The Militia Proposal

[CorvusRexus]

Break up of the United States..you know..one of your folks, Bri.

Quite the contrary. The reunification of the United States would be the end game.

No it would not.

Yes it would. It dissolves the Militias with the intent of overthrowing the Federal Gov't and then forces them under the State's eye. Also, the Federal Gov't is beneficial to the country, so why would I think of an idea and post it that has the intent of breaking up the US?

 

[OKTexas]

Point to where the constitution says that?

Because I can point to the EXACT opposite.



Your turn.

Find the verbiage that supports your contention.

Go

Perpich v. DOD

Congress has provided by statute that, in addition to its National Guard, a State may provide and maintain at its own expense a defense force that is exempt from being drafted into the Armed Forces of the United States. See 32 U.S.C. § 109(c). As long as that provision remains in effect, there is no basis for an argument that the federal statutory scheme deprives Minnesota of any constitutional entitlement to a separate militia of its own. [Footnote 25]
Page 496 U. S. 353

Perpich v. DOD - 496 U.S. 334 (1990) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Case law, buddy.

Not the Constitution.

Hey dip, you posted this:

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;

Now tell the class how the case law is not in accordance with the Constitution. I'm sure you being a great Constitutional scholar you will have not problem exactly that.

 

[Sallow]

Quite the contrary. The reunification of the United States would be the end game.

No it would not.

Yes it would. It dissolves the Militias with the intent of overthrowing the Federal Gov't and then forces them under the State's eye. Also, the Federal Gov't is beneficial to the country, so why would I think of an idea and post it that has the intent of breaking up the US?

Yeah..overthrowing the Federal Government would unite the nation.

What a ******* moronic post.

 

[Sallow]

Perpich v. DOD

Congress has provided by statute that, in addition to its National Guard, a State may provide and maintain at its own expense a defense force that is exempt from being drafted into the Armed Forces of the United States. See 32 U.S.C. § 109(c). As long as that provision remains in effect, there is no basis for an argument that the federal statutory scheme deprives Minnesota of any constitutional entitlement to a separate militia of its own. [Footnote 25]
Page 496 U. S. 353

Perpich v. DOD - 496 U.S. 334 (1990) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Case law, buddy.

Not the Constitution.

Hey dip, you posted this:

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;

Now tell the class how the case law is not in accordance with the Constitution. I'm sure you being a great Constitutional scholar you will have not problem exactly that.

addition to its National Guard, a State may provide and maintain at its own expense a defense force that is exempt from being drafted into the Armed Forces of the United States.

That part.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

1. Allow those with felonies to join with waivers, if time served is honorable allow past conviction file to be hidden or suppressed.

This would be good, especially for the minor felonies. I feel bad for people who have their entire lives and careers ruined by such trivial things.

 

[The Professor]

Point to where the constitution says that?

Because I can point to the EXACT opposite.



Your turn.

Find the verbiage that supports your contention.

Go

Perpich v. DOD

Congress has provided by statute that, in addition to its National Guard, a State may provide and maintain at its own expense a defense force that is exempt from being drafted into the Armed Forces of the United States. See 32 U.S.C. § 109(c). As long as that provision remains in effect, there is no basis for an argument that the federal statutory scheme deprives Minnesota of any constitutional entitlement to a separate militia of its own. [Footnote 25]
Page 496 U. S. 353

Perpich v. DOD - 496 U.S. 334 (1990) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Case law, buddy.

Not the Constitution.

I disagree.

When it comes to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) their case law defines the Constitution. Your interpretation of the Document is insignificant as is mine. The Constitution means exactly what the SCOTUS says it means, no more and no less. In other words, their case law IS the Constitution

For example, I can tell you that there is nothing in the Constitution that remotely addresses the issue of abortion. So the first question is: Does a woman have a Constitutional right to an abortion? The answer is obviously yes. The next question is: How could a woman have a Constitutional right to an abortion when the Document is silent regarding the matter? The answer is Roe versus Wade … case law.

Actually, the case law which gave a woman the right to an abortion was based upon a right of privacy which was also created by case law. There is no mention of a right to privacy in the Constitution, and the SCOTUS said as much. The Court basically opined that although there was no language specific to a right to privacy, there was “penumbra” effect” of the articulated rights which included an unspoken right of privacy. The SCOTUS created a right to privacy even though no such provision was articulated in the Constitution. Here's the case:

Griswold vs Connecticut

I have a doctorate in law and have read the Constitution countless times. I know what it says and does not say. I also know that the words in the Constitution are just that – words. Those words have no meaning until the SCOTUS defines them .... by case law.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Point to where the constitution says that?

Because I can point to the EXACT opposite.



Your turn.

Find the verbiage that supports your contention.

Go

Perpich v. DOD

Congress has provided by statute that, in addition to its National Guard, a State may provide and maintain at its own expense a defense force that is exempt from being drafted into the Armed Forces of the United States. See 32 U.S.C. § 109(c). As long as that provision remains in effect, there is no basis for an argument that the federal statutory scheme deprives Minnesota of any constitutional entitlement to a separate militia of its own. [Footnote 25]
Page 496 U. S. 353

Perpich v. DOD - 496 U.S. 334 (1990) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Case law, buddy.

Not the Constitution.

sorry pal

simply i am right and you are wrong

perpich vs dod is the law of the land

 

[OKTexas]

Case law, buddy.

Not the Constitution.

Hey dip, you posted this:

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;

Now tell the class how the case law is not in accordance with the Constitution. I'm sure you being a great Constitutional scholar you will have not problem exactly that.

addition to its National Guard, a State may provide and maintain at its own expense a defense force that is exempt from being drafted into the Armed Forces of the United States.

That part.

That is prescribed by congress, and the constitution gives them the latitude to do it, so your problem is what, the congress is following the Constitution?

 

[Erand7899]

For a group of people with an ideology that hates the government forcing people or business to do stuff......you sure propose a lot of forcing of people and business to do stuff.

One man's opinions, right or wrong, do not make a group of people or an ideology. And, when you state a claim about hating government forcing people to do stuff, you should indicate what government you are talking about. That is, of course, if you actually recognize that there is government other than the federal government.

 

[Missourian]

Personally, I'm not a big proponent of requiring.

And I don't see the point of this.

Heller settled this question once and for all.

The Second Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. Period. End of Discussion.

 

[CorvusRexus]

No it would not.

Yes it would. It dissolves the Militias with the intent of overthrowing the Federal Gov't and then forces them under the State's eye. Also, the Federal Gov't is beneficial to the country, so why would I think of an idea and post it that has the intent of breaking up the US?

Yeah..overthrowing the Federal Government would unite the nation.

What a ******* moronic post.

How does proposing each State actually use the Militia granted to them by the 2nd mean I want to overthrow the Feds? Show me where in my post I said that.
Are you referring to this:

It dissolves the Militias with the intent of overthrowing the Federal Gov't and then forces them under the State's eye.

Perhaps you misunderstood. What the sentence means is that the proposal eliminates potentially reactionary Militias by placing them under the State's control.

 

[FA_Q2]

Required service is an asinine idea in a nation of this size. It is simply not fiscally possible. Further, it is absolutely counter to freedom to require everyone to be a tool of the government. Lastly, I DO NOT want anyone that has not volunteered to serve actually serving. Our military is the fine machine that it is precisely because those serving do so of their own free will without any coercion. The only time that we break out of that reality is when the threat is so substantial and so hard to surmount that we are FORCED to initiate a draft – exactly as it should be. Held in reserve until it is absolutely necessary

 

[Circle_Breaker]

The government should not be in charge of the militia, that is backwards thinking.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The government should not be in charge of the militia, that is backwards thinking.

States are in fact in charge of the Militias they form. By the Constitution.

 

[KNB]

If a militia's Constitutional duty is to put down insurrections then what was that gathering of mindless inbred hicks in Nevada if not an insurrection? They drew guns against law enforcement to stop laws from being enforced. That's Anarchy.

Maybe all of those mindless inbred hicks should have performed their Constitutional duty by shooting themselves in the head to put down that insurrection.

 

[CorvusRexus]

Required service is an asinine idea in a nation of this size. It is simply not fiscally possible. Further, it is absolutely counter to freedom to require everyone to be a tool of the government. Lastly, I DO NOT want anyone that has not volunteered to serve actually serving. Our military is the fine machine that it is precisely because those serving do so of their own free will without any coercion. The only time that we break out of that reality is when the threat is so substantial and so hard to surmount that we are FORCED to initiate a draft – exactly as it should be. Held in reserve until it is absolutely necessary

Yet it is fiscally possible to waste all the money the feds already do? You seem to think I am proposing arming everyone like they were in the army and holding training sessions where they use ammunition on that expensive equipment. No, most of everything would be drills and the like, with a small portion devoted to actual firing. Teaching someone the basics would suffice for now. Plus, the people are not actually serving. They are not being sent to the Middle East to fight terrorists, this is a purely defensive force, to defend freedom on the home front. There is no danger to spending a couple of hours drilling one Sunday a month, is there?
When I look at the world, I see decline. Decline that will only get worse- until a complete World War breaks out.. With nuclear weapons not a possibility in a sustained war (MAD), countries will have to resort to land invasions. I am merely hoping the US is prepared for something like that.
Doesn't Germany have mandatory service for all males in the Army once you turn 18? I thought several other countries in Europe did as well. They are drafted and I do not see their society crumbling to the extent of ours. Maybe we should learn a similar lesson. Hence the mandatory Militia.
Just a side note, forcing obese people to work out and be in the Militia can lower obesity rates, I guess. It also builds a sense of community pride.

 

[FA_Q2]

315 million

Required service is an asinine idea in a nation of this size. It is simply not fiscally possible. Further, it is absolutely counter to freedom to require everyone to be a tool of the government. Lastly, I DO NOT want anyone that has not volunteered to serve actually serving. Our military is the fine machine that it is precisely because those serving do so of their own free will without any coercion. The only time that we break out of that reality is when the threat is so substantial and so hard to surmount that we are FORCED to initiate a draft – exactly as it should be. Held in reserve until it is absolutely necessary

Yet it is fiscally possible to waste all the money the feds already do? You seem to think I am proposing arming everyone like they were in the army and holding training sessions where they use ammunition on that expensive equipment. No, most of everything would be drills and the like, with a small portion devoted to actual firing. Teaching someone the basics would suffice for now. Plus, the people are not actually serving. They are not being sent to the Middle East to fight terrorists, this is a purely defensive force, to defend freedom on the home front. There is no danger to spending a couple of hours drilling one Sunday a month, is there?

Yes there is. There really is only 2 different instances that you can go with this – either you pay people for the service or you force them to work without pay. I hope that you understand why the second option is simply not acceptable under any circumstance. No one, including the government, has the right to force you to do anything without some sort of compensation.

If you pay them you are looking at a massive expenditure. There are approximately 300 million people in this nation. You are talking about requiring damn near 1/2 of them to ‘drill.’ That is 150 million making a single weekend cost at least 15 billion dollars or half that for a single day. That is without ANY of the ancillary costs that such an endeavor would entail (such as buildings and resources).

15 billion in one shot…

Further, as a member of the armed services, I can tell you that ‘drilling’ a weekend a month like the reserves do is utterly worthless. The training required to do ANYTHING related to actual homeland defense is going to require MUCH more than simple drilling. This is even more worthless because you are claiming that you do not want to arm them or give them and ‘expensive equipment.’ What exactly are you thinking that they are going to accomplish then? What is the entire point of this drill other than allowing the government to force them to do something? I don’t see a single upside to having a bunch of civilians ‘drill’ about nothing without any equipment.

Also, the American citizens are already capable of defending from outside invaders – at least those that chose to be. You are not going to make more capable people by demanding that they become so. That simply does not work. What does work is allowing those that choose to own and maintain their arms. Allowing those that choose to gather and form independent clubs or militias. Allowing those that choose to perform training and become proficient in weapon use. Americans already do this and you are not going to improve this by demanding that they do ‘drills’ on the little free time they have with their families.

Lastly, and by FAR the most important, this would be a MASSIVE expansion of governmental power. I do not care if you are talking about state power or federal power. Just because it is the states infringing on your natural rights does not make it correct or good. This nation was founded on rights and freedom and that is utterly counter to the concept that the government can dictate everyone in this nation drill or do anything just because they demand it. You can always CHOOSE to serve – the government should not be demanding it unless the circumstances are so dire that there is absolutely no choice.

When I look at the world, I see decline. Decline that will only get worse- until a complete World War breaks out.. With nuclear weapons not a possibility in a sustained war (MAD), countries will have to resort to land invasions. I am merely hoping the US is prepared for something like that.

We are. More prepared than anyone else in the entire world. We have the resource, food and willingness. Drills are not going to improve that situation.

Doesn't Germany have mandatory service for all males in the Army once you turn 18? I thought several other countries in Europe did as well. They are drafted and I do not see their society crumbling to the extent of ours. Maybe we should learn a similar lesson. Hence the mandatory Militia.

No, they don’t. I believe that they have some sort of service requirement but the majority do civil service not military. It is also for a total period of 6 months – not even close to 27 years. Germany also strictly controls weapons in general. You are essentially barred from having a weapon of any consequence. It can take years to get a hunting rifle in many cases. They are also barred ENTIRELY from participating in any type of militia. This extends so far that paintball is quite a difficult sport to practice because the government sees that as military training and makes it illegal in many circumstances. You actually find a significant amount of German civilians entering American bases because the fields there. Essentially, Germany is an extremely poor example of your model as it bears exactly no resemblance to what you are talking about at all.

Just a side note, forcing obese people to work out and be in the Militia can lower obesity rates, I guess. It also builds a sense of community pride.

Obesity? One day a month? No it does not. It would spur the opposite.

Voluntarily serving does exactly that. I can’t remember the last time I felt a sense of pride or community out of a practice that I undertook because I was FORCED to undertake it. Force is the key here. You are not going to get a whole lot out of a militia that you use force to convene.

 

[CorvusRexus]

315 million

Required service is an asinine idea in a nation of this size. It is simply not fiscally possible. Further, it is absolutely counter to freedom to require everyone to be a tool of the government. Lastly, I DO NOT want anyone that has not volunteered to serve actually serving. Our military is the fine machine that it is precisely because those serving do so of their own free will without any coercion. The only time that we break out of that reality is when the threat is so substantial and so hard to surmount that we are FORCED to initiate a draft – exactly as it should be. Held in reserve until it is absolutely necessary

Yet it is fiscally possible to waste all the money the feds already do? You seem to think I am proposing arming everyone like they were in the army and holding training sessions where they use ammunition on that expensive equipment. No, most of everything would be drills and the like, with a small portion devoted to actual firing. Teaching someone the basics would suffice for now. Plus, the people are not actually serving. They are not being sent to the Middle East to fight terrorists, this is a purely defensive force, to defend freedom on the home front. There is no danger to spending a couple of hours drilling one Sunday a month, is there?

Yes there is. There really is only 2 different instances that you can go with this – either you pay people for the service or you force them to work without pay. I hope that you understand why the second option is simply not acceptable under any circumstance. No one, including the government, has the right to force you to do anything without some sort of compensation.

If you pay them you are looking at a massive expenditure. There are approximately 300 million people in this nation. You are talking about requiring damn near 1/2 of them to ‘drill.’ That is 150 million making a single weekend cost at least 15 billion dollars or half that for a single day. That is without ANY of the ancillary costs that such an endeavor would entail (such as buildings and resources).

15 billion in one shot…

Further, as a member of the armed services, I can tell you that ‘drilling’ a weekend a month like the reserves do is utterly worthless. The training required to do ANYTHING related to actual homeland defense is going to require MUCH more than simple drilling. This is even more worthless because you are claiming that you do not want to arm them or give them and ‘expensive equipment.’ What exactly are you thinking that they are going to accomplish then? What is the entire point of this drill other than allowing the government to force them to do something? I don’t see a single upside to having a bunch of civilians ‘drill’ about nothing without any equipment.

Also, the American citizens are already capable of defending from outside invaders – at least those that chose to be. You are not going to make more capable people by demanding that they become so. That simply does not work. What does work is allowing those that choose to own and maintain their arms. Allowing those that choose to gather and form independent clubs or militias. Allowing those that choose to perform training and become proficient in weapon use. Americans already do this and you are not going to improve this by demanding that they do ‘drills’ on the little free time they have with their families.

Lastly, and by FAR the most important, this would be a MASSIVE expansion of governmental power. I do not care if you are talking about state power or federal power. Just because it is the states infringing on your natural rights does not make it correct or good. This nation was founded on rights and freedom and that is utterly counter to the concept that the government can dictate everyone in this nation drill or do anything just because they demand it. You can always CHOOSE to serve – the government should not be demanding it unless the circumstances are so dire that there is absolutely no choice.

We are. More prepared than anyone else in the entire world. We have the resource, food and willingness. Drills are not going to improve that situation.

Doesn't Germany have mandatory service for all males in the Army once you turn 18? I thought several other countries in Europe did as well. They are drafted and I do not see their society crumbling to the extent of ours. Maybe we should learn a similar lesson. Hence the mandatory Militia.

No, they don’t. I believe that they have some sort of service requirement but the majority do civil service not military. It is also for a total period of 6 months – not even close to 27 years. Germany also strictly controls weapons in general. You are essentially barred from having a weapon of any consequence. It can take years to get a hunting rifle in many cases. They are also barred ENTIRELY from participating in any type of militia. This extends so far that paintball is quite a difficult sport to practice because the government sees that as military training and makes it illegal in many circumstances. You actually find a significant amount of German civilians entering American bases because the fields there. Essentially, Germany is an extremely poor example of your model as it bears exactly no resemblance to what you are talking about at all.

Just a side note, forcing obese people to work out and be in the Militia can lower obesity rates, I guess. It also builds a sense of community pride.

Obesity? One day a month? No it does not. It would spur the opposite.

Voluntarily serving does exactly that. I can’t remember the last time I felt a sense of pride or community out of a practice that I undertook because I was FORCED to undertake it. Force is the key here. You are not going to get a whole lot out of a militia that you use force to convene.

You only look to the obvious, not the implied. Step back and think of the results of a state passing this, against the federal government's wishes.
So you prefer America's well-regulated militia to be people who take things unto themselves and do not serve their state? As much as I support the Militia, groups running rampant without the rule of the state is a recipe for disaster.
You say that you can't force people to work without compensation, and I say you can. Just give them a goal. There is one force more powerful than money: a unifying call, a rally cry, a bonding force. Ever heard of the common enemy? I'm not talking about terrorists or anything of the sort, just something closer to home.
On the Germany thing, I remembered reading that somewhere years ago and was asking if that was still around. You can't build community pride out of something a small percentage do.
As to the expenditures, you seem to have missed the fact the federal government gives a lot of land and bases and armories to the new Militias. As there is no more National Guard, all of there equipment would then be in the use of the Militia, thus lowering the costs greatly. I also fail to see the reason people have to be paid for an afternoon's worth of drilling. I for one would go and do it gladly.