Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Constitution of the United States authorizes the Militia to "Enforce the laws of the Union, to suppress insurrections and to repel invasions."
1 posted on 12/02/2002 3:06:20 PM PST by 45Auto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: 45Auto
I like what these guys are doing, but they better have GOOD lawyers and lots of $$$$$$. The gov hates competition.
2 posted on 12/02/2002 3:19:13 PM PST by RKV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 45Auto
VERY interesting! Wonder how this will play out?
3 posted on 12/02/2002 3:20:06 PM PST by RAY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 45Auto
I do not remember when our GUBMINT repelled this latest invasion..Asleep at switch is more appropo....
7 posted on 12/02/2002 4:13:02 PM PST by litehaus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 45Auto; madfly
"U.S. Rep.-elect Raúl Grijalva, a Tucson Democrat ... said he will push for federal hearings into the activities of the civilian patrols. Grijalva's pledge echoes proposals ... made by leaders including Gov.-elect Janet Napolitano, Gov. Jane Hull and Sonora Gov. Armando Lopez Nogales."

Looks like the pols have got the will and the money to jump right on this "problem". So I guess they won't be using those excuses for failing to deal with illegal border crossings. /sarcasm

9 posted on 12/02/2002 7:41:03 PM PST by TigersEye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 45Auto
"Sect. 2. The president shall be commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States;

First, be advised the United States is the Federal government -- not the several states. Who does the calling into actual service? Certainly a state does, but this does not preclude the state's right to call their own militia to settle their own border problems first. In that the state militias, later named 'National Guards' are already federalized, it remains for the Citizens of the state to form their own protective services, 'necessary to the security of a free state,' (Second Amendment, not controlled by the Federal government).

If the feral gummint refuses to act, it can only be because the governor refuses to call on the federal government for assistance, notwithstanding the presence of the border patrol. If the governor refuses to activate the state's defense forces in such a crisis imposed upon us by Mexico, by default, it's the Citizens who are responsible for their own safety and protection. That right and responsiblity falls to the people when all other agencies fail. No permission needed, thank you.

The sheriff should be aware of this right and should act accordingly. If the sheriff refuses to start deputizing and managing the problem, re-call the sheriff. He was elected directly by the people and first responsibility is to the people. At no time in our history has a Citizen been prevented from exercising the right to defend lives and property against any threat, apart from the war between the federal government and the states and the advent of gun control laws in some some states.

Hey, if there is no people left when this is all over, there will be no need for a government of the people, by the people and for the people. And some would already agree we don't have a government of the people, by the people and for the people because we wouldn't be pulling our hair out over this illegal entry and open borders situation in times of great peril if we did.

Just another opinion, but hopefully, based on the principles of self-government when there is no government assistance when it is required. I would be forced to say to the feds, the state, the county sheriff and the supervisors, if you are not going to lead, get the hell out of the way.

10 posted on 12/02/2002 9:21:21 PM PST by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 45Auto
"U.S. Rep.-elect Raúl Grijalva, a Tucson Democrat who takes office in January, said he will push for federal hearings into the activities of the civilian patrols

So let me get this straight. From what I understand, Arizona has a provision for citizens arrests. Arizona also has provisions against trespass, and these groups are only acting on private property at the expressed invitation of the property owner. YET THEY ARE THE SUBJECT OF HEARINGS, instead of the ILLEGAL ALIENS?

12 posted on 12/03/2002 9:58:08 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 45Auto
We are definately going to need a citizen militia down there, especially since our "conservative Republican" President isn't going to do a cussed thing about our border problem. His personal friendship with Vicente Fox and the GOP's futile campaign for Hispanic votes are more important to him than the safety of TAX PAYING AMERICAN CITIZENS.
17 posted on 12/03/2002 7:14:03 PM PST by Commander8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 45Auto
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/800778/posts

Another reason?
18 posted on 12/04/2002 1:47:06 PM PST by azhenfud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson