State sponsored militias? Really?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100413/ap_on_re_us/us_tea_party_militia
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100413/ap_on_re_us/us_tea_party_militia
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
And I Thought This One Was Settled in 1865
- Thread starter NavAir42
- Start date
The average American has no idea what federalism means or what our what our country was when it was founded. I don't know anything about these people but I welcome a return to Federalism and States Rights.
When our country was founded it was largely agrarian with a weak and largely amateur military. Two decades later the British came back and burned the White House down. It wasn't all peaches and liberty.
Besides, this, uh, already exists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Defense_Forces
There already are state-sponsored militias distinct from the National Guard and which cannot be federalized except under federal statutes relating to militias.
Whereas today we are not largely agrarian and we no longer pay much attention to the Constitution. What is your point exactly? I think the this country did fairly well paying attention to the Constitution for a long time.
So what aspects of the Constitution do we not pay attention to anymore? Perhaps the authority to issue letters of Marque and Reprisal?
Don't confuse adherence to the Constitution, a legal document outlining a broad framework for the organization of our government, with a literal nostalgia for the country as it stood 200 years ago, particularly for the extra-constitutional writings of the founders. The great economic battle of the founder's time was agriculture versus industry. The Jeffersonian ideal of the yeoman farmer... a little dated. As Justice Marshall put it in judging the "founders' intent".
We are bound by law and oath to the Constitution. We are not bound by anything to the founders' intent, their writings, or the literal form of government we had in 1787. If you want to return to that, then we need to start with defense cuts. Massive defense cuts. The full-time professional army we have today is a product of the past 50 years. We have kept to the letter of the law by re-appropriating funds periodically, but it was most definitely not the intent of the founders to maintain a standing military on the scale we have today. Is that "not paying attention to the Constitution"?
Don't confuse adherence to the Constitution, a legal document outlining a broad framework for the organization of our government, with a literal nostalgia for the country as it stood 200 years ago, particularly for the extra-constitutional writings of the founders. The great economic battle of the founder's time was agriculture versus industry. The Jeffersonian ideal of the yeoman farmer... a little dated. As Justice Marshall put it in judging the "founders' intent".
We are bound by law and oath to the Constitution. We are not bound by anything to the founders' intent, their writings, or the literal form of government we had in 1787. If you want to return to that, then we need to start with defense cuts. Massive defense cuts. The full-time professional army we have today is a product of the past 50 years. We have kept to the letter of the law by re-appropriating funds periodically, but it was most definitely not the intent of the founders to maintain a standing military on the scale we have today. Is that "not paying attention to the Constitution"?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
If you can't find dozens of examples of this being ignored then I don't know what to tell you.
Back during Katrina, I was down in Jefferson Parish and there were a bunch of guys running around in BDU's led by a 1-star. The service over their pocket said "MARYLAND".
I found out they were from the Maryland Millitia and were there to help out a bunch of doctors and nurses who came down from Maryland.
The 'General' is voted on by the group, so he's kind of like the club president.
They were not a DOD ogranization but they made no effort to differentiate themselves from the AC and RC folks that were down helping out. Mostly they were all pretty good guys who liked to play soldier and help people during their spare time, but it was a bit confusing to me after I saluted this guy thinking he was a real one-star.
Their website is: http://mddf.maryland.gov/index.aspx
I found out they were from the Maryland Millitia and were there to help out a bunch of doctors and nurses who came down from Maryland.
The 'General' is voted on by the group, so he's kind of like the club president.
They were not a DOD ogranization but they made no effort to differentiate themselves from the AC and RC folks that were down helping out. Mostly they were all pretty good guys who liked to play soldier and help people during their spare time, but it was a bit confusing to me after I saluted this guy thinking he was a real one-star.
Their website is: http://mddf.maryland.gov/index.aspx
ryan1234
Well-Known Member
Are you sure you mean Federalism and not Anti-Federalism?
It was my understanding that Federalism and State's Rights sort of oppose each other (in a broad sense)
The better question is...would you want them to be able to say no? To the extent that the various guard and reserve units are funded and equiped by the federal government, they're pretty much bound (legally and logistically) to comply with the CinC.
This whole "return to the bilssful days of yore" mentality is a bit ridiculous. It's a sociological version of the "grass is greener" syndrome. Societies and the governments they create evolve over time. It would be no less practical (or desirable) for us to devolve back to our hunter-gatherer days. Government and society also has momentum and inertia, so you may be able to nudge it slightly here and there, but radical change isn't ever realistic and when it's attempted, it usually results in catastrophic results, genocide, world wars, etc. Probably not the best idea.
Brett
I'm all for this. Having them wear a uniform makes it much easier to spot the anti-government kooks.
This sentiment is so rich with anatomically impossible double-entendre...but I'm gonna let it go.OUsooner said:
If a significant number of states already have a similar type of 'militia', why is this big news?
Exactly, last time I checked DC or Vermont probably couldn't afford one F-16, much less whole squadrons, or the salaries of all those guys who maintain or fly them.
Because the supposed purpose of this one would be to defend the state against federal infringement, whatever the hell that is. Not too much worry about though, it will probably go nowhere.
This is a stupid idea, raised by stupid people. Laws of the land are changed via the legislative and/or judicial process. You want a gun? By all means. Agitating and indirectly threatening to use that gun against some kind of federal boogeyman? Now you're talking sedition, brother.
Maybe I'm partial, being an Oklahoman, but I think this just seems to be a political trial balloon. Everyone wants in on the anti-Federal bandwagon and nobody is quite sure how to stop the slow but accelerating creep of Federal influence over an ever-increasing number of aspects of our lives.
Pretty sure all o' this here talk 'bout militias will die down if November brings about change we can believe in.:icon_wink
Pretty sure all o' this here talk 'bout militias will die down if November brings about change we can believe in.:icon_wink