The rules of organizing milita

[9thIDdoc]

But AFTER the Constitution was ratified, the formation, organization and structure of the militia, essentially the militia's entire existence was altered, codified by and under the federal Constitution. The doctrine of preemption demands that no other entities can exercise the militia organization and command powers conferred to and claimed by the federal government, including any effort of the citizens, independent of law, to organize and deploy citizens as militia (see Presser). Once the Militia Act of 1792/95 became law, that law was the only lawful process for anyone to call-up and organize the citizens as militia.

The Supreme Court explained federal preemption of militia powers:

"Upon the subject of the militia. Congress has exercised the powers conferred on that body by the constitution, as fully as was thought right, and has thus excluded the power of legislation by the States on these subjects, except so far as it has been permitted by Congress . . . ." -- Houston v. Moore 18 U.S. (5 Wheaton) 1, 24 (1820)​

For the criminal prosecution of, "a capital, or otherwise infamous crime", the 5th Amendment excludes "the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger", from the grand jury presentment right, and dispenses justice to those militia the same as the federal "land or naval forces" (under the UCMJ).

The 5th Amendment says:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; . . . "​

I'm not sure what more we have to discuss; you have your beliefs that rely on the denial of the existence and enforcement of well-established, settled law and long-standing Supreme Court determinations.

I never realized how powerful such self-delusion could be.

I've been enjoying the gun debate since 1993 and I never thought to just deny the existence of the lower federal court's "militia right" and "state's right" interpretations. So, while those decisions served to legally invalidate any recognition and protection of the individual citizen's right to arms under the 2nd Amendment, all I had to do to win the debates back then was deny those rulings existed.

Wow, here I thought Heller really meant something!

Neither the courts nor any other part of the government can legally change Constitutional law except through the Amendment process. The Constitution does not reserve the right to form a militia to the federal or State. If it intended to do so it would have stated so plainly. It does not. Nor would the practice have continued unchallenged to the current day.

The Volunteer State Goes to War: A Salute to Tennessee Veterans

While it is difficult to ascertain exactly how many Tennesseans participated in the War of 1812, it would be safe to assume that up to 20,000 men served at one time or another during the conflict. Most these men served as volunteers or in the militia, while others saw action in the U.S. Regular Army.
As volunteers and members of local militia, many Tennessean soldiers both distrusted and feared Native Americans and disliked British intervention and aggression in America. Many were also motivated by the opportunity for adventure, a chance to get away from domestic life, and a sense of patriotic duty. Upon enlistment, soldiers elected their officers, usually the wealthiest and most popular men among them.

 

[Abatis]

Neither the courts nor any other part of the government can legally change Constitutional law except through the Amendment process. The Constitution does not reserve the right to form a militia to the federal or State. If it intended to do so it would have stated so plainly. It does not. Nor would the practice have continued unchallenged to the current day.

Current day? Where is the militia today?

Congress executed / extinguished the clause 15 & 16 militia in 1903 and absorbed the state militias into the clause 12 National Guard.

What are you referring to as "the practice" that continues "unchallenged to the current day"?

While it is difficult to ascertain exactly how many Tennesseans participated in the War of 1812, it would be safe to assume that up to 20,000 men served at one time or another during the conflict. Most these men served as volunteers or in the militia, while others saw action in the U.S. Regular Army.

Is that supposed to prove something or rebut something I said?

As volunteers and members of local militia, many Tennessean soldiers both distrusted and feared Native Americans and disliked British intervention and aggression in America. Many were also motivated by the opportunity for adventure, a chance to get away from domestic life, and a sense of patriotic duty. Upon enlistment, soldiers elected their officers, usually the wealthiest and most popular men among them.

Sounds like the Militia Act was being followed. Your point?

.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Current day? Where is the militia today?

Congress executed / extinguished the clause 15 & 16 militia in 1903 and absorbed the state militias into the clause 12 National Guard.

What are you referring to as "the practice" that continues "unchallenged to the current day"?



Is that supposed to prove something or rebut something I said?



Sounds like the Militia Act was being followed. Your point?

.

The point is that the Constitution had long been ratified and Congress did not form or regulate the militias mentioned until and unless they were federalized and became military.
The Constitution forms and regulates government not the other way around. Government-including Congress and the judicial system-has no legal authority other than what is granted to it by the Constitution. Congress cannot legally vote itself powers not expressly permitted by the Constitution. Where exactly does the Constitution state that government and only specific parts of government can form and regulate militia?
mi·li·tia (definition)

1. a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
   "creating a militia was no answer to the army's manpower problem"
   • a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.
   • all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service
     
     You and others have claimed that all States have laws that prohibit all but State and Federal governments from forming and regulating militias. But the laws quoted would do no such thing. Even if they did such laws have not been deemed legal by the Supreme Court and remain unchallenged. There are many militias present in America currently that were not government formed approved or regulated and have never been charged with criminal activity. Why not?
     
     

 

[Abatis]

The point is that the Constitution had long been ratified and Congress did not form or regulate the militias mentioned until and unless they were federalized and became military.

Have you gone your entire life not once examining the work of the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention and familiarized yourself with the debates over the creation and ratification of the Constitution?

You appear to be operating only under some alternate reality you have constructed yourself, employing sources known only to you, devoid of any real information, failing to garner the most rudimentary knowledge base. It's almost as if you have purposefully tried to avoid recognizing true history and law.

Where exactly does the Constitution state that government and only specific parts of government can form and regulate militia?

Aren't you tired of me citing the same stuff over and over again? I sure know I'm tired of writing it.

Again for what the 6th or 8th time?

Article I, Section 8. clauses 15 & 16

Article I, §8: "The Congress shall have Power; . . . "​

​

clause 15: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"​

​

clause 16: "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;"​

The phrase "to provide for" means the power to legislate over all aspects of the interests named. This grant of power, damn near total control over the militias of the states, was of course controversial and led to much debate.

Have you ever read Federalist 29?

You and others have claimed that all States have laws that prohibit all but State and Federal governments from forming and regulating militias. But the laws quoted would do no such thing.

I have only quoted laws that do just that and employed terms like "supremacy" and "preemption", that describe that effect.

This link goes to a decent explanation of the history of federal preemption of militia powers that doesn't get too into legalese, even though it is the Heritage Foundation it is very straightforward:

>>(CLICK)>>>>>Organizing the Militia<<<<<(CLICK)<<​

As it notes, federal preemption of militia powers (IOW, total federal control, squashing out any and all competing powers) happened so early in our history it stands as unquestioned now (except by you).

Even if they did such laws have not been deemed legal by the Supreme Court and remain unchallenged.

And now for what, the 6th time, here I am linking to and urging you to read US v Presser . . . Again, those laws do exist, they were challenged, the question of their constitutionality was settled so long ago, it stands as unquestionable, reaffirmed by SCOTUS in 2008 in a most matter of fact way.

Again, here's Heller (2008) reaffirming Presser (1886):

"Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 (1886) , held that the right to keep and bear arms was not violated by a law that forbade “bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law.” Id., at 264–265. This does not refute the individual-rights interpretation of the Amendment; no one supporting that interpretation has contended that States may not ban such groups. . . . "​

Did you read it this time?????

Did you comprehend what it says?

Laws that forbid private citizens to assemble armed and do "militia" shit, do not violate the 2nd Amendment and no one supporting the individual right to arms interpretation has contended that States may not ban such groups.

The laws that you argue don't exist, do exist and yes, they have been challenged and yes, they have been upheld and deemed constitutional by SCOTUS.

There are many militias present in America currently that were not government formed approved or regulated and have never been charged with criminal activity. Why not?

That there hasn't been any enforcement action against private citizen militias does not mean that the power doesn't exist to forbid them, bar all such activity and prosecute those citizens for engaging in said activity.

.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Have you gone your entire life not once examining the work of the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention and familiarized yourself with the debates over the creation and ratification of the Constitution?

You appear to be operating only under some alternate reality you have constructed yourself, employing sources known only to you, devoid of any real information, failing to garner the most rudimentary knowledge base. It's almost as if you have purposefully tried to avoid recognizing true history and law.



Aren't you tired of me citing the same stuff over and over again? I sure know I'm tired of writing it.

Again for what the 6th or 8th time?

Article I, Section 8. clauses 15 & 16

Article I, §8: "The Congress shall have Power; . . . "​

​

clause 15: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"​

​

clause 16: "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;"​

The phrase "to provide for" means the power to legislate over all aspects of the interests named. This grant of power, damn near total control over the militias of the states, was of course controversial and led to much debate.

Have you ever read Federalist 29?



I have only quoted laws that do just that and employed terms like "supremacy" and "preemption", that describe that effect.

This link goes to a decent explanation of the history of federal preemption of militia powers that doesn't get too into legalese, even though it is the Heritage Foundation it is very straightforward:

>>(CLICK)>>>>>Organizing the Militia<<<<<(CLICK)<<​

As it notes, federal preemption of militia powers (IOW, total federal control, squashing out any and all competing powers) happened so early in our history it stands as unquestioned now (except by you).



And now for what, the 6th time, here I am linking to and urging you to read US v Presser . . . Again, those laws do exist, they were challenged, the question of their constitutionality was settled so long ago, it stands as unquestionable, reaffirmed by SCOTUS in 2008 in a most matter of fact way.

Again, here's Heller (2008) reaffirming Presser (1886):

"Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 (1886) , held that the right to keep and bear arms was not violated by a law that forbade “bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law.” Id., at 264–265. This does not refute the individual-rights interpretation of the Amendment; no one supporting that interpretation has contended that States may not ban such groups. . . . "​

Did you read it this time?????

Did you comprehend what it says?

Laws that forbid private citizens to assemble armed and do "militia" shit, do not violate the 2nd Amendment and no one supporting the individual right to arms interpretation has contended that States may not ban such groups.

The laws that you argue don't exist, do exist and yes, they have been challenged and yes, they have been upheld and deemed constitutional by SCOTUS.



That there hasn't been any enforcement action against private citizen militias does not mean that the power doesn't exist to forbid them, bar all such activity and prosecute those citizens for engaging in said activity.

.

Article I, Section 8. clauses 15 & 16

Article I, §8: "The Congress shall have Power; . . . "

clause 15: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

clause 16: "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;"

The phrase "to provide for" means the power to legislate over all aspects of the interests named. This grant of power, damn near total control over the militias of the states, was of course controversial and led to much debate.

I have not claimed that government had no such power. I have asked you to show where only the government has the authority to form militia units and you have spectacularly failed to do so. Nothing in Article 1 as quoted above makes any such claim. There is no reason to believe "the militia" as referred to does not mean only those militias called up by State and Federal governments. This is supported by the part of clause 16 that states: "...and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States.".

Again, those laws do exist, they were challenged, the question of their constitutionality was settled so long ago, it stands as unquestionable, reaffirmed by SCOTUS in 2008 in a most matter of fact way.

If that were true it would be a simple matter to quote such laws and SCOTUS ruling. You haven't. Why not?
Laws against parading armed in the streets of towns and cities or gathering for the purpose of creating civil discord and/or violence and/or damage to property do not speak to the issue of the formation of militias. Straw man.

As it notes, federal preemption of militia powers (IOW, total federal control, squashing out any and all competing powers) happened so early in our history it stands as unquestioned now (except by you).

Untrue. The federal government does not have the authority to legally preempt powers not specified by the Constitution. I ask again: Exactly where does the Constitution authorize such powers? You seem determined to continually ignore this question.

"Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 (1886) , held that the right to keep and bear arms was not violated by a law that forbade “bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law.”

It also does not speak to the issue of who may form militias or anything outside of parading around cities and towns illegally.

Laws that forbid private citizens to assemble armed and do "militia" shit, do not violate the 2nd Amendment and no one supporting the individual right to arms interpretation has contended that States may not ban such groups.

Untrue and unproven.

History from all time periods is literally full of examples of militias that were formed trained and governed by other than State or federal government.
Andrew Jackson led volunteers and militia groups that were not formed trained or controlled by Congress. He soundly defeated Indian British and Spanish forces and thereby greatly the future of the United States. His force, the great majority of which were untrained unauthorized volunteers and militia, decisively defeated what was widely considered the best of the British army. You claim that doing so violated Federal law. But, other than being required to give a port city back to the Spanish, he was never charged for his "criminal" activity. Instead he was elected President. Go figger.

Law enforcement agencies everywhere are in fact militias raised trained and governed by cities counties etc. rather than just State or Federal government. You also want to claim law enforcement is illegal?

 

[Abatis]

I have not claimed that government had no such power. I have asked you to show where only the government has the authority to form militia units and you have spectacularly failed to do so.

No, I showed that. You have failed to demonstrate the requisite understanding of basic constitutional principles like supremacy and preemption.

Nothing in Article 1 as quoted above makes any such claim. There is no reason to believe "the militia" as referred to does not mean only those militias called up by State and Federal governments. This is supported by the part of clause 16 that states: "...and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States.".

Of course it does.

That Congress shall have Power . . . to provide for calling forth the Militia . . . and provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, means nobody else can decree who among the citizenry is obligated to serve in the militia, or how enrollment will occur, or call-up the militia into service, or set the structure of militia organization and command, or declare how the militia is armed and what kinds of arms are appropriate for service, or to establish the regimen of training for the militia.

When Congress possess a power that means any other entity (a state or the people) claiming, or attempting to exercise a competing power, to perform the same actions outlined in federal law, must yield and resign their claim -- or, as we have seen in SCOTUS militia cases, be forced to yield to the federal authority).

Again, those laws do exist, they were challenged, the question of their constitutionality was settled so long ago, it stands as unquestionable, reaffirmed by SCOTUS in 2008 in a most matter of fact way.

If that were true it would be a simple matter to quote such laws and SCOTUS ruling. You haven't. Why not?

Are you trying to be funny or just insufferably obstinate?

You never read Presser did you?

Laws against parading armed in the streets of towns and cities or gathering for the purpose of creating civil discord and/or violence and/or damage to property do not speak to the issue of the formation of militias. Straw man.

Talk about a straw man!!!!!! Where in Presser are the charges pertaining to "gathering for the purpose of creating civil discord and/or violence and/or damage to property" set-out?

The only thing Presser was charged with (and statutes that he challenged), "only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law."

The Court held:

"The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of Congress or law of the State authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the State and Federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The Constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject."​

Can you please explain how that ruling authorizes private citizens to associate together as a military company or organization and/or form a militia composed of private citizens acting independently, without any government authorization?

Untrue. The federal government does not have the authority to legally preempt powers not specified by the Constitution.

Well, that is a construct that is only a product of your mind . . .

"Professor Laurence H. Tribe identifies in Supreme Court jurisprudence three modes of federal preemption exercisable by Congress against the states:​

​

(1) "express preemption," where Congress has in so many words declared its intention to preclude state legislation of a described sort in a given area; (2) "implied preemption," where Congress, through the structure or objectives of its enactments has by implication precluded a certain kind of state regulation in an area; and (3) "conflict preemption," where Congress did not necessarily focus on preemption of state regulation at all, but where the particular state law conflicts directly with federal law, or otherwise (p.44) stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of federal statutory objectives.​

​

In addition, Professor Tribe recognizes:​

​

Because congressional purposes can be either substantive or jurisdictional, a state action may be struck down as an invalid interference with the federal design either because it is in substantive conflict with the operation of a federal regulation or program or because, whatever its substantive impact, it intrudes jurisdictionally upon a field that Congress has validly reserved for exclusively federal regulation. It is this latter phenomenon that some describe as field (or "occupying the field") preemption - which, it is worth stressing, may fall into any of the three categories set forth above.[12]"​

Quoted from; Exposing the Second Amendment: Federal Preemption of State Militia Legislation

You seem determined to continually ignore this question.

You seem determined to continually ignore my answers and avoiding any review of the sources I provide links to. It is hard to take you seriously when it is obvious you have no real interest in his subject and no real desire to discuss the principles and law at work here.

You have your position staked out and will maintain it without regard to what is presented to you (primarily because you don't want to complicate things by reading what I link to).

"Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 (1886) , held that the right to keep and bear arms was not violated by a law that forbade “bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law.”

It also does not speak to the issue of who may form militias or anything outside of parading around cities and towns illegally.

And again, it is obvious you did not read the case.

Laws that forbid private citizens to assemble armed and do "militia" shit, do not violate the 2nd Amendment and no one supporting the individual right to arms interpretation has contended that States may not ban such groups.

Untrue and unproven.

I cited two SCOTUS cases for my proof, separated by 122 years on those points . . .

What can you cite as legal proof of your belief, your wishful thinking?

History from all time periods is literally full of examples of militias that were formed trained and governed by other than State or federal government.
Andrew Jackson led volunteers and militia groups that were not formed trained or controlled by Congress. . . . . But, other than being required to give a port city back to the Spanish, he was never charged for his "criminal" activity.

I never said the prohibition is criminal. That your entire position and belief seems to be founded only in conjecture and invention, I guess I shouldn't be surprised you can not confine your comments to what I actually say . To your point, by the War of 1812 the militia structure in the states was in total disorganization and neglect. It isn't a surprise constitutional limits were not enforced; the federal government was completely derelict in forcing states to do what they were legally mandated to do by the Militia Act. It was quite literally a free-for-all.

.

 

[Abatis]

Law enforcement agencies everywhere are in fact militias raised trained and governed by cities counties etc. rather than just State or Federal government. You also want to claim law enforcement is illegal?

In the Civil War period and especially during Reconstruction, the nation witnessed horrible abuses where the official militia of states were used as law enforcement. Congress' response was to disband the militias of those states.

In the 20th Century we returned to a rigid legal definition of militia under US law. As it stands now federally, (post Dick Act 1903 and National Defense Act of 1916) the definition of "militia" is codified / established in the U.S. Code; 10 U.S.C. §311:

10 U.S.C. § 311:​

​

(a): The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.​

​

(b)The classes of the militia are​

​

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;  and​

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.​

Only the militia who are members of the NG can be considered organized; the private male citizens between 17 and 45, are (and shall remain, by law) unorganized.

There are no alternatives under law.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I provided the case citations, you can either read the applicable law -or not- but the law doesn't require you to agree or "believe" it, for it to be true.

To voluntarily associate together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of Congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not a right to be claimed by the citizen under the Constitution.

Under the Constitution, armed bodies of citizens are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments. That means a state law that forbids bodies of citizens to associate together as a military organization, to drill or parade with arms unless authorized by the law, do not violate the Constitution, or any right of the citizen secured by the Constitution (yes, including assembly).

Read Presser and DC v Heller which, in 2008, reaffirmed this principle stated Presser.

.

Wolverines Don't Parade

Yet an unauthorized militia won the war that gave birth to that Constitution. Whatever was done secretly from the British can be done secretly from the Globalist Government.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State"

Feralphiles' Constitution

A disorganized thug army being necessary to the security of a free-stuff State.

 

[Abatis]

Wolverines Don't Parade

Yet an unauthorized militia won the war that gave birth to that Constitution.

Certainly. But many things done before the Constitution were altered once the Constitution was ratified. Before the Constitution there was a naval militia sailing Man-o'-War's that were owned by and outfitted by private citizens (Privateers) and they laid waste to many tons of British shipping during the War.

After the War, the people granted Congress power over those warships in Article I, §8, cl. 11:

The Congress shall have Power ... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;​

Which allowed Privateers to sail and essentially, commit acts of piracy, to seize shipping.

Whatever was done secretly from the British can be done secretly from the Globalist Government.

Only if you are willing to communicate the same ways the Continental Patriots did; if you use any sort of modern forms, the NSA is listening.

 

[9thIDdoc]

In the Civil War period and especially during Reconstruction, the nation witnessed horrible abuses where the official militia of states were used as law enforcement. Congress' response was to disband the militias of those states.

In the 20th Century we returned to a rigid legal definition of militia under US law. As it stands now federally, (post Dick Act 1903 and National Defense Act of 1916) the definition of "militia" is codified / established in the U.S. Code; 10 U.S.C. §311:

10 U.S.C. § 311:​

​

(a): The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.​

​

(b)The classes of the militia are​

​

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;  and​

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.​

Only the militia who are members of the NG can be considered organized; the private male citizens between 17 and 45, are (and shall remain, by law) unorganized.

There are no alternatives under law.

(a): The militia of the United States consists...
Where is any statement that only the US federal government can form militia? Especially since it plainly states that all private citizens between 17 and 45 are unorganized militia?
Are you trying to claim that unorganized militia are not a type of militia or that they are a militia formed by Federal government. Either seems like a pretty silly claim.
What makes law enforcement agencies something other than militia?

There are no alternatives under law.
So you claim but cannot prove. The reality is that there are many alternatives and always have been.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Certainly. But many things done before the Constitution were altered once the Constitution was ratified.

What exactly do you claim the ratified Constitution changed? Smoke and mirrors.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Only if you are willing to communicate the same ways the Continental Patriots did; if you use any sort of modern forms, the NSA is listening.

Unlacing the Jackboot

Illogical scare story. First, the Globalist Imperial Government is full of incompetents. Everybody else is in that same no-talent pencil-pushing clique in media and business, so no one breaks the code of silence about the massive incompetence that is the untold story of 9/11.

Besides, patriotic groups can take spur-of-the-moment actions that informers have no time to report to their agencies.

 

[Abatis]

Where is any statement that only the US federal government can form militia? Especially since it plainly states that all private citizens between 17 and 45 are unorganized militia?

The "unorganized militia" wasn't created by Congress, not in 1789 or 1791 or even when those words were put into law in 1903; it existed before the Constitution. As you said, this general militia / armed citizen principle has been in existence going back to ancient times. It was the organized militia that needed to be created, to have a command structure fixed, to have a regimen of training written, to have a standard of arms established . . .

If your read Federalist 29 it clearly speaks of 'the militia' as something already in existence in the American Colony; it was simply every able-bodied free White citizen capable of bearing arms.

Madison put that body of people at 25% of the "total number of souls" in the Colony, with about 75% of those men having "arms in their hands" in various degrees of organization, none standardized.

When Federalist 29 was published in 1788 (as a rebuttal to argument opposing cl's 15 & 16), everyone -- especially those arguing against granting the power outlined in cl's 15 & 16 -- understood that Congress alone would possess the power to organize (or "form") the militia, that the states were surrendering that power.

Because that truth frightened many, the purpose of Federalist 29 was to allay those fears, even mock those oppositional arguments and explain what the powers would be over the organized militia if the Constitution was ratified.

Federalist 29 began this explanation with a clear and unambiguous mission statement for the "militia clauses" of the Constitution:

"It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority."​

Right there in the opening paragraph of Federalist29, your BS belief is destroyed. The thought that there could be dozens of different schemes of organizing the militia, some by government, some not, but all useless, was why the power to orgainize the militia was being given to Congress.

I can explain this stuff to you over and over again, I can ask you to read the source material over and over again, but I can't make you understand it.

From here on you will need to prove you have read Federalist 29 and are capable of conversing with some knowledge, understanding and competency of what the framers understood clauses 15 & 16 to mean.

An even more complete understanding would be earned by you if you were to read the corresponding anti-Federalist Articles, arguing against the Federalist position of strong central government control and against the ratification of the Constitution.

Interestingly, (yet unsurprisingly), the specific anti-Federalist article arguing against the proposed Constitution's Art I, §8, cl's. 15 & 16 giving Congress control of the militia, is titled:

OBJECTIONS TO NATIONAL CONTROL OF THE MILITIA​

(yes, that is a link, you are supposed to click it and read it)​

You need to accept that you aren't arguing against my personal opinion, you are arguing against what I have learned over 40 years pouring over the framers written words.

I don't need to prove I'm right, I just have to convince you to open a book and learn . . . Your continued refusal to read the source material and your pigheaded insistence in speaking from that ignorance, will not be acknowledged by me going forward.

.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The "unorganized militia" wasn't created by Congress, not in 1789 or 1791 or even when those words were put into law in 1903; it existed before the Constitution. As you said, this general militia / armed citizen principle has been in existence going back to ancient times. It was the organized militia that needed to be created, to have a command structure fixed, to have a regimen of training written, to have a standard of arms established . . .

If your read Federalist 29 it clearly speaks of 'the militia' as something already in existence in the American Colony; it was simply every able-bodied free White citizen capable of bearing arms.

Madison put that body of people at 25% of the "total number of souls" in the Colony, with about 75% of those men having "arms in their hands" in various degrees of organization, none standardized.

When Federalist 29 was published in 1788 (as a rebuttal to argument opposing cl's 15 & 16), everyone -- especially those arguing against granting the power outlined in cl's 15 & 16 -- understood that Congress alone would possess the power to organize (or "form") the militia, that the states were surrendering that power.

Because that truth frightened many, the purpose of Federalist 29 was to allay those fears, even mock those oppositional arguments and explain what the powers would be over the organized militia if the Constitution was ratified.

Federalist 29 began this explanation with a clear and unambiguous mission statement for the "militia clauses" of the Constitution:

"It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority."​

Right there in the opening paragraph of Federalist29, your BS belief is destroyed. The thought that there could be dozens of different schemes of organizing the militia, some by government, some not, but all useless, was why the power to orgainize the militia was being given to Congress.

I can explain this stuff to you over and over again, I can ask you to read the source material over and over again, but I can't make you understand it.

From here on you will need to prove you have read Federalist 29 and are capable of conversing with some knowledge, understanding and competency of what the framers understood clauses 15 & 16 to mean.

An even more complete understanding would be earned by you if you were to read the corresponding anti-Federalist Articles, arguing against the Federalist position of strong central government control and against the ratification of the Constitution.

Interestingly, (yet unsurprisingly), the specific anti-Federalist article arguing against the proposed Constitution's Art I, §8, cl's. 15 & 16 giving Congress control of the militia, is titled:

OBJECTIONS TO NATIONAL CONTROL OF THE MILITIA​

(yes, that is a link, you are supposed to click it and read it)​

You need to accept that you aren't arguing against my personal opinion, you are arguing against what I have learned over 40 years pouring over the framers written words.

I don't need to prove I'm right, I just have to convince you to open a book and learn . . . Your continued refusal to read the source material and your pigheaded insistence in speaking from that ignorance, will not be acknowledged by me going forward.

.

I have read everything you have linked and little, if anything, has supported your claims and arguments in our discussion. Federalist 29 as quoted in your link is a personal opinion (editorial) posed by an individual opposed to a standing national army and favoring state militias to protect our forming Nation.. Interesting but totally irrelevant to our discussion. What is amazing is that you seem to think that it in some way supports your claim that Congress has the sole power to raise and govern militia. You continue to confuse "militia"(civilian) with "trained military".

When Federalist 29 was published in 1788 (as a rebuttal to argument opposing cl's 15 & 16), everyone -- especially those arguing against granting the power outlined in cl's 15 & 16 -- understood that Congress alone would possess the power to organize (or "form") the militia, that the states were surrendering that power.

What "everyone understood" is your opinion and matters not at all compared to what powers the Constitution (as ratified and amended) actually grants. If it grants Congress sole power to raise train deploy and govern militia it is there in black and white, in English, and available to quote. If the grant is not there it does not exist. So quote the Constitution and stop with all the deflection and BS.

The "unorganized militia" wasn't created by Congress, not in 1789 or 1791 or even when those words were put into law in 1903; it existed before the Constitution. As you said, this general militia / armed citizen principle has been in existence going back to ancient times. It was the organized militia that needed to be created, to have a command structure fixed, to have a regimen of training written, to have a standard of arms established . . .

What you describe as "organized militia" is in fact regular military raised, trained, paid and governed by government and as apposed to militia which is civilian and not necessarily raised trained governed or employed by any particular entity ie unorganized militia. This is how the term "militia" is used historically.

 

[whitehall]

The experts have been arguing about the definition of "militia" as it pertains to the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution for more than half a century and the issue has been settled by scores of decisions by federal courts and the S.C. The people have the right etc. The 2nd Amendment, however, did not provide for the creation of a militia.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Militias are simply a group of armed civilians.

Who are subject to all state and Federal firearm regulations.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Incorrect.

The 2nd Amendment bans federal (at least) authority over the right of the people.

Wrong.

Second Amendment case law applies to both the Federal government and state and local governments (see McDonald v. Chicago (2010)).

The Federal government and state and local governments have the authority to regulate firearms consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment case law neither violate nor infringe upon the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, such as UBCs, licensing and permit requirements, and firearm purchase waiting periods.

 

[frigidweirdo]

2nd Amendment provides the creation of the state militia to defend the rights of the people of the state. What is the mechanism for creating such a militia, is it stipulated somewhere? Could it be a spontaneous militia, should its creation first be discussed at the level of the State Council, or should there be a plebescite. Is this mechanism regulated by the law? What are the rules for the legal formation of a militia?

What on Earth? No it doesn't.

Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution says:

"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;"

So, even this doesn't create the militia. It merely assumes the militia would already exist. Because states would literally need a militia.

The states are allowed to have a militia, they're allowed to have officers, and the feds can call this militia up if they want to.

Nothing more.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Militia simply means armed civilians who band together for a common goal. No rules of formation.

Not true at all. The National Guard is a militia.

There is the "unorganized militia" whose sole purpose is to stop eejits from being able to demand a place in the National Guard.