In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 says:
amsptcds
Member Posts: 679 ✭
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;
This is "ordained and established" as our Constitution.
...Doesn't it seemm like it is the Federal Government's responsibility to train all Americans to be the Militia? And that they will govern "such part of them" as may be employed in the service of the country?
...They delegate the authority to the states to get the training done.
But notice that, still, there is no negation of the phrase "such part of them".
This clause, I'll bet, has been construed as the authorization to vreate the National Guard. I am guessing here, maybe some guard types could clear that up one way or the other. But this clause doesn't state that.
Read it again. I think it says this:
The federal government is responsible for training the entire militia, and delegates the authority to conduct the training to the states. And it will govern the ones that are (retained) in the service of the government, but not the others. (You and Me)
The clause reserves to the states, the appointment of officers ( I assume for the regular militia) as well as the authority to train them.
...If all are to be trained, and I assume this means all men considering the social structure back then, and some are to be retained for service, it sounds as if the creation of a militia is the responsibility of our government, and it established both a regular and a non regulated militia. Or if you prefer, a regulated official government militia, and a non regulated civilian militia.
...If this is true, really true, then government fails in its duty when it does not in fact train us all in the use of firearms and instead gives us "gun control" to the exclusion of the regular military and guard.
...Since the regulated military and the guard are the only ones regulated (governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States) then by their own rules they are the only ones susceptible to gun control.
...This has the effect of making gun control laws aimed at civilians illegal and non constitutional.
...Since they have done this to civilians, it amounts to punishing us for their failures. They have failed in their duty to us and throw up this smoke screen to make good people look like bad people simply because they might like a certain kind of gun.
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
The duty to preserve one's self ought never be denied.
Neo-Jedi Order
Member
This is "ordained and established" as our Constitution.
...Doesn't it seemm like it is the Federal Government's responsibility to train all Americans to be the Militia? And that they will govern "such part of them" as may be employed in the service of the country?
...They delegate the authority to the states to get the training done.
But notice that, still, there is no negation of the phrase "such part of them".
This clause, I'll bet, has been construed as the authorization to vreate the National Guard. I am guessing here, maybe some guard types could clear that up one way or the other. But this clause doesn't state that.
Read it again. I think it says this:
The federal government is responsible for training the entire militia, and delegates the authority to conduct the training to the states. And it will govern the ones that are (retained) in the service of the government, but not the others. (You and Me)
The clause reserves to the states, the appointment of officers ( I assume for the regular militia) as well as the authority to train them.
...If all are to be trained, and I assume this means all men considering the social structure back then, and some are to be retained for service, it sounds as if the creation of a militia is the responsibility of our government, and it established both a regular and a non regulated militia. Or if you prefer, a regulated official government militia, and a non regulated civilian militia.
...If this is true, really true, then government fails in its duty when it does not in fact train us all in the use of firearms and instead gives us "gun control" to the exclusion of the regular military and guard.
...Since the regulated military and the guard are the only ones regulated (governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States) then by their own rules they are the only ones susceptible to gun control.
...This has the effect of making gun control laws aimed at civilians illegal and non constitutional.
...Since they have done this to civilians, it amounts to punishing us for their failures. They have failed in their duty to us and throw up this smoke screen to make good people look like bad people simply because they might like a certain kind of gun.
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
The duty to preserve one's self ought never be denied.
Neo-Jedi Order
Member
Comments
To answer your question...yes, indeed..all levels of government have failed the Constitituional test. The Civil War destroyed the system set up by the Founders...and instituted a total inversion of the Founders plan....that being, the People were soverign citizens, with authority over the States and Federal governments....The Federal government became all-powerful..languishing until 1913, wherein the Tax act finally allowed the power-mad the money to destroy freedoms.
No use flashing laws/Constitution..nor discusing freedoms. You have just as much of any of those that you can afford..and not one iota more.
Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To get to the point, What I am suggesting is this; If the armed forces are used beyond the two years then they must be considered a regulated militia and therefore a standing army, the militia is not a standing army nor is the government training, arming, or paying each of us. Because of this the regular military is a standing army as are the National Guard leaving a void where the militia would be. By their own admission they have circumvented themselves. How so?
If we indeed are the militia, then we are to be called on to suppress insurrections:
Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Since the government has re-written this in Posse Comitatus to lead us to believe it applies to the standing army the government has broken the law. It is an unconstitutional act, the responsibility of suppressing an insurrection is ours and ours alone as well as repelling invasions. Since it is our responsibility and we are the ones most likely to rise up, there is nobody to defend against it. This makes me wonder where the advantage is in repealing Posse Comitatus, if it is written into law, albeit unconstitutional, that the standing army would be able to quash an insurrection, where does the government benefit from.....nevermind, of course. Do you see it? If the government can use the standing army already in cases of emergency, the PC only stands as a symbol to thwart tyranny, thustly, the govt. would only have to declare an emergency in case of insurrection in order to be able to use the standing army. So, since the PC is an unconstitutional act, the front of repealing will be put up in order to remove the part about suppressing insurrections. Because it is written that the standing army may be used in emergency, the clause is only hindering the legality of such use do to it's unconstitutionality. Does that make sense?
The fact that this was written into our Constitution is troublesome. The definition of letter of marque is that of the citizens of the United States being empowered to seize citizens or goods from another nation. In other words slavery was and is 100% legal provided you are issued a letter of marque. There is no verbiage in here that states "enemies" therefore any reference to a letter of marque providing the govt. power to seize your property as an enemy of the state is illegal.
Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Neo-Jedi
Council
Naboo Sniper
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
I think we can clearly see that in these articles there has been gross negligence and impropper use of power. I don't understand how these have been allowed to continue. The simple fact that the government trained, paid, and armed our armed forces make them a standing army which no funds beyond two years shall be appropriated unless "War" has been declared by congress. Essentially outside of a "War" the military can only be funded for a period of two years. We started this conflict 4 years ago and still no declaration of war. Now I know this is not news but, what may not have been considered are the rammifications of such defiance as it may pertain legalities and structure in the using of armed forces.
Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To get to the point, What I am suggesting is this; If the armed forces are used beyond the two years then they must be considered a regulated militia and therefore a standing army, the militia is not a standing army nor is the government training, arming, or paying each of us. Because of this the regular military is a standing army as are the National Guard leaving a void where the militia would be. By their own admission they have circumvented themselves. How so?
If we indeed are the militia, then we are to be called on to suppress insurrections:
Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Since the government has re-written this in Posse Comitatus to lead us to believe it applies to the standing army the government has broken the law. It is an unconstitutional act, the responsibility of suppressing an insurrection is ours and ours alone as well as repelling invasions. Since it is our responsibility and we are the ones most likely to rise up, there is nobody to defend against it. This makes me wonder where the advantage is in repealing Posse Comitatus, if it is written into law, albeit unconstitutional, that the standing army would be able to quash an insurrection, where does the government benefit from.....nevermind, of course. Do you see it? If the government can use the standing army already in cases of emergency, the PC only stands as a symbol to thwart tyranny, thustly, the govt. would only have to declare an emergency in case of insurrection in order to be able to use the standing army. So, since the PC is an unconstitutional act, the front of repealing will be put up in order to remove the part about suppressing insurrections. Because it is written that the standing army may be used in emergency, the clause is only hindering the legality of such use do to it's unconstitutionality. Does that make sense?
The fact that this was written into our Constitution is troublesome. The definition of letter of marque is that of the citizens of the United States being empowered to seize citizens or goods from another nation. In other words slavery was and is 100% legal provided you are issued a letter of marque. There is no verbiage in here that states "enemies" therefore any reference to a letter of marque providing the govt. power to seize your property as an enemy of the state is illegal.
Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Neo-Jedi
Council
Naboo Sniper
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
Sorry I haven't been "in" to respond. I agree with you for the most part. I would say that most politiciams never ebven look at the clauses until some possible court case in in the works, then it gets passed off to some liar, I mean lawyer.
Real questions that exist for us are ones like: How did we get here from there?... as you are suggesting.
Bothersome to me is what is it that we can do to get back to center? How can we discredit those who have back doored us? Who were the protectors who were ignorant about how to do it? How can we undo this stuff or at least legally clarify it in a legal rational way.
Probably, as I have suggested before, it will take the right type of law suit going up the chain until it gets to the SC.
I don't mean to sound redundant, but I would just like people to think in that fashion. Maybe someone with the time and money can get through the effort. (I just don't want the idea of this method to die out)
The duty to preserve one's self ought never be denied.
Neo-Jedi Order
Member