What The Constitution Explicitly Says About Militias

[Cigar]

Article I, Section 8: Congress shall have the power:

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

To provide and maintain a Navy;

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

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;

[Peter1469]

That is what the Constitution says about funding militias with federal money.

[Chris]

Simple document, very short, but deserves careful reading.

You also forgot it says 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..

[RollingWave]

From an originalist POV, it is worth remembering that there was a pretty hard consent among the FFs against a standing army, which was most likely the basis of their thinking on militia, that the army should be decentralized and based very much on the population.

The problem is, WW2 and the cold war kinda forced that to go out the window (though it was trending that way already since the ACW), today the US standing army is the most heavily funded and powerful machine in the world, and have more presence abroad then everyone else combined, that is probably against the FF's vision by a pretty large shot. of course they probably also didn't fully expect the US to be the world's most powerful nation at that point either but still...

From an idealistic pov, we really should disband the national guard, greatly reduce the army (the air force although technically belonging to the army, was obviously beyond the FF's forsight at that point, so for simplicity sake we should lump it with the Navy, afterall it's not really possible to invade a country with airforce alone either.), and return the function of state militia, at this point only around half the states even have a official militia, and quite a few of those are either purely ceremonial, or of the coast guard variety.

The original militia act by the FFs required all white adult male with property to serve with their own arms, obviously that need to be adjusted for the time in current terms that probably means all adults need to serve in some capacity, though maybe not entirely military in function.

I doubt that's possible, but its' a thought. it's going to be in a world of problem in terms of distribution ( i guess population is the main consideration.) , and of course, if the state can decline to put their troops into foreign wars . (this is much more tricky, I'd guess it should be tied with how their state senator congress voted in terms of the war, aka you can't have your legislator vote yes to go to war then decline to send men. you have to be responsible for that decision.)

[Peter1469]

Simple document, very short, but deserves careful reading.

You also forgot it says 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 actually where the Constitution discusses militias as an institution.

What Cigar cited to was the authority for the federal government to fund the militias.

He just got confused between the two sections.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Cigar, we have a right to guns. You cannot take that away no matter how much you want to do so.

[Peter1469]

From an originalist POV, it is worth remembering that there was a pretty hard consent among the FFs against a standing army, which was most likely the basis of their thinking on militia, that the army should be decentralized and based very much on the population.

The problem is, WW2 and the cold war kinda forced that to go out the window (though it was trending that way already since the ACW), today the US standing army is the most heavily funded and powerful machine in the world, and have more presence abroad then everyone else combined, that is probably against the FF's vision by a pretty large shot. of course they probably also didn't fully expect the US to be the world's most powerful nation at that point either but still...

From an idealistic pov, we really should disband the national guard, greatly reduce the army (the air force although technically belonging to the army, was obviously beyond the FF's forsight at that point, so for simplicity sake we should lump it with the Navy, afterall it's not really possible to invade a country with airforce alone either.), and return the function of state militia, at this point only around half the states even have a official militia, and quite a few of those are either purely ceremonial, or of the coast guard variety.

The original militia act by the FFs required all white adult male with property to serve with their own arms, obviously that need to be adjusted for the time in current terms that probably means all adults need to serve in some capacity, though maybe not entirely military in function.

I doubt that's possible, but its' a thought. it's going to be in a world of problem in terms of distribution ( i guess population is the main consideration.) , and of course, if the state can decline to put their troops into foreign wars . (this is much more tricky, I'd guess it should be tied with how their state senator congress voted in terms of the war, aka you can't have your legislator vote yes to go to war then decline to send men. you have to be responsible for that decision.)

The federal armed forces are not the militia.

The National Guard is not the militia.

Basically the real militia has been forgotten. But we have not attempted to amend the constitution to redefine our relationship with defense and the government. I would take that to mean, that we still have the right to muster as a militia to defend the US against enemies foreign or domestic. Outside of actions taken by federal troops and the National Guard.

[Chloe]

The federal armed forces are not the militia.

The National Guard is not the militia.

Basically the real militia has been forgotten. But we have not attempted to amend the constitution to redefine our relationship with defense and the government. I would take that to mean, that we still have the right to muster as a militia to defend the US against enemies foreign or domestic. Outside of actions taken by federal troops and the National Guard.

Short of a real invasion by another country of our country I'd probably be a little scared of citizen militias roaming the streets.

[roadmaster]

Let him get up his army while we get ours. I like the slogan the FN has, idle no more.

[RollingWave]

The federal armed forces are not the militia.

The National Guard is not the militia.

Basically the real militia has been forgotten. But we have not attempted to amend the constitution to redefine our relationship with defense and the government. I would take that to mean, that we still have the right to muster as a militia to defend the US against enemies foreign or domestic. Outside of actions taken by federal troops and the National Guard.

Probably, but the institution and legal frame work to do that now is lacking. and quite frankly, if you had a time machine and told the FFs that the USA would have the most powerful all professional full time standing army in the world controlled by the Federal government. they would probably be horrified.

[Peter1469]

Short of a real invasion by another country of our country I'd probably be a little scared of citizen militias roaming the streets.

In modern times I think that you are safe.

Did you ever see Red Dawn (not the new gay version)?

[Chloe]

In modern times I think that you are safe.

Did you ever see Red Dawn (not the new gay version)?

Is that the movie that came out a few months ago?

[Peter1469]

Probably, but the institution and legal frame work to do that now is lacking. and quite frankly, if you had a time machine and told the FFs that the USA would have the most powerful all professional full time standing army in the world controlled by the Federal government. they would probably be horrified.

Maybe. Much of the FF's fear of a standing army was because they were a weak government and feared coups or invasions. Explain the concept of world superpower to the FFs. That would be interesting.

I think these guys were more rational and practicle, than dogmatic.

[Chloe]

Sorry I didn't know that there was another version

[RollingWave]

Maybe. Much of the FF's fear of a standing army was because they were a weak government and feared coups or invasions. Explain the concept of world superpower to the FFs. That would be interesting.

I think these guys were more rational and practicle, than dogmatic.

Coup is obviously one major fear for all nations throughout the times, though the FF's approach also suggest that they also fear the other way around, a powerful fed dominating the states and because the army is in their hand the states can do nothing.

That is of course... actually the reality of today's USA though. although the army factor is not really as big as feared to be in that regard.

Because in fear of coup there are many approach, in the later Chinese dynasty what generally happened was to ban military men from politics and strictly seperate finance and logistic from the actual military (fairly common practices in modern day states). also that they usually tried to keep fewer troops in far away borders to reduce the chance of a powerful general setting himself up far from the capital region that the dynasty can't do anything about quickly.

[Chris]

That is actually where the Constitution discusses militias as an institution.

What Cigar cited to was the authority for the federal government to fund the militias.

He just got confused between the two sections.

Yep, he seems to have missed "To provide for".

[Chris]

From an originalist POV, it is worth remembering that there was a pretty hard consent among the FFs against a standing army, which was most likely the basis of their thinking on militia, that the army should be decentralized and based very much on the population.

The problem is, WW2 and the cold war kinda forced that to go out the window (though it was trending that way already since the ACW), today the US standing army is the most heavily funded and powerful machine in the world, and have more presence abroad then everyone else combined, that is probably against the FF's vision by a pretty large shot. of course they probably also didn't fully expect the US to be the world's most powerful nation at that point either but still...

From an idealistic pov, we really should disband the national guard, greatly reduce the army (the air force although technically belonging to the army, was obviously beyond the FF's forsight at that point, so for simplicity sake we should lump it with the Navy, afterall it's not really possible to invade a country with airforce alone either.), and return the function of state militia, at this point only around half the states even have a official militia, and quite a few of those are either purely ceremonial, or of the coast guard variety.

The original militia act by the FFs required all white adult male with property to serve with their own arms, obviously that need to be adjusted for the time in current terms that probably means all adults need to serve in some capacity, though maybe not entirely military in function.

I doubt that's possible, but its' a thought. it's going to be in a world of problem in terms of distribution ( i guess population is the main consideration.) , and of course, if the state can decline to put their troops into foreign wars . (this is much more tricky, I'd guess it should be tied with how their state senator congress voted in terms of the war, aka you can't have your legislator vote yes to go to war then decline to send men. you have to be responsible for that decision.)

Agree with the argument and the conclusion. Reduce the military force capable of defending the nation, stop policing the world. The likelihood of it happening is slim. It's too much a part of crony capitalism.

[Peter1469]

Yep, he seems to have missed "To provide for".

It was Art 1, sec. 8- the funding authority for Congress.

[Chris]

Sorry I didn't know that there was another version

The 1984 version: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087985/

[RollingWave]

Red Dawn is something that most of us who experience through the cold war era would be more familiar with, those born after the later 80s probably would have a hard time though

[RollingWave]

Agree with the argument and the conclusion. Reduce the military force capable of defending the nation, stop policing the world. The likelihood of it happening is slim. It's too much a part of crony capitalism.

possibly, though speaking of the founding fathers and actions aboard, it is worth remembering that the one major act the US had to deal with in it's early days with a foreign country was the Corsair states in Algeria, the US ended up paying a tribute that amounted to something like 20% of their federal revenue for something like 20 years. the US really don't spend 20% of their fed income today on foreign bases and operation I think , granted, the Fed revenue in the 18th C was small.

I kinda doubt the US people can generally accept something like that today though.

[Mainecoons]

Although the overall premise of Red Dawn was pretty shaky IMO, it was based on what I think is a reality strategically. Recently, I read a piece where the author contended that in the event of an insurrection against an increasingly oppressive Federal government, that government would not be able to secure the countryside. Like Vietnam, it would hunker down in a few major cities and make futile forays for the main purpose of killing and intimidating.

The Russian invaders in this movie basically followed that strategy.

The U.S. is in far greater danger from its own government than it is or ever was from a foreign invader.

[Chris]

Red Dawn is something that most of us who experience through the cold war era would be more familiar with, those born after the later 80s probably would have a hard time though

Remember the drills, hiding under your desk. Scary stuff.

[bladimz]

Yeah. Under the desk. Or in the halls, backs against the walls (those walls were thick cement walls). In high school, there was a huge underground bunker built when the school was built in the late 50's/early 60's.

Our biggest threat is not our government. Our biggest threat is us. Our blind self-serving attitude. We tend to tell ourselves that we are the greatest country in the world. We act (and believe) like there is no culture better than our culture. We think that we are the bright and shining star; that all other countries should use America as a guide. How can we think all of these things, yet live in fear our government's potential actions against it's own people?

It's either one or the other. Can't have it both ways.

[nic34]

Although the overall premise of Red Dawn was pretty shaky IMO, it was based on what I think is a reality strategically. Recently, I read a piece where the author contended that in the event of an insurrection against an increasingly oppressive Federal government, that government would not be able to secure the countryside. Like Vietnam, it would hunker down in a few major cities and make futile forays for the main purpose of killing and intimidating.


The situation in the US is completely different, and it has to do with our affluence. Virtually everyone in VN were poor and had nothing to lose.

Things have to become much worse before anything like a red dawn insurrection happens ....

[bladimz]

Then there are those who already have one foot in their bunker and a hand or two on their guns just waiting for their chance to over throw the current administration ("regime" they like to say). They're practically drooling.

[Mainecoons]

The situation in the US is completely different, and it has to do with our affluence. Virtually everyone in VN were poor and had nothing to lose.

Things have to become much worse before anything like a red dawn insurrection happens ....

You'll be the last to know since you think what the current regime is doing is so good for the country. :rofl:

[Bigred1cav]

Of Arms and the Law: Is the National Guard the "militia?" (http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/04/is_the_national.php)http://thepoliticalforums.com/chrome-extension://jmfkcklnlgedgbglfkkgedjfmejoahla/content/Icons/unknown.gifarmsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/04/is_the_national.php
Apr 2, 2005 – 10 U.S.C. §311 dates from the Dick Act of 1903, which repealed theMilitia Law of 1792, and first wrote the term "National Guard" into law.

[Peter1469]

The National Guard are essentially employees of the state. That is not the militia. The militia is the people.

[nic34]

Better tell the state employees they are not "the people"....

[Mainecoons]

Oh brother. . . .

[Chris]

Of Arms and the Law: Is the National Guard the "militia?" (http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/04/is_the_national.php)http://thepoliticalforums.com/chrome-extension://jmfkcklnlgedgbglfkkgedjfmejoahla/content/Icons/unknown.gifarmsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/04/is_the_national.php
Apr 2, 2005 – 10 U.S.C. §311 dates from the Dick Act of 1903, which repealed theMilitia Law of 1792, and first wrote the term "National Guard" into law.

Irrelevant, the individual right to keep and bear arms is not predicated on the militia.

[Bigred1cav]

10 U.S.C. §311 dates from the Dick Act of 1903, which repealed the Militia Law of 1792, and first wrote the term "National Guard" into law. The Guard as we now know it (dual enlistment: members of State National Guard units required to enlist in the U.S. Reserves) dates from the Army Act of 1940. (Why dual enlistment? In 1912 the Attorney General ruled that NG units could not be sent outside the US, because they were part of (note "part of") the militia, and the Constitution allows the militia to be called up only for domestic purposes -- to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, and execute the laws of the Union. As a result in WWI Guard units were broken up and members drafted into regular Army units as individuals, an inefficient operation and one displeasing to the Guard).

[Chris]

10 U.S.C. §311 dates from the Dick Act of 1903, which repealed the Militia Law of 1792, and first wrote the term "National Guard" into law. The Guard as we now know it (dual enlistment: members of State National Guard units required to enlist in the U.S. Reserves) dates from the Army Act of 1940. (Why dual enlistment? In 1912 the Attorney General ruled that NG units could not be sent outside the US, because they were part of (note "part of") the militia, and the Constitution allows the militia to be called up only for domestic purposes -- to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, and execute the laws of the Union. As a result in WWI Guard units were broken up and members drafted into regular Army units as individuals, an inefficient operation and one displeasing to the Guard).

Repeating irrelevancies.

[Bigred1cav]

5. WORTHLESSNESS OF THE MILITIA. To show its lack of value as a military asset the following state- ments are quoted from the writings of George Washington: (A W. C. Serial 25, Part I, p. 42) Certain I am that it would be cheaper to keep 50,000 or 100,000 in constant pay than to depend upon one half the number and supply the other half occasionally by militia. The time the latter are in pay before and after they are in camp, assembling and marching, the waste of ammunition, the consumption of stores which * * * they must be furnished with or sent home, added to the other inci- dental expenses consequent upon their coming and conduct in camp, surpass all idea and destroy every kind of regularity and economy which you could establish among fixed and settled troops and will in my opinion prove, if the scheme is adhered to, the ruin of our cause * * *. For if I was called upon to declare upon oath whether the militia have been more serviceable or hurtful, I should subscribe to the latter * * *. (A. W. G. Serial 25, Part I, p. 43) That an annual army raised on the spur of the occasion, besides being unqualified for the end designed, is * * * ten times more expensive * * *. (A. W. C. Serial 25, Part I, p. 44) The only things that counted for efficiency were length of service and military experience of the officers. The above quotations are just as true to-day as they were nearly 140 years ago. 6. VOLUNTEER ACT OF 1898 AND LATER MILITIA ACTS. The volunteer act of 1898 was based on the Constitution. It pro- vided for a force that could be used at home or abroad and for gen- eral military purposes, and did not attempt to use a force that the Constitution restricted to three specific purposes. Legislation since then has gone backward and makes the attempt to use what the ex- perience of 140 years has shown to be not a dependable force on account of constitutional limitations. The latest militia laws are those of January 21, 1903, May 27, 1908, April 21, 1910, and April 25, 1914 (volunteer law). These laws do not correct known defects in the militia, even those that, the Constitution not preventing, might be corrected.
http://archive.org/stream/militiaasorganiz00unitrich/militiaasorganiz00unitrich_djvu.txt

[Chris]

Still irrelevant to the right to keep and bear arms.

[Ivan88]

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.

A free state is a state controlled by the free American People who "never consented to be governed."

An unfree state is one controlled by those hostile to the Christian Israel American Man, for example, the Israelis.

The security of the free state, is the security of the American Man to be king in his house and over his public servants.

The militia is cops, army, and other armed governedmental persons.

The American Man is supposed to regulate his public servants and militia.

In Massachusetts there were the Shay Regulators who sought to regulate both the militia and the public servants who were in rebellion.
But Sam Adams and others raised a foreign army to attack Massachusetts to kill the regulators and re-establish the rebellious officials and the corrupt oppressive commercial powers over the people of Massachusetts.
http://cdn.dipity.com/uploads/events/cb7aa940764eec1672dbb5bcfe833f48_1M.png