Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Who are the Militia? [View all]jmg257
(11,996 posts)26. "Unlimited power of the sword" is "in the hands of the people"?
Trench might have wanted to re-read the constitution...and also the fears of the Virginia Ratifying Conventions...
Mr. GEORGE MASON.
Mr. Chairman, unless there be some restrictions on the
power of calling forth the militia, to execute the laws of the Union,
suppress insurrections, and repel invasions, we may very easily see that it
will produce dreadful oppressions. .... I conceive the general government
ought to have power over the militia, but it ought to have some bounds.
...
Here is a line of division drawn between them -- the state and general
governments. The power over the militia is divided between them. The
national government has an exclusive right to provide for arming,
organizing, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of
them as may be employed in the service of the United States. The state
governments have the power of appointing the officers, and of training the
militia, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress, if they should
think proper to prescribe any. ...
Mr MADISON:
I cannot conceive that this Constitution, by giving the general government
the power of arming the militia, takes it away from the state governments.
The power is concurrent, and not exclusive.
Have we not found, from experience, that, while the power of arming and governing the militia has
been solely vested in the state legislatures, they were neglected and
rendered unfit for immediate service? Every state neglected too much this
most essential object. But the general government can do it more effectually....
If the regulation of the militia were to be committed to the executive authority alone, there might
be reason for providing restrictions. But, sir, it is the legislative
authority that has this power. They must make a law for the purpose.
...
Mr. HENRY.
Mr. Chairman, in my judgment the friends of the opposition have
to act cautiously. We must make a firm stand before we decide. I was heard
to say, a few days ago, that the sword and purse were the two great
instruments of government; ...
as the new government would have power over the militia, we should
have no standing army -- it being unnecessary. This argument destroys
itself. It demands a power, and denies the probability of its exercise.
...
As my worthy friend said, there is a positive partition of power between the
two governments. To Congress is given the power of "arming, organizing, and
disciplining the militia, and governing such part of them as may be employed
in the service of the United States." To the state legislatures is given the
power of appointing the officers, and training the militia according to the
discipline prescribed by Congress."
These delegates truly feared congressional power over the militias, especially the potential lack of arming and regulating the militias, and the abuse of them too.
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia"...
True - NO power to disarm the militia....hmmm..
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
174 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Of course I do, its right there in the Constitution, the Militia Acts, even the Federalist papers.
jmg257
Jul 2013
#45
It might. But then agan...why would a sand bag brigade need arms? Or to be well regulated? nt
jmg257
Jul 2013
#72
YOU get to define the term "well-regulated"? In spite its use in several other period
jmg257
Jul 2013
#56
Yes! You are of course right. Which is why I dont get all the yap about "militia".
jmg257
Jul 2013
#89
Ha! Ha! You are still on regulated = equipped? Bullshit yesterday, bullshit today,
jmg257
Jul 2013
#125
You might want to read this too, on the importance of preambles in amendments...
jmg257
Jul 2013
#61
Are you stating that there was such a thing as "the unorganized milita" in 1791?
jmg257
Jul 2013
#63
No, its my turn to say again...the militia referred to in 1792 were REGULATED, organized,
jmg257
Jul 2013
#98
True - and mention the creation of the National Guard as the new "well-regulated militia".
jmg257
Jul 2013
#50
re: "...75% americans did not have any federal right to bear arms in late 1700's."
discntnt_irny_srcsm
Jul 2013
#86
Modern usage of term "militia" = anti-government, anti-tax extremists and fruitcakes
Jessy169
Jul 2013
#31
Actually, he's looking at the governments military organization definition. :) n/t
Decoy of Fenris
Jul 2013
#54
Yeah, but I'm having fun too, and his inability to answer is much of the fun n/t
hansberrym
Jul 2013
#154
Perhaps curiosity will get the best of you, and you will read the thread -or maybe not. n/t
hansberrym
Jul 2013
#140
You just caught that? Which makes his whole "unlimited power of the sword" thingie pretty silly,
jmg257
Jul 2013
#81
There you go. So in order to prevent the abuse of the power actually granted
hansberrym
Jul 2013
#142