« Thoughts on originalism | Main | Sharyl Attkisson resigns »
Glenn Reynolds on a well regulated militia
In USA Today.
"Even short of revolutions and coups, the militia had a different character in ordinary law enforcement than professionals possess. If called upon to enforce an unpopular law, or to enforce the law in an oppressive or unpopular way, the militia could drag its feet and fail to perform. (In this sense, the militia was like a jury, which is free to acquit even a guilty defendant if it thinks conviction would be unjust. In fact, Yale Law Professor Akhil Amar has likened the militia to jurors with guns because, like the jury, it was an institution made up of the people, through which the government must act, and one not susceptible to the kinds of corruption besetting professional institutions)."
"But although the militia survives in vestigial form in the statute books, as a functional institution, it no longer exists. For law enforcement, the militia has been replaced by professional police, with SWAT teams, armored vehicles and Nomex coveralls; for military purposes, the militia has been replaced by the National Guard, which despite a thin patina of state control is fundamentally a federal military force."
"But this departure from the system the Framers set up has encouraged more intrusive law enforcement at home, and more military action abroad. So I'll ask you: If a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, then are we insecure? Or unfree? Or both?"
· militia
4 Comments | Leave a comment
The Militia are all persons capable of keeping and bearing Arms in defense of themselves and of the state. That said, even the first Congress began fouling the waters with the Militia Act of 1792(?). In that the Militia was defined as all males between the ages of 17 and 45. Now the Congress was granted power to organize, arm, and set the discipline for the Militia but the Congress was never granted the authority to define the Militia. In fact, IF Congress can define the term Militia then Congress can define all terms in the Constitution and the Constitution is moot. The Militia were already known and defined by standard terms.
While the court has claimed that the national guard are the organized Militia and the rest of us are the unorganized Militia (DOD v Perpich ??), there is no place for such a separation. In the Convention, it was proposed that a select Militia, i.e. the national guard, be established. That proposal was killed a number of times.
The states are required to perform the discipline (training) that Congress specifies and to select the officers.
The Militia can only serve the federal government in three areas: to execute the laws of the Union, to suppress insurrection, and to repel invasions. No more. And in the case of domestic unrest, the feds cannot involve themselves in the state without the request of the legislature of said state or of the executive if the legislature cannot be convened.
So we have another case of the failure of the federal and state governments to adhere to the rules that We the People placed on them. It is truly time to return to a Constitutional system of Militia and require all persons in every state to participate. But then Story in 1833 stated that by that time, the people just didn't want to do that job. And so we end up with a standing army, of which the Framers were in dread, and an oppressed people.
Who is supposed to protect the people of each state from an overbearing fed? We ourselves, for when the government fails to do the job assigned, the job reverts to us. And we are in the pickle we are in because We the People don't have the slightest inkling as to what the limits on the fed are. Our state servants have failed us by not standing up to the fed, taking money that is unconstitutionally appropriated for specific states rather than general needs of the Union. The Courts have usurped authority and corrupted the Constitution. Presidents have acted illegally without fear of reprisal. We the People have re-elected these losers, thieves, and liars over and over.
About Presidents: The Framers discussed allowing Presidents to suspend laws for a temporary period, as is currently being done, but that discussion ended with 10 states to 0 against. And so We the People sit here while our elected servants in the House and Senate fail to provide the legitimate check on overbearing usurpations of power. The Congress is over the President. How do I know? Generally the entity that can fire (impeach) is superior to the entity that can be fired. And the Pres can't fire Congress. Where are we? SO far off the real Constitution that no one knows what it looks like or means.
"But this departure from the system the Framers set up has encouraged more intrusive law enforcement at home, and more military action abroad. So I'll ask you: If a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, then are we insecure? Or unfree? Or both?"
Um, yes and yes.
Florida Gulf Coast Resident. 1636 Family in Massachusetts.. French Indian, Revolutionary War, Civil War, and most in-between then and now.. Appears time is growing short. Would like to know more about rendering services to well regulated ones in my area and offering goods, service and heavy lifting. Standing on feet rather than pleading on knees. Thank you
As I read it the militia are the soldiers of the state in witch they live. Who's purpose now and then is to protect the citizens of said state from an over bearing federal government, and unconstitutional laws both on the federal side as well as the state side. IE The CT groups. It is our duty to protect what the founders invitation even from our own state if necessary. That does include all amendments up to today.