|
MistressDREAD -> RE: МIŞŦЃΞŞŞ ÐREÂЧ™ MΧ§.WRÎTÎÑG§ o====·.,¸,.-·< (5/12/2004 7:27:35 PM)
|
THIS IS MY AGREEMENT TO SUMTHING I READ ON A SPACIFIC ISSUE AND NEEDS NO COMMENT, BUT ONLY TO BE READ AND APPRECIATED FOR ITS CONTENT. I PUT IT HERE IN MY PERSONAL AREA SO THAT ALL KNOW IT IS JUST MY AGREEMENT ON A THOUGHT.
.
MILITIA PATRIOTS FOR DIRECT ACTION OF AMERICA
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The purpose of Militias Patriots for Direct Action is to work for the restoration of all constitutional rights affirmed by the Constitution of the United States. We assert that all power is inherent in the people and it is our right and duty, to protect and defend this Republic against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Our success depends on the education of the American people of the threat posed by these enemies, who are working to subvert our Constitutional Republic. We are not advocating the overthrow of the U. S. Government, but we do advocate resistance to Unconstitutional legislation and executive orders. We also ADVOCATE resistance to the United Nations and to all forms of tyranny. All persons are welcomed in the Militias of America, the only requirement is a love of liberty, and a return to the ideals of our forefathers contained in the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States.
It is important to note that the US Constitution does not establish, or even define, the Militia. Congress is given the authority to call forth the Militia for certain purposes, and has stated responsibilities for the Militia. The States retain the right to appoint the officers of the Militia, and to train them. But nowhere is it stated who or what the Militia is. The only hint is in the Second Amendment, which flatly states that, because a well regulated militia is necessary, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Founding Fathers had an innate distrust of standing armies. They feared that such an army might, either on its own (as so often happens in third world countries) or commanded by the federal government (as in the Communist block), take control of the government and impose its will upon the States. They envisioned instead a nation of free men carrying weapons for their own defense, and trained in unit tactics and the use of field pieces (crew-served weapons: cannon, at that time) so that they could rapidly assemble an armed force should the need arise. The militia was generally understood to be the whole body of the people -- though it was recognized that the entire militia could not, as a practical matter, be "well regulated."
Article I Section 8 of the Constitution granted Congress the power: "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;"
At the time many people were concerned that this gave the federal government too much power. They feared that if the federal government had the authority to call forth the Militia "to execute the Laws of the Union" then their own Militia might be used against them -- making it as dangerous as would be a standing army!
The supporters of the new Constitution argued that such fears were groundless. Since the Militia was, in fact, the "whole body of the people" of the States, they reasoned, the Militia would never consent to act on any federal order that was detrimental to their own welfare.
By allowing Congress to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia" the Founders intended to ensure that the Militia would be a homogenous force and that they would receive the same training in every state, thereby allowing units raised from different states to function together efficiently if it became necessary to assemble an army. By "reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia," they intended to ensure that Militia units brought into the service of the national government would owe their first loyalty to their home state. These clauses codified into the Supreme Law of the Land a Militia that would be the equal of any army, could be "called forth" by the federal government whenever needed for the good of the Union, but would always place the interest of their home state first -- even (or, perhaps, especially) against the federal government.
In fact, Alexander Hamilton recommended the formation of elite corps (corresponding to the National Guard) from the Militia, which would drill often enough to master the use of their weapons in unit maneuvers. These corps, so he thought, would obviate the need for a standing army, since they could form an army on short notice. Should it ever become necessary to maintain a standing army, the elite corps of the Militia would serve to eliminate any chance of the army attempting to take over the government, since they would be of nearly equal strength and training -- and there would still be the vast remainder of the general Militia to contend with. Under these conditions it would only be necessary to drill the whole body of the people once or twice a year. (*1)
Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution placed a prohibition on the States: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
The states having been earlier charged to appoint officers for the Militia, and having been given the authority to train the Militia, they are then forbidden to keep troops in time of peace. These provisions are not inconsistent when one realizes that the Militia are not troops -- they are the people of the states. Thus, the use of the phrase "call forth the Militia" in the first article of the Constitution. The Militia are all around us, all the time, going about their daily lives. In truth, the Militia are us. In time of need the Militia, like the Posse Comitatus, can be called forth -- and magicly appears as each citizen takes up arms and answers the call.
Thus, we arrive at the purpose of the Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State: to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, to enforce the law against mobs or riots -- and to protect against the possibility of an overreaching Federal government using the power of a standing army to enforce its will upon the States. Therefore, the right of the people, collectively and individually to keep and bear arms (not hunting pieces, not sporting pieces, but arms -- weapons designed to kill men) must not be infringed by anyone. Because, if the people cannot keep and bear arms, if the people have no familiarity with arms, how can the Militia be called forth? Or, more correctly, what good would it do to call forth the Militia? A Militia composed of people that have no familiarity with arms could not be regarded as well regulated, and would be of little or no use to the security of a free State. A State with such a militia would be forced to depend on a standing army for its security. In the view of the Founders, such a State might be secure, but it would not long be free.
No State that I know of has established any program to ensure that the Militia (other than the National Guard and, in some cases, the State Defense Force) are properly armed. Most have laws that tax, license or otherwise restrict possession of weapons to a degree that not only discourages the unorganized Militia from arming itself, but fosters a public attitude that possession of weapons is somehow uncivilized, if not criminal.
I also know of no State that has established any program to educate the unorganized Militia to their responsibilities and possible duties in time of emergency or to train the unorganized Militia in marksmanship, tactics or use of crew served weapons. Thus, the unorganized Militia would be of little value if actually called to duty.
So what is to be done if the Congress or the States fail to utilize a power granted by the Constitution -- in effect, fail to carry out a responsibility assigned by the Constitution? In a republic (or a democracy) all power ultimately belongs to the People of the republic. The government exercises the powers ceded to it by the people through the representatives elected by the people. Since Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution requires that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, ..." this applies as much to the states as it does to the federal government. The powers of a sovereign nation do not disappear just because they are not used! If the government fails to use the powers that are ceded to it, they remain with (or return to) the People. As the Founders stated in the Declaration of Independence, "whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within."
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1929/libbirth.html
http://federalobserver.com/
http://freeamerican.com//TopStories.htm
[image]local://upfiles/9526/C058DC1F4BD646958459516A49AEA935.gif[/image]
|
|
|
|
