like the Bible, was written at a certain time and place. And like the Bible, it's parts have been picked to apply to modern times, the more ludacrious stuff left behind. 'We the People of the United States' meant all white men, not women or minorities. But today we realise that the meaning must change in order for us to become a better country. Sometimes, the meaning of the Constitution changes. King George isn't going to take back his country. Let it go. Great, intelligent thread though, I hope I did it justice!

posted on May, 1 2004 @ 09:43 PM
i never understood the diffrence between the reserves and the national guard. this post helped me understand that there isnt much of a diffrence apperantly.

posted on May, 1 2004 @ 10:28 PM

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Another reason for them to atempt to instate an unlawful draft.

Unlawful draft indeed, their getting straight up desperate for people.. Four days ago I had a National Guard recruiter spend 45 minutes trying to convince me to lie (to a system that utilizes a background check that found things that my state-ran background check didn't find) so he could send me to Iraq to fight terrorists.

Back on the topic of the post--
smirkley, mad props. You did your homework, and this is why a draft will occur. The federal government is using the state militias outside the border and they will need to replenish their stock, so to speak, before long.

posted on May, 1 2004 @ 10:57 PM
Absolutely Brilliant! I have had my suspisions too.
Hmm, us army going to iraq. that's expected.
Hmm, Us Army reserves, that's also expected.
WTF, nat'l guard! Who is going to keep an eye on
internal affairs, the police??? What the president
has done is ludicrus(sp?). Then it hits me, Homeland Security. Now that I think about it, it is a federal
force that is trying to act as a replacement for what the
Nat'l guard is supposed to do. What would happen if he
needs another on the spot force? The draft of course..
Starting to sound like Iraq is not the only plan he has once it's
stablized. Dark times are ahead if the implication is true..
NATO? Ok, probably 'by the book'. I really doubt it though. However, if things go for the worse, then
contacting as many NATO related folks is not too farfetched of an idea. Thank you for the wake up call!
Your research into this is no less than amazing!

[Edited on 1-5-2004 by Crysstaafur]

posted on May, 2 2004 @ 09:51 AM
I have been doing some reading on other's view's on the subject of the 'State's Militia'. The views are far and wide and scope both the left and right.

The American civil war, as many would have you believe, was a focus of human rights, and the end of slavery. President Lincoln capitalized on this and applied this to his platform during his run for office. You may find that this was possibly used as a pro-active issue, where his opponent was fairly complacent on this topic.

Some interesting thoughts,...

And as long as there are gun shows and the anti-government rhetoric that characterizes them, visitors can view one of the grand ironies of American democracy for themselves. As Roy says, "One of the great things about this country is the freedoms we enjoy. Along with those freedoms, you open the door to the extremists. It's ironic that these guys complain about the government and want to bring it down. In most every other country in the world, they'd be dragged out of their beds by their feet at 2 o'clock in the morning."

The Constitution's greatest champions were Federalists who coveted a strong, but limited federal government; its opponents were anti-Federalists, the voice of states' rights dogmatists. President George Washington's administration was Federalist. His appointments to the United States Supreme Court were Federalists. The Federalist Papers brilliantly explain and defend the Constitution, including its federalism feature. In Federalist 51, James Madison elaborates: "In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time each will be controlled by itself." And Thomas Jefferson insisted that state governments were the most trustworthy custodians of civil liberties.

The AntiFederalist Papers

It might be here shown, that the power in the federal legislature, to raise and support armies at pleasure, as well in peace as in war, and their control over the militia, tend not only to a consolidation of the government, but the destruction of liberty.
And if they may do it, it is pretty certain they will; for it will be found that the power retained by individual States, small as it is, will be a clog upon the wheels of the government of the United States; the latter, therefore, will be naturally inclined to remove it out of the way.

The 'New' Militia ...

Assuming these laws are valid, the differences in state law and the wide variety of behavior of individual militia units means that many new militia units are not violating the laws of their state. And finally, as long as the militia mostly talk, there may not be much legal concern about their behavior, even if it is illegal. Prosecutors may not lay charges, especially if they have doubts about local juries convicting. However, if circumstances change, the public mood and hence that of prosecutors can quickly change.
"The only clear and present danger to the government from militia activity is that armed citizens trained in the military arts are extremely frustrating to the goal of total enslavement of the population."

The Fallacy of "Neither Left nor Right"
Left and right have both proved their bankruptcy throughout this century. And neither can lay legitimate claim to ourloyalties. It's way past time that both traditions receivedthe scathing critiques they deserve, so that we can takewhat is best from them and discard what is worthless. Itmay be true that the left has often added far more of valueto the defense of community and international solidaritythan the right has ever been able to conceive. But both left and right have ultimately colluded in their support for the two 'opposing' sides of capitalist development."

Constitution of the Confederate States of America

Is it possible to consider then, that the end of the American Civil war was also the end of the Constitution as it were? Did this bring a time, where the rights of states and their citizens, were now easily 're-written', although change brought forth slowly and during times of internal hardship, as to not bring attention to the changes within?


posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 11:15 PM
Yup, bumping an ancient thread,..

Yup, still very relevent,..

Has anything changed since I made this thread?

Has anything changed at all?

The lines are blurred and now the state's militia IS an arm of the federal army,.. and STILL being "borrowed" for the sake of a "war" that has since been redifined as a "war on terror". A never-ending war on terror being addressed by the very persons that should never have gone outside of our country in the first place.

Yes, I bump this, because I think people should really think a bit about this.

posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 03:50 AM
I've been saying it for a while, "they'll use NATO troops" for the police state actions when it comes down to the problem of getting good ole boys from middle america to kick down the doors of liberals at 2am without a conscience and drag 'em off to a detainment camp to be chipped and labeled enemy combatants. They're creating a vaccum at home, having troops occupied occupying oil countries. If they manage to false flag a broad enough threat, then here comes NATO to "help".

Now, with america's global image slightly tarnished to put it mildly, will the non-american NATO troops hesitate at raiding residences in winchestertonfieldville iowa versus the guardsman from another state? They'd maybe be a bit more inlined to kick around the fat lazy stupid arrogant americans without feeling too bad at the end of the day about it, and basically doing to america what america does to other countries it wants to control.

If the US can get meat robots to torture brown people on a mass scale as they have done in the recent past, what's to say NATO couldn't do it just as effectively and good, if not better? How about using america's tarnished image to build a machine capable of performing the police state actions, hence the blatnat era of arrogance we are living in being designed to piss off the rest of the world.

In america, are the public being led to play the game and act as stupid, greedy, excessive, arrogant low grade meat robots, glued to mass distraction media, movies, music, being herded to the mosquses of capitlaism that the mighty network of wal-marts have become? I can see a day where all roads that are open lead to wal-mart and back to the gated community disguized concentration camps.

How hard is it to seal off the average gated community? Put a few NATO troops on top of the walls, a bit of razor wire, some zipties and duct tape, and you've got an instant concentration camp. Same thing with the condos, apartment blocks, projects, you name it any mass dwelling, it won't take for but a few people getting popped trying to escape before no other joe-six-pack would try. I admit that's a bit drastic but my point is the infrastructure is there, and so wit the right sort of puppetmastering on a global scale, it's a possibility.

Also, i don't know how it is in other NATO countries but there's a lot of people here who have been brainwashed by the ADD inducing sitcom cycle, gangsta rap(NOT HipHop, there is a difference), grand theft auto, glorified violence etc. who are joining the military because i've heard a few people out of basic say it, and i quote, "Because i wanna shoot some Bi!T@heS, YO!" when asked why. Some cops i knew were like that too, they didn't wanna protect and serve, they wanted to rodney king somebody, or shoot a crackhead in the face and get away with it. Does this only happen here? If this is going on outside the US, then the whole abu gharaib(sp?) style outsourced torture thing taking place in the US sounds a bit more plausible, don't you think?

So, when it comes down to it, i'm expecting NATO boots to be stomping on necks of the cowering pacified politically correct masses in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

If i started a milita tomorrow, got 10 friends with guns, and called ourselves the Defenders of Freedom or summat, we'd be nothing more than a terror cell under the hatriot act, right? This menas that if there are militais then they are forced underground, and further into terrorist status. Hello secret prison!

Hopefully enough positive thought and action will bring change before we really enter the dark days and the global extermination of the non-elite is upon us.

posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 02:42 PM
They wont need a draft if they:
1: Get their NAU fully established and use Mexico's army to fight off Americans
2: Start massive foreign recruitment drives with the new loophole: You can join the US military if your not a US citizen, get payed, housed, fed, and then become a citizen afterwords IF YOU LIVE.
A draft has too much potential to backfire on them. However, if they can snag foreigners and get them to fight then they will have little to worry about. There are hundreds of millions upon millions more who have nothing left other than their life and telling them to join the US military and get free food, housing, etc etc etc will hook allot of them. So in that way they need to get those WW2 uncle sam posters up in Africa, Asia, Central America and South America then they will snag millions all from the wrong reasons.
Draft is not likely since they are facing the realistic problem of training people who oppose them how to make bombs and blow up buildings. They need to snag people who can be thrown away and ignored. They already have, however they will probably step it up to the extreme should they have the need.

posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 11:21 PM
Well what the hell.

Since the reservists are being used as I have described above,

... why not corporate America screw them also just as much.

Little help for reservists who lose their jobs
One military survey found that as many as 22 percent of reservists have had trouble getting their job back as promised, and that most never file a complaint with the government.

One reason, some reservists say, the system has a reputation of being ineffective, almost toothless.

"I think there is a real problem with enforcing the law," says Sam Wright, a former attorney with the Department of Labor.

In 2005, investigators with the Government Accountability Office found that:

complaints get lost in bureacracy;
agencies don't share information;
and response time is slow.

And the most outrageous thing I read?!...

"There's not a problem here," says ESGR's Bob Hollingsworth. "What I see is some people don't call us and give us an opportunity to support them."

Yes,... suuuure.

That is no better than a "kinder gentler IRS" imo.

Yes,.. make a weekend warrior full-time army overseas fighting a "war", and when he finally does get to come back to the states and their families,... look the other way when his employer cans him and just shrug your shoulders and say, "we are trying to help", with an innocence of a problem unobserved.

Once again....



[edit on 16-11-2006 by smirkley]

top topics


log in