Posted on 04/04/2006 11:24:00 AM PDT by Merchant Seaman
What is wrong with the Second Sentence of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment" That sentence reads as follows:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Why is the United States missing from the prohibitive declaration, "No State shall"?
Let Privateers Troll for Bin Laden
September 30, 2001
Larry J. Sechrest
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=119
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr120401.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1153347/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/543657/posts
West Virginia was admitted a a SLAVE state to the Union during the war. And while numerous northern states had emancipated slaves previously, that emancipation did not apply to many until they reached the age of 18. In the 1860 New Jersey census, the state still had 18 'apprentices for life' - who were not freed until the ratification of the 13th Amendment.
Illinois - up until ratification, fined blacks that attempted to emigrate into the state and refused to leave $50, those who could not pay were then were sold into servitude at the courthouse steps for a period of years to the highest bidder. Yankees had slaves, they called them something else, but they were still slaves.
Maybe it did, but it was still in America by the time the war broke out. It wasn't as though the war started, and then Britain began shipping troops.
Can you paint me a scenario where a state militia today would be used against a usurpation of poower?
Any time someone in Washington might get the idea of using the military to push around the locals, the presence of a well-disciplined militia acting under the laws of the state could very well make them think twice about doing it.
Not sure what your point is. Bounty hunters and private groups have been around for the history of the country, and will as long as the money is there. Are you trying to link this to the perceived need for state militias over and above those that already exist in each state?
Yes!
Just as I proposed to the U.S. Coast Guard the creation of an armed U.S. Merchant Marine Auxiliary modeled after the unarmed U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliry. A proposal that fell on deaf ears and blind eyes.
Actually that's exactly what happened. Howe's small army was forced out at Boston in early 1776, and it wasn't until the late fall that the major army arrived in New York and then routed Washington. But again, that was a revolutionary war. Times have changed.
Any time someone in Washington might get the idea of using the military to push around the locals, the presence of a well-disciplined militia acting under the laws of the state could very well make them think twice about doing it.
A bit unrealistic, but might make a good movie. Seriously, no state is going to put together a militia over and above the national guard they already have, and if they did, it would still come under the US Constitution and could be nationalized at the stroke of a pen.
Well, the US Navy has had pretty good luck against pirates these days. I'm not sure exactly how the armed auxiliary would work in conjunction with the Navy, and under whose command it would be.
Yeah, and I suppose that technically, General Washignton's army could have been disbanded "at the stroke of a pen" somewhere in London. Didn't quite work out that way, though.
Under federal law the Department of Homeland Security has general superintendence over the merchant marine, the industry and its seafarers.
Seafarers already have been burdened with extra security duties aboard ship under the Code of Federal Regulations.
There are 95,000 miles of coastal shorelines for the U.S. that the Coast Guard cannot fully patrol.
The U.S. Merchant Marine Auxiliary would augment coastal patrols in addition to serving as a resource for privateers under Letters of Marque and Reprisals.
This is a constitutional approach for the "Common Defence."
Came pretty close when the enlistments were up. Most went home and gave it up. Had it not been for the luck of Trenton, it would have been over. But again, all that has little to do with today. The last time that happened was December 1860, and that ended the way it should have, and the way it will should any state decide to try it again. In any case the Insurrection Act provides that the President can immediately federalize the national guard and use it and any necessary federal troops to put down an insurrection in any state. Pretty much prevents any kind of action against the federal government.
Only on paper. Every government has the means to press its will. The only question that remains is whether the people have the means to resist it, when that will becomes tyrannical.
I can certainly see this as a federal government use of an auxiliary if the need is there and the necessary control and procedures exist. But this would not be something a state would put together as a military force.
Well, perhaps in some dark future, such as "V for Vendetta", but most people here are relatively satisfied with life. As for the people resisting, 1957 comes to mind and Governor Faubus. He used his national guard to surround the high school in Little Rock. The people were behind him and his actions. But Eisenhower nationalized the Arkansas National Guard (with the stroke of a pen), and that was that. The rest is history.
mmm.. good catch. Forgot about that.
Thanks for this reference. I was not at all familiar with it. On one of the links I followed I found this:
Do you know what the reference is to "In the Congress of the United States," and/or Epperly v. U.S. as regards this case heard in Utah?======================
IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
======================
Gordon W. Epperly, Petitioner
v.
United States, Respondent
=====================
U.S. Const., 14th Amendment
Dyett v. Turner, 439 P2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403
======================
...
Another nice thing about your post is that followed some links and found this. Very interesting site!
ML/NJ
I guess his actions weren't tyrannical enough to get the Arkansas national guard to resist his order. Part of the problem is that unlike the original militias, the Guard is regarded as a mostly federal enterprise, even though state governments may control their respective units when the federal government allows them to. The original militias were not regarded as a single organization, and did not have any organizational dependence on any national structure (no "National Guard Bureau" or anything like that). The fact that it's now regarded as a single entity changes the whole nature of it.
That's my whole point. Where are these new militias going to come from? And if by chance, a state did create one and decided to use it for what? Would the state attempt to secede again? The insurrection law would immediately be invoked by the president, federalizing the national guard, and the insurrection would be put down. The voting booth is really the only option that remains to handle grievances with the federal government, or even state and local governments.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.