🚀 go-pugleaf

<3366211C.72D2AD7F@clark.net> <3366332a.12703712@news.gmu.edu><5k5guu$s7s@portal.gmu.edu> <33667a92.1160658@news.gmu.edu> Organization:
George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA Distribution:

John M Atkinson (jatkinso@ANTISPAMgmu.edu) wrote:
: %: Frankly, whether I agree or not with your politics, you have the right
: to do
: %: whatever you please, as long as it is accord with the US Constitution.  
: Armed
: %: insurrection will get me and a lot of like-minded fellows in uniform out
: hunting
: %: you down.  
: %
: %Posse Commitatus.  No you won't.

: Funny, I thought that was what happened to the last violent insurrection.  
: Seem
: to recall something about the US Army expanding to it's largest size up until
: that time (primarily by Federalizing militia regiments) and hunting down a 
: pack
: of insurgents known as the Army of Northern Virginia.  I could swear they
: mentioned it in history class somewhere. . . And of course my batallion was
: one
: of the huntees.

Yep, except that my friend was a declared War.  Still doesn't change the
fact that the Army doesn't the legal authority to go hunting down American
Citizens.  Hate to rain on your parade, but you'd need a clearly defined
state of war to do that again, and in the Case of the Civil War you had a
defined and declared WAR.  American Citizens have a constitutional right
to safe in homes from the Army.  The Army does *not* have power to police,
and that includes hunting down American citizens.    

: And the annual civil disturbance training is mandated for a reason.  And the
: reason I got told was that when civil authorities loose control of an area, 
: they call for National Guard backup.  Are you going to suggest that's not 
: what would happen in case of armed rebellion?

Not at all, but whos to say the armed rebellion wouldn't be against a
tyrannical federal government?  Its not like history isn't full of such 
things happening.  But if you recall your CD training you don't have
police powers - you defer to the LOCAL authorities.  Only in extreme cases
of martial law do you have the latitude to not defer, and even then you
are constatly operating under the constraint of: These are AMERICAN
CITIZENS NOT THE ENEMY.  

I have no doubts where the US Military will take sides, if the Oath we all
took is any indicator, we should be standing with the constitution FIRST.
So if that armed insurrection were to overthrow a government which was
trashing the constitution, I hope it would be lead by the defenders of
that piece of paper.  

: %And so do the state Police, so does that make them a militia?

: Your point was that the Guard doesn't fulfill that mission.  

No, my argument was that the guard is not "THE Militia" <- Your words, not
mine.  Which logically to me makes no sense, for several reasons which
I've outlined - not the least of which is that Guard didn't come into
being until 1903 - and for 400 years the term "well regulated militia" has
meant THE PEOPLE, with PRIVATELY (not federally) owned weapons, led by
officers chosen by THEMSELVES, not the federal government.  Therefore, the
guard is NOT THE militia.

"The militia of the United States" is defined under federal law to include
ALL able bodied males and females (10 USC 311;32 USC 313).  So your
statement that the guard is THE militia is not only semmantically wrong
within the context of the law, but its patently and arrogantly misleading.

Further, since the Guard is subject to ABSOLUTE federal control (Supreme
Court, Perpich v. Dept. of Defense) it is thus not the militia envisoned
by the Framers of the constitution (George Mason).  Its part of the
federal army.

Finally, the term "the people" in the constitution has been ruled by the
Supreme Court to have the same meaning in the Second amendment as it does
in the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth amendments - these are individual
rights, NOT collective rights. (US v. Cruikshank 1876), PResser v.
Illinois (1886), Miller v. Texas (1894), US v. Miller (1939) and US v.
Verdugo-Urquidez (1990).  The Court said, the term "The people" refers
throughout the constitution to all persons in our national community, so
the contention that Guard is the militia is further debunked.

Therefore, its been my argument all along that the Guard is not the
militia.  The Militia is the people, all of them, lead by themselves,
armed by themselves and not answering to an absolute federal authority.


M. Shinn