History and the US constitution (split from gun injury thread)

[overtone]

 

 

The one the Constitution is talking about actually is. Article 1 section 8. Look it up

The Constitution is not talking about any militia in particular. The National Guard itself is regular military - not a militia, in the Constitutional sense, at all.

 

See: " armed, equipped, trained, paid, formally enlisted, subject to the UCMJ, and under the command of the State and the Federal Government"

[swansont]

Who do you imagine was in charge of the militia in colonial times?

From Article I section 8

 

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;

Organizing and arming. Disciplining (the UCMJ). May be employed in the service of the US.

 

Further, from article II section 2

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;

That sounds pretty much exactly like the national guard.

[ydoaPs]

The Constitution is not talking about any militia in particular.

Really? Care to explain why it used the definite article "THE" and then goes on to describe "the militia" as *gasp* the National Guard?

[MonDie]

Who do you imagine was in charge of the militia in colonial times?

From Article I section 8

 

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;

Organizing and arming. Disciplining (the UCMJ). May be employed in the service of the US.

 

Further, from article II section 2

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;

That sounds pretty much exactly like the national guard.

 

That's interesting in that it describes the militia(s) as belonging to the states. One wonders whether the second amendment is actually a restriction on the federal government specifically. Meanwhile the supreme court has been using it to justify overturning state-level regulations.

 

Articles I and II

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

Edited October 26, 2015 by MonDie

[swansont]

 

That's interesting in that it describes the militia(s) as belonging to the states. One wonders whether the second amendment is actually a restriction on the federal government specifically. Meanwhile the supreme court has been using it to justify overturning state-level regulations.

 

Articles I and II

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

 

Section 1 of the 14th amendment probably comes into play.

 

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

 

The obvious target for this was not being able to circumvent the 13th amendment with a state law

 

(pause to Google)

 

OK, it's not actually the 14th amendment directly, but via a process known as incorporation, which stems from it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

[overtone]

The Constitution is not talking about any militia in particular.

Really? Care to explain why it used the definite article "THE" and then goes on to describe "the militia" as *gasp* the National Guard?

It doesn't. The National Guard, like the Air Force and the Coast Guard (a much better candidate for "militia" than the National Guard) did not exist when the Constitution was written.

 

 

Organizing and arming. Disciplining (the UCMJ). May be employed in the service of the US.

The "M" stands for "military", not "militia". There's a reason for that.

 

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;

That sounds pretty much exactly like the national guard.

Sure. The National Guard would fall under "Army and Navy" (as a new category, like the Air Force), since it is regular military rather than militia. That's how they ended up in Iraq, involuntarily subsumed under Army command. Afaik only Texas, among the States, has a currently raised State organized militia - it also has a National Guard, of course, which is a different thing.

My State has not currently organized any of its militia at the State level - they are all at home, cleaning their guns and voting for Michelle Bachmann and dreaming of fending off rioters with dark skin and aberrant religions. Some of them have joined the National Guard.

 

That's interesting in that it describes the militia(s) as belonging to the states

If you look at the list of militia that fought in the Revolutionary War - the entities the author of the 2nd Amendment was referring to directly, probably with members of them at hand - you will note that they were not raised from States but from towns, counties, regions, communities of various kinds, even clubs or fraternal organizations. They were identified as coming from this or that "State" (colony), but not raised at the "State" level. Typical: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley%27s_Regiment_of_Militia and see this link for an idea of how the "State" managed its militia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucks_of_America

 

Notice in particular that several militia in the US at the time were formed long before the existence of any State, per se, and a significant proportion of the militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment were of necessity not citizens of a State - yet.

 

One wonders whether the second amendment is actually a restriction on the federal government specifically.

When it was written, definitely.

Edited October 26, 2015 by overtone

[swansont]

 

The "M" stands for "military", not "militia". There's a reason for that.

 

Do you mean to imply that the militia (when active) are not military in nature? What are they then, a knitting circle, or a book club?

 

If you look at the list of militia that fought in the Revolutionary War - the entities the author of the 2nd Amendment was referring to directly, probably with members of them at hand - you will note that they were not raised from States but from towns, counties, regions, communities of various kinds, even clubs or fraternal organizations. They were identified as coming from this or that "State" (colony), but not raised at the "State" level. Typical: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley%27s_Regiment_of_Militia and see this link for an idea of how the "State" managed its militia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucks_of_America

 

 

Regular army units were organized along similar lines. Presumably a matter of logistics; it would be time-consuming to mix and match people from across the state. (I think the practice continued, at least to some extent, up through WWII and probably all the way through to when the draft ended)

 

see e.g.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Connecticut_Regiment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Maryland_Regiment

 

So while the militia were similarly organized by locality, they were called up by the governor or by the regular military

 

http://ncpedia.org/history/usrevolution/soldiers

 

The Continental army often used the local militia to help out. The militia, made up of male citizens over sixteen years of age, was the defense force of each state. Regiments of militia were called up for service by the governor or the commanding general to serve for a campaign or for a period of time as needed. These soldiers were told what equipment they had to bring with them.

[overtone]

 

 

Do you mean to imply that the militia (when active) are not military in nature? What are they then, a knitting circle, or a book club?

They are not part of the regular military. One refers to the military and the militia, separately, when avoiding confusion. An ordinary militia is not, except voluntarily, subject to military command - a militia can choose its own command, or none at all. Notice how many Revolutionary War militia units were named after their chosen command. Notice how quickly the militia units are simply disbanded at the end of the Revolutionary War - even before the formal peace, often immediately after key battles or surrenders.

 

http://www.dailywritingtips.com/military-vs-militia/

[swansont]

They are not part of the regular military. One refers to the military and the militia, separately, when avoiding confusion. An ordinary militia is not, except voluntarily, subject to military command - a militia can choose its own command, or none at all. Notice how many Revolutionary War militia units were named after their chosen command. Notice how quickly the militia units are simply disbanded at the end of the Revolutionary War - even before the formal peace, often immediately after key battles or surrenders.

 

Historically (prior to and during the revolution), sure, but in context of the Constitution this is not true — presumably because of the experience in the revolution. Different militias were not equivalent, i.e. some were not well-regulated. So in the constitution they gave congress certain powers over the militia.

[ydoaPs]

Your definition of the National Guard:

 

See: " armed, equipped, trained, paid, formally enlisted, subject to the UCMJ, and under the command of the State and the Federal Government"

The militia that the Constitution is talking about:

"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;"

 

With the exception of your ridiculous criterion that it needs to talk about the UCMJ specifically (it didn't exist yet), this hits every point on your definition. Whether or not it was called the National Guard at the time, it performed the exact same function.

 

The militia about which the Constitution speaks is not some ragtag group of farmers that band together on their own. It's a "well regulated" (see Amendment 2) group that is organized, armed, disciplined, and appointed by the government taking orders from the government specifically assigned to the states unless otherwise needed by the federal level.

 

Your nonsense about the revolutionary war need not apply. The Constitution didn't exist yet, and what the Constitution is talking about when it talks about THE militia is quite obviously not what you're talking about when you use the word.

 

 

An ordinary militia is not, except voluntarily, subject to military command - a militia can choose its own command, or none at all.

That's not the militia the Constitution is talking about. The Constitution's militia is a military force maintained and governed by the states with the caveat that the federal level if needed. That's what it says it's talking about.

 

Please stop equivocating so we can get back to the discussion.

[overtone]

Historically (prior to and during the revolution), sure, but in context of the Constitution this is not true — presumably because of the experience in the revolution.

Most appeared to have not learned from the Revolution, wherein the virtues of the militia were exaggerated in victory's aftermath. The basic nature of militia, and the dependence on them, did not change much in the US until after the War or 1812, and then critically with the disasters of the Civil War. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)

 

The extension of Federal control over militia "when in the service of the United States", then, was more an attempt to forestall a Federal standing army than an attempt to improve the militia.

 

 

So in the constitution they gave congress certain powers over the militia.

Over the States's organization of their militia.

 

 

With the exception of your ridiculous criterion that it needs to talk about the UCMJ specifically (it didn't exist yet), this hits every point on your definition

No, it doesn't. How are coming to that conclusion?

 

In point of fact, the various militia of the US were not all thereafter armed, equipped, paid, trained, formally enlisted, etc, by the State. Many of the significant militia were privately raised both before and after the Revolution, for starters. And the others weren't paid, armed, equipped, etc by the State necessarily - depended.

 

That's not the militia the Constitution is talking about. The Constitution's militia is a military force maintained and governed by the states with the caveat that the federal level if needed.

That would not describe much of the militia of the War just over. You appear to be describing a standing State military force, like a National Guard almost. Very few such militia existed at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment, and all standing armies were abhorred by many - are you describing a program for the future?

 

And how does this affect even the plain reading of the 2nd Amerndment, let alone the interests of this thread?

Edited October 26, 2015 by overtone

[ydoaPs]

No, it doesn't. How are coming to that conclusion?

Because I read your list and then read what the Constitution says it's talking about when it talks about the militia. It turns out that they match to at T.

And how does this affect even the plain reading of the 2nd Amerndment, let alone the interests of this thread?

You don't think knowing the context of an amendment to a text is in anyway enlightening to the reading of the amendment?

[swansont]

That would not describe much of the militia of the War just over. You appear to be describing a standing State military force, like a National Guard almost.

]

The national guard is not a standing military force. Most members aren't serving 24/7

[ydoaPs]

The national guard is not a standing military force. Most members aren't serving 24/7

One weekend a month; two weeks a year.

[waitforufo]

You might want to check out the Dick Act of 1902. There is an organized militia and an unorganized militia. Both are recognized in the US.

[moth]

Should people over 45 have to turn in their weapons because they are too old to serve in a militia?

 

this might be better in the gun control thread but the Dick act got me.

[overtone]

Because I read your list and then read what the Constitution says it's talking about when it talks about the militia. It turns out that they match to at T.

Except that the actual militia they were talking about don't. So - - - reading comprehension issues again. Let's guess: you are reading "make provision for" as "mandate, take over, and run" - check? You are reading "President shall be Commander in Chief of State militia called to the service of the United States" as "President is commander in chief of all US militia".

 

One common employment of US militia in the early 1800s was for slave patrol - catching runaways, etc. There was also the Mormon militia of the Utah War, the various militia that turned post-Civil-War Plains into Bloody Kansas, and so forth.

 

BTW: Notice that even that thin and vague suggestion of converting a militia into a standing military force rang all kinds of bells in the 1780s: there were some guys didn't like that at all - and they were right, the slippery slope led to a standing army, although not the consequent disaster they feared.

 

 

The national guard is not a standing military force. Most members aren't serving 24/7

- - - One weekend a month; two weeks a year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_weekend_a_month,_two_weeks_a_year " During some periods of the 2003 war in Iraq, the National guard represented 41% of the personnel deployed "

If you read the comments, you will see that the NG is automatically and casually referred to as a "branch of the service". Like this: http://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/us-military-overview.html Some are 24/7, the rest on call 24/7. The ones shipped to Iraq (militia are not shipped to foreign wars) were of course 24/7 for months, years sometimes. The training schedule is not the whole of their commitment. They enlist not for a campaign, or at need, as militia do, but for a period of time as regular army are: paid, equipped (uniformed, even), commanded, etc etc etc, - a standing military force, as feared by the original promoters of militia as an alternative. And used by the central government for foreign ventures, exactly as feared by those promoting militia as an alternative.

 

 

You don't think knowing the context of an amendment to a text is in anyway enlightening to the reading of the amendment?

It wasn't an amendment to a text, and what you presented was not context for it. What I presented was context for it: No militias anything like the current National Guard, which is a given anyway because the current National Guard is not a militia.

 

This is the kind of confusion created by not paying attention to the actual circumstances and origin of the Bill of Rights. They amended nothing, they were included with the original Constitution as part of its wording, they were intended as expressions of rights already present, but disclaimable by the unscrupulous, in the body of the Constitution.

Edited October 27, 2015 by overtone

[swansont]

Some are 24/7, the rest on call 24/7. The ones shipped to Iraq (militia are not shipped to foreign wars) were of course 24/7 for months, years sometimes. The training schedule is not the whole of their commitment. They enlist not for a campaign, or at need, as militia do, but for a period of time as regular army are: paid, equipped (uniformed, even), commanded, etc etc etc, - a standing military force, as feared by the original promoters of militia as an alternative. And used by the central government for foreign ventures, exactly as feared by those promoting militia as an alternative.

 

The national guard is just like the military reserves. Not a standing force, but you train occasionally to maintain a certain minimum level of readiness. (And even in the reserves there are active and inactive reservists — those who do the one weekend a month + 2 weeks a year, and those that just go to annual mustering events)

 

When you're called up, then you're actively serving 24/7. Just like the militia of old. But when then you stand down, which is why these are not standing armies.

This is the kind of confusion created by not paying attention to the actual circumstances and origin of the Bill of Rights. They amended nothing, they were included with the original Constitution as part of its wording, they were intended as expressions of rights already present, but disclaimable by the unscrupulous, in the body of the Constitution.

 

So we're back to this again.

They enlist not for a campaign, or at need, as militia do, but for a period of time as regular army are

 

Well, no. This would imply that the militia did not exist except in times of war, and that's patently untrue. The militia get called up when there's a conflict, but there are members prior to that. You also get new members when a conflict breaks out, just like with the military (there's often a rush of volunteers, along with a possible draft).

[overtone]

The national guard is just like the military reserves.

Yes. They aren't militia either, in the modern US military.

Well, no. This would imply that the militia did not exist except in times of war, and that's patently untrue. The militia get called up when there's a conflict, but there are members prior to that.

They were not necessarily enlisted - given ranks and roles, assigned to this or that regiment, put on the payroll, etc - before the need. The raising of the militia is - or was, in 1790 - often a call to the militia to enlist in one of the units entering the current conflict. There were arguments at the time about whether to make this compulsory for all State militia members - because it was not, in general, even for State militia (let alone the private, colonial, frontier, town, and other such militia).

 

It was even common for militia to pack up their weapons and gear and go home at the end of whatever they had enlisted for, regardless of the military situation. A militia is not an army.

 

You also get new members when a conflict breaks out, just like with the military

You get new enlistees, never before been members of this or that regiment, never trained, etc. As the militia involved were often defined as every adult man under 45 in the community - which is the current definition of the militia of the United States, as I'm sure you remember from your link, - I'm not sure what you mean by "new members".

 

I suspect you have mistaken "enlistment" in a militia for "enlistment" in the regular military.

 

Edited October 27, 2015 by overtone

[swansont]

Yes. They aren't militia either, in the modern US military.

They are, according to the militia act of 1903 (aka the Dick act, as has been pointed to before), but that's beside the point of them not being a standing force.

 

(Also see 10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

...

(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.)

 

 

I suspect you have mistaken "enlistment" in a militia for "enlistment" in the regular military.

Seeing as you used the term to apply to the National Guard and militia at the same time, (and yet you claim the NG is not militia) that's quite likely.

[overtone]

Seeing as you used the term to apply to the National Guard and militia at the same time, (and yet you claim the NG is not militia) that's quite likel

Against illiteracy the Gods themselves rail in vain. Against the refusal to acknowledge the content of even quoted posts, wherein a few of the differences between enlistment in militia campaigns and enlistment in the very body of a regular military force were typed out in front of you, the Gods just narrow their eyes.

 

Enlist the services of an educated person with familiarity, or take a few hours of your valuable time and try to find a way to enlist in the US militia - you know, that entity that every US man under the age of 45 is a member of, right now.

 

 

 

They are, according to the militia act of 1903

Acts of Congress are not able to alter reality, or change the meanings of common English words - especially those in the US Constitution.

 

Do you think Exxon is actually a person, because it is defined to be one for the purposes of various legislation? Is this http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.marineinsight.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Tension-Leg-Platform.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.marineinsight.com/marine/marine-news/headline/what-is-tension-leg-platform-tlp/&h=375&w=500&tbnid=hk9U9dEjULpSIM:&docid=GA-Qzze11hBoZM&ei=QVowVsrQLYPi-QHonYH4AQ&tbm=isch&client=safari&ved=0CDMQMygSMBJqFQoTCIr11um05MgCFQNxPgod6E4AHwa "vessel", on your planet?

 

 

 

(Also see 10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(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.)

That does not make the National Guard a militia. It might - possibly - make any militia in the National Guard "organized".

Edited October 28, 2015 by overtone