General Categories > General Firearm Discussion

2nd A defense includes the Militia of the several States

(1/2) > >>

Francis:
Get out those dusty copies of the Constitution and look at this! :-X
I know this is uncomfortable for some, but watching a steady onslaught of attacks on the right of gun owners, and the distortion of this right into a privilege granted by state, I think the struggle to maintain gun ownership will be lost unless the entire Second A. is defended -- and we remember what we forgot we read in high school.

There are some four references to the Militia of the several States in the U. S. Constitution.  They demonstrate a foundation that "regulated" militias held in our country's early years (Articles 1, 2 and 2nd Am.).  Madison in Federalist paper #46 explains in detail how the State militias will defend our country in the strongest possible way to all threats.  Using the m-word above-board and out-in-the-open, working with senators to re-establish the State Militia in order to resume its unique role (separate from the national guard), might be the next step for legislation efforts.

NE Bull:
Wow! Someone referencing the Federalist Papers to better understand the Founding Fathers intent in the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights! What a novel idea!
Personally, I think it should be in law that, at the least, the Judicial System should have to do so before ruling on the constitutionality of a law.



Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2

Sandhillian:

--- Quote from: Francis on November 30, 2015, 09:05:00 PM ---Using the m-word above-board and out-in-the-open, working with senators to re-establish the State Militia in order to resume its unique role (separate from the national guard), might be the next step for legislation efforts.
--- End quote ---

I'm assuming this would be something like the Texas State Guard?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_State_Guard

depserv:
The problem is, it doesn't matter what the law says, and it doesn't matter what those who formed our government wrote to clarify the meanings of their words, when the law they wrote is administered and interpreted today by those whose purpose is to corrupt the law.  The problem is not any lack of understanding of its meaning; it's a lack of respect for it. 

That problem comes from what I like to refer to as liberalism being imposed on America as a de facto official state religion, to the point that the doctrines of liberalism override the Constitution.  When you look at what the federal government is doing these days, from so-called social justice to social engineering to wealth redistribution to multiculturalism to speech and behavior codes imposed under the doctrines of political correctness, and look at the liberal indoctrination in the government schools, you see that the basis of most law today is liberalism, not the Constitution, and in fact much of it is in direct violation of the Constitution.  There's plenty of evidence proving what the Constitution really means, but it doesn't matter what it means when those in power have determined that they and their ideology are above the law.  It's just too easy to misinterpret words when masses of voters have no interest in their true meaning.

I'd like to see a Constitutional Amendment that says this: Interpretation of the Constitution shall be based in the original intent of its authors.  Any judge basing his interpretation on any other criteria shall be removed from office, shall never again be allowed to hold any office of public trust, and shall serve not less than ten years in a federal prison.  That seems like a good idea, except that how would it be enforced?  Maybe a Super Supreme Court to oversee the Supreme Court?  And then maybe a Super Ultra Extreme High Court to oversee them?  Ultimately it doesn't matter what kind of mechanisms we set up: as long as corrupt leaders keep being elected, they will find ways to corrupt our law, and too few among us are willing to do anything about it.  If there is no working enforcement mechanism, there is no law, at least in a practical sense.

John Adams warned us about this when he made this statement:

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." (John Adams is a signer of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and our second President.)

One solution might be to repeal the 17th Amendment, and go back to the original Federalist practice of having senators appointed by the states instead of being elected.  The Senate has to approve of the President's appointments, and once that body was made a political body it naturally followed that it's approvals would be based in the prevailing ideology of the body, so ultimately the High Court would be politicized, as it is now.  Once that became the case, America went from a Constitutional republic to a plain republic, where our elected leaders can do whatever they want, because those leaders will make sure that the Court is as lawless as they are.

That all having been said, I'm all for making reference to the militia and its importance to the maintenance of freedom, and I'd like to see the militia put to greater use.  I just don't know if it'll do any good to explain the law to those who have no use for it; it's like explaining the immorality of stealing to a professional thief.       

Francis:
Yes, Sandhillian, like the Texas State Guard as I just read of it.  Thanks for the quick link to its history.

The concern is to make sure the original intent, of dual sovereignty of each of the states and the national government, is maintained, especially in the leadership roles reserved to the states.  The Congress and executive departments have limited roles regarding the state militias based on the restraints written into the first two Articles by the framers (oh yes, that's what "federalism" originally meant).

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page