Replies to post #322130 on Tornado Alley (PROG)

[ergo sum]

In order to cast an odium upon the power of calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, it has been remarked that there is nowhere any provision in the proposed Constitution for calling out the POSSE COMITATUS, to assist the magistrate in the execution of his duty, whence it has been inferred, that military force was intended to be his only auxiliary. There is a striking incoherence in the objections which have appeared, and sometimes even from the same quarter, not much calculated to inspire a very favorable opinion of the sincerity or fair dealing of their authors. The same persons who tell us in one breath, that the powers of the federal government will be despotic and unlimited, inform us in the next, that it has not authority sufficient even to call out the POSSE COMITATUS. The latter, fortunately, is as much short of the truth as the former exceeds it. It would be as absurd to doubt, that a right to pass all laws NECESSARY AND PROPER to execute its declared powers, would include that of requiring the assistance of the citizens to the officers who may be intrusted with the execution of those laws, as it would be to believe, that a right to enact laws necessary and proper for the imposition and collection of taxes would involve that of varying the rules of descent and of the alienation of landed property, or of abolishing the trial by jury in cases relating to it. It being therefore evident that the supposition of a want of power to require the aid of the POSSE COMITATUS is entirely destitute of color, it will follow, that the conclusion which has been drawn from it, in its application to the authority of the federal government over the militia, is as uncandid as it is illogical. What reason could there be to infer, that force was intended to be the sole instrument of authority, merely because there is a power to make use of it when necessary? What shall we think of the motives which could induce men of sense to reason in this manner? How shall we prevent a conflict between charity and judgment?

[sortagreen]

That is a complete misrepresentation of Federalist 29. And the "quote" is nonsense as one of the themes present in the entire series is an argument against the "Bill of Rights". And even the term itself, "2nd Amendment" would have been completely unknowable to the authors of the Federalist Papers.

Nowhere does my post suggest that Hamilton referred to the 2nd amendment. It says he discusses the militia.


"What did the Founding Fathers mean by that? We don’t have to guess because they told us. In Federalist No. 29 of the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton explained at great length precisely what a “well-regulated militia” was, why the Founding Fathers thought we needed one, and why they wanted to protect it from being disarmed by the federal government."

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-americas-gun-fanatics-wont-tell-you-2016-06-14

(I apologize for omitting the citation.)



---------------------------------------------------------------------
Now... I have read the constitution on occasion, and here are some thoughts.

First can we stipulate that the plain text of the 2nd amendment begins "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"?

Here are some thoughts of my own. Feel free to dispute them.

So who and what is a militia? As it turns out the constitution is hardly silent on that. (you can google the specifics - I wrote this part some time ago)

Consider this:
The second amendment was written at a time when the founders feared the overreach of standing armies, and for the common defense, relied on militias

It seems a lot of ignorant yahoos want their unfettered rights to lethal power, but they want none of the responsibilities that originally came with that.

Militia: During early American history, all males who were between the ages of sixteen to sixty were required to be a part of the local militia in their towns and communities. Almost everyone during this time used and owned guns. The few men who did not use or own a gun were required by law to pay a small fee instead of participating in the military services of their communities. These militias defended the communities against Indian raids and revolved, acted as a police force when it was needed, and was also available to be called upon to defense either the State or of the United States of America if it was needed.

https://kids.laws.com/second-amendment

This is out of article 1 section 8

The Congress shall have Power To….

…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;

…To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Congress is also empowered under article 1 section 8 to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;" and again To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

so there's that