The rules of organizing milita

[frigidweirdo]

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

sharetngov.tnsosfiles.com

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.

The Constitution either gives powers, or takes them away from people.

The power to have a militia lies solely with the states. The Supreme Court has literally ruled on this and said that individuals cannot get together and parade around with their guns like a militia.

 

[9thIDdoc]

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.

Wrong. The National Guard is part-time regular Army Trained and employed by the Federal government; they are not civilians.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The Constitution either gives powers, or takes them away from people.

The power to have a militia lies solely with the states. The Supreme Court has literally ruled on this and said that individuals cannot get together and parade around with their guns like a militia.

I believe you are wrong. Please quote the case and the decision.

 

[Batcat]

You don't get it. The Militia is the whole of the People.


The rest is you looking for excuses to undermine the Freedom and Power of the People.


Why are you opposed to the People having Power?

Democrats think they are smarter than the average person and they hope for a government led by the smartest of the smart democrats rather than the ignorant people. A government that is in control of everybody's life from cradle to grave. A true socialist workers’ paradaise.

They hope to establish a Marist socialist government and insist this time they will make the concept work.

Reality is a bitch. For example these wise democrats have managed today to elect as President an aging, corrupt politician with dementia and as Vice President a giggling, incompetent woman with little if any skill or charisma. That was the best they could come up with from their ranks of well educated, liberal intelligentsia.

Mark Levin's 'American Marxism' Sounds Alarm Bell

Mark Levin's "American Marxism" (2021, Threshold Books, New York) is an eye opener that sounds an alarm bell.

www.newsmax.com

 

[frigidweirdo]

Wrong. The National Guard is part-time regular Army Trained and employed by the Federal government; they are not civilians.

The reality is if you look at the Dick Act you'll see I'm not wrong.

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. The 1903 act repealed the Militia Acts of 1795 and designated the militia (per Title 10 of the U.S. Code, Section 311) as two classes: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, comprising state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support."

 

[frigidweirdo]

I believe you are wrong. Please quote the case and the decision.

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which 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, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state."

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Constitution either gives powers, or takes them away from people.

The power to have a militia lies solely with the states. The Supreme Court has literally ruled on this and said that individuals cannot get together and parade around with their guns like a militia.

Correct.

Private individuals are not at liberty to unilaterally declare themselves a ‘militia’ and by doing so make the claim that they are not subject to Federal and state firearm regulatory measures.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Correct.

Private individuals are not at liberty to unilaterally declare themselves a ‘militia’ and by doing so make the claim that they are not subject to Federal and state firearm regulatory measures.

They are not at liberty to do so, and they're also not able to do so Constitutionally.

They could call themselves a militia, they could have guns, they can do all of that. But they're not a "militia" as defined by the US Constitution and they have no protections whatsoever.

They could also call themselves rabbits and dress up in a rabbit suit, if they so choose.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Neither the courts nor any other part of the government can legally change Constitutional law except through the Amendment process.

No one is claiming otherwise.

The courts do have the authority to determine what the Constitution means, however, and invalidate laws, policies, and measures repugnant to the Constitution – and that’s clearly stated in the Founding Document.

And the courts have consistently held that there is no ‘right’ recognized by the Second Amendment authorizing private citizens to form a ‘militia’ absent government authorization.

 

[Abatis]

The power to have a militia lies solely with the states. The Supreme Court has literally ruled on this . . .

What SCOTUS cases held "the power to have a militia lies solely with the states"?

None of the Court's "militia" cases that I know of . . .

Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) (1820),
Martin v. Mott, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) (1827),
Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1917),
Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990).

. . . held "the power to have a militia lies solely with the states". Do you have another list of cases I should be reading, or can you quote me in those cases where "the power to have a militia lies solely with the states" is the holding?

I always believed the federal preemption question was settled in 1820 in Houston v Moore.

Congressional power over the militia is unlimited except for two particulars that remained the power of the states, to name the officers and to train the members in accordance to the regimen written by Congress.

As clause 16 says, Congress (alone) possesses the power to organize, arm and discipline the militia -- "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 Dick Act in 1903 solidified that power, to the point Congress had to invent "State Defensive Forces" allowing the states to have a semi-autonomous force for its own security and public safety. They were essentially lovely parting gifts given to the states to make up for Congress extinguishing all state militia powers.

Of course all that post 1903-16 gingerbread is written under clause 12 of the Constitution, not cl's 15 & 16, the militia clauses.

 

[rupol2000]

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.

The militia can be used against the feds as well, this is clear from the context.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The reality is if you look at the Dick Act you'll see I'm not wrong.

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. The 1903 act repealed the Militia Acts of 1795 and designated the militia (per Title 10 of the U.S. Code, Section 311) as two classes: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, comprising state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support."

Thanks for the link. Good addition to the discussion.
However I contend that the Dick Act with it's amendments effectively changed the State Militia into the National Guard which no longer fits the definition of "militia" hence the name change. Current National Guard units are formed and trained to federal standards are employed by the Federal government and members are required to obey orders of the Federal government and regular Army and are subject to discipline under the UCMJ." Militias" are comprised of civilians. National Guardsmen are no longer civilians.


Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which 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, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.

Most of the area of the United States is NOT in and cities towns therefore this opinion does not apply to most of America.
Also this opinion does NOT establish law but merely states the "sections under consideration" do not forbid such laws.
No opinion is rendered considering any particular law so no laws have been approved or disapproved by the Supreme Court.
It has already been determined that individuals make up the unorganized militia.

No one is claiming otherwise.

The courts do have the authority to determine what the Constitution means, however, and invalidate laws, policies, and measures repugnant to the Constitution – and that’s clearly stated in the Founding Document.

And the courts have consistently held that there is no ‘right’ recognized by the Second Amendment authorizing private citizens to form a ‘militia’ absent government authorization.

Some folks are contending this opinion means much more than it actually does and need to read more closely.

 

[Abatis]

Most of the area of the United States is NOT in and cities towns therefore this opinion does not apply to most of America.

Hahahahahahahahaha . . .

Also this opinion does NOT establish law but merely states the "sections under consideration" do not forbid such laws.

Hahahahahahahahaha . . .

No opinion is rendered considering any particular law so no laws have been approved or disapproved by the Supreme Court.

Hahahahahahahahaha . . .

Some folks are contending this opinion means much more than it actually does and need to read more closely.

Hahahahahahahahaha . . .

 

[9thIDdoc]

Hahahahahahahahaha . . .



Hahahahahahahahaha . . .



Hahahahahahahahaha . . .



Hahahahahahahahaha . . .

 

[Otis Mayfield]

Justice Scalia said everyone is in the militia.

Heller vs DC

 

[Abatis]

Your goofy musings are but unicorn farts, enchanting and mystical but have no atachment to the authorities you quote and cite.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Your goofy musings are but unicorn farts, enchanting and mystical but have no atachment to the authorities you quote and cite.

Mostly the authorities I've cited and/or quoted were first cited/quoted by you.

 

[Abatis]

Justice Scalia said everyone is in the militia.

Heller vs DC

Can you provide that quote?
Are you sure "IN" is the correct word?
"IN" doesn't sound like something Scalia would say in Heller in that context.
And it's DC v Heller, the appellants (losers at the lower court) are named first.

While every able-bodied man capable of bearing arms certainly was considered to "be militia", that doesn't mean he (and "everyone" else) was "in the militia".

Since you consider Scalia an authority, the point is explained by him in Heller:

"Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise … Armies”; “to provide … a Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. . . . To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them."​

A subset is not "everyone" . . .

 

[Abatis]

Mostly the authorities I've cited and/or quoted were first cited/quoted by you.

I used them correctly though . . .

In my post directly above from Heller, what is "plenary power"?

​

​

​

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The militia can be used against the feds as well, this is clear from the context.

Wrong.

As held in Presser, participation in a militia is lawful only when that militia is authorized by a state government or the Federal government.

Absent such authorization, a ‘militia’ that engages in lawless armed rebellion against the Federal government is nothing more than a criminal organization of traitors and terrorists.