The rules of organizing milita

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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 wrong.

Presser was indicted for violating article 11 of the Military Code of the state of Illinois.

As state law, the Military Code applies not only to cities and towns but to the entire state, including its most rural and underpopulated jurisdictions.

The Presser Court upheld as Constitutional article 11, applicable to all residents of the state.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

The opinion is exceedingly clear: the states have the authority to authorize militia – absent such authorization, participation in a ‘militia’ is unlawful.

Residents of a state do not have the right to unilaterally organize a ‘militia,’ claim that their ‘militia’ is exempt from state and Federal firearm regulatory measures, and as a member of that ‘militia’ engage in lawless armed rebellion against the Federal government subjectively and incorrectly perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Firstly it depends on what you want to call a "militia", I guess. We could call the boy scouts a "militia" if we like. In which case there's nothing to stop people having a militia.

If you think a militia is an armed group that is designed to protect the people from invaders and do other such things, then there is only one militia, and that's "the militia" as stated in the Constitution.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

The militia can't be used LEGALLY against the feds. However the militia was always intended to be the last resort if the government were to become bad government. But who gets to decide whether it's bad or not?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.


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

You could contend this, however it's still considered a PART of the militia. The organized militia and the unorganized militia. The organized militia militia was designed to do the things the militia couldn't do in the war with Mexico when the militia was considered a complete disaster.

So, it's still a part of the militia.

National Guardsmen are civilians until they're called up to federal duty. Same as any other militiaman. You'd be saying in 1792 that once called up into federal service you were no longer in the militia. I don't think it matters either way what you think their status is, really.

The Dick Act made it clear the National Guard was the "organized militia".

Not sure what your point is with Presser. No one has said that the militia is not made up of individuals or the 2A relates to non-individuals.

 

[ESay]

Private armies are not American.

What can be defined as a private army? A private security firm having guards who can legally bear arms is a private army?

 

[surada]

What can be defined as a private army? A private security firm having guards who can legally bear arms is a private army?

I'm really not sure.. A security guard makes $20,000.. a PMC maakes 50,000 after taxes?

 

[Abatis]

Firstly it depends on what you want to call a "militia", I guess.

Are you saying that a state or the Supreme Court is unsure or confused between constitutionally organized militia and the Boy Scouts?

The issue is what you thought a militia was when you wrote, "The power to have a militia lies solely with the states. The Supreme Court has literally ruled on this".

That was the specific statement I quoted and I asked you about; my question's context was federal supremacy and preemption only (and exposing your appeal to authority is fallacious).

I'm not interested in a Boy Scouts are militia red herring; I'm only interested in your defense of your statement that, "The power to have a militia lies solely with the states. The Supreme Court has literally ruled on this".

So, let's try this again, what SCOTUS cases held "the power to have a militia lies solely with the states"?

 

[Natural Citizen]

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.

You're correct in that the people of a State, acting through their State government, may, at last resort, organize a militia but this organization is meant to oppose any force imposed by federal usurpers.

So where do you come up with authorization by the Federal government?

Article IV is as close as you can come to anything in relation to federal authority with regard to militias in that all Federal officials, both civil and military, take an oath to support the Constitution (only).

Which means all military officers, thus controlled fundamentally and supremely by the Constitution, must be obedient to the civil authority. While that main authority would be the President, the President's authority is only as good as any orders which are not violative of the Constitution.

The military are, therefore, obligated by the Constitution not only to refuse to obey any orders of Federal usurpers, automatically made by the Constitution itself null and void from the start, but to support the Constitution only, at all times and under all circumstances, as the sovereign people's fundamental law.

State officials, civil and military, are likewise so required to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. Meaning, in part, to resist Federal usurpers by all necessary means. By force in last resort.

Now. Placing Article IV aside, the issue is also covered rather well in the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) which made this clear in these words: " that standing armies in time of peace should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

And, of course, I'd referenced previously in the discussion the Federalist, numbers 28 and 46, by Hamilton and Madison, as they had explained in great detail opposition of Federal usurpers by militias acting through their State governments.

 

[ESay]

I'm really not sure.. A security guard makes $20,000.. a PMC maakes 50,000 after taxes?

I don't know why that matters at all. The question is not in the salaries. The question is what can be deemed as a private army per se.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Just out of curiosity, and the fact that I don't really feel like reading through the whole thread since I just happened to click on new posts and Jones' post interested me, has anyone mentioned the relevance of the second amendment to the use of force through militias of the States to oppose Federal usurpers?

Because the reality is that this is where the right to bear arms, constitutionally speaking, actually derives. I don't ever really bring it up. But it does. So that is to say that there isn't a natural right to a gun, per se. There is a natural right to property, however. And, of course, the threat from federal usurpers is eternal. So there's that. But there's still a but in there because if militias are products of States as last resort means of use of force against Federal usurpers, meaning ''well regulated"...ahem...then it gets a little tricky with plinkers.

Of course the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is very broad. So often it sounds like some cliche phrase. But technically speaking, the right to a pursuit of happiness means the whole of individual liberty. The whole of man's freedom. It would be an endless list. And that's a deep discussion. But the ninth amendment is rather clear in that regard in that "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

And just to clarify, when I say the whole of man's freedom and the entirety of individual liberty, I'm not talking from the perspective of some empty dictionary.com definiton that a lot of the European politicos resort to to support talking points when they don't understand the fundamentals of Amewrican governance and man's relation to government. I'm talking about these things from the perspective of the manner in which the Founders intended. Meaning the American electorate's freedom from government-over-man. And the American electorate's liberty against government-over-man.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Are you saying that a state or the Supreme Court is unsure or confused between constitutionally organized militia and the Boy Scouts?

The issue is what you thought a militia was when you wrote, "The power to have a militia lies solely with the states. The Supreme Court has literally ruled on this".

That was the specific statement I quoted and I asked you about; my question's context was federal supremacy and preemption only (and exposing your appeal to authority is fallacious).

I'm not interested in a Boy Scouts are militia red herring; I'm only interested in your defense of your statement that, "The power to have a militia lies solely with the states. The Supreme Court has literally ruled on this".

So, let's try this again, what SCOTUS cases held "the power to have a militia lies solely with the states"?

No.

I'm working on the line that "the militia" is a military unit which is able to act as such.

Others might not be working on that view. So we need to clarify before going further.

You're not interested in clarifying, your problem dude. We can end this conversation right now if you're not willing to do the basics.

 

[surada]

I don't know why that matters at all. The question is not in the salaries. The question is what can be deemed as a private army per se.

A Look At The Largest Private Armies In The World

Unity Resources Group is active in the Middle East, Africa, the Americas and Asia. ...
Erinys has guarded most of Iraq's vital oil assets. ...
Asia Security Group is a powerful Afghan force linked to president Karzai. ...
DynCorp has battled Colombian rebels and drug-runners in Peru. ...
Triple Canopy has won a security contract in Iraq worth up to $1.5 billion. ...
More items...

A Look At The Largest Private Armies In The World

www.businessinsider.com

 

[Abatis]

Just out of curiosity, and the fact that I don't really feel like reading through the whole thread since I just happened to click on new posts and Jones' post interested me, has anyone mentioned the relevance of the second amendment to the use of force through militias of the States to oppose Federal usurpers?

Because the reality is that this is where the right to bear arms, constitutionally speaking, actually derives. I don't ever really bring it up. But it does.

The discussion here has been more on the actual control of militia (assuming the Republic is functioning properly). Of course what you say is true and in the more usual debate of individual vs collective right, Federalist 28 and especially 46 come to bear.

I enjoy talking about 28 (and 29) and of course 46 but in this thread, the posters that have been my "opponents" push opinions and positions that bringing in 28 and 46 would not be recognized for what they are.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The discussion here has been more on the actual control of militia (assuming the Republic is functioning properly). Of course what you say is true and in the more usual debate of individual vs collective right, Federalist 28 and especially 46 come to bear.

I enjoy talking about 28 (and 29) and of course 46 but in this thread, the posters that have been my "opponents" push opinions and positions that bringing in 28 and 46 would not be recognized for what they are.

Oh, I see. Thanks. I was just curious. It naturally comes into the discussion. It should anyway.

 

[Abatis]

No.

I'm working on the line that "the militia" is a military unit which is able to act as such.

Others might not be working on that view. So we need to clarify before going further.

You're not interested in clarifying, your problem dude. We can end this conversation right now if you're not willing to do the basics.

Dude, the question is and always has been focused on the organized militia and the unorganized militia and what the particular qualities are of those bodies -- as they relate to "militia" under the Constitution.

The unorganized militia are not militia in the legal sense of the Constitution. Private citizens, not in law obligated to serve and not "enrolled and notified" have no militia impressment, no militia regulations act upon them -- expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

Members of the organized militia have no need for a "right to keep and bear arms"; everything they do, even the type of arm they are mandated to provide himself with, is a legal obligation with penalty for evasion.

 

[ESay]

A Look At The Largest Private Armies In The World

Unity Resources Group is active in the Middle East, Africa, the Americas and Asia. ...
Erinys has guarded most of Iraq's vital oil assets. ...
Asia Security Group is a powerful Afghan force linked to president Karzai. ...
DynCorp has battled Colombian rebels and drug-runners in Peru. ...
Triple Canopy has won a security contract in Iraq worth up to $1.5 billion. ...
More items...

A Look At The Largest Private Armies In The World

www.businessinsider.com

So, what makes these private armies an 'un-American' thing?

 

[Natural Citizen]

One last thought on it before I hit the sheets for a while. Even though I shoulda hit em hours ago, but whatever. It's been one of those restless nights.

America is a ''compound Republic.'' Which means a federation of State Republics and a central Republic, with the greater quantity and variety of power being retained by the government of each State when the Constitution was framed and adopted.

See Federalist #51 by Madison.

Any other fly-by definition you see is wrong. You see them all of the time in one form or another. A Representative Democracy, a Representative Republic, a Direct Democracy, a Constitutional Republic, the Our Democracy line, all of those terms are wrong. The term Constitutional Republic is especially humorous since you can't really be a true Republic without a written Constitution in the first place. It's a redundant term. Heck, I've even seen some Europeans try to pawn off Plato's Republic as a benchmark. And he didn't even talk anything governmental at all in that thing. Heh heh.

And that discussion may certainly be expanded upon as it's directly germane to the delegated, ''strictly limited'' power of the central Republic by the full-power State Republics and the State Republics' use of force against Federal usurpers functioning outside of their ''just power.''

 

[surada]

So, what makes these private armies an 'un-American' thing?

I think that private armies show up in countries with weak governments.. like bananna republics.

Note that Bannon is calling for shock troops to control the next election results.

 

[ESay]

I think that private armies show up in countries with weak governments.. like bananna republics.

Note that Bannon is calling for shock troops to control the next election results.

So, the US uses such armies but somehow that is not an American thing.