Posted on 06/18/2010 12:55:37 AM PDT by Windflier
We have followed with great interest the debate over the Arizona Immigration Law. If those who are speaking out truly understood the provisions of our Constitution we may have a more informed debate. It’s obvious that most of the public has no concept, or knowledge of what the Constitution really says.
The only place in the Federal Constitution that any law enforcement powers are granted is in Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 15, where the law enforcement powers are granted to the Militia. Congress is given the power to call forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions. There are no other law enforcement powers granted anywhere else in the Constitution. The words Police, Marshall, Agent, Sheriff, Prosecutor, or any form of them, do not appear anywhere in the Constitution.
The Militias belong to the States and the next paragraph states that the Federal Government is to see that the militias are armed, but the States are responsible for the training, and the appointment of officers.
Most State Constitutions say the same thing as the Federal Constitution: The Militia is to be called up to execute the Laws of the State, to suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions.
One more point, the National Guard is not the Militia. The Militia is defined as all able bodied men between the ages of 18 and up. The top age varies according to the various State Constitutions. Neither the National Guard, nor any organized police power in the Federal Government or any of the several State Governments can lawfully claim to be the Militia.
The State Constitutions say words to the following effect: The Governor shall be Commander-in-Chief of the military forces of the State, except when they shall be called into the service of the United States. He shall have power to call out the militia to execute the laws, to suppress insurrection, or to repel invasion.
If Arizona had used the powers in the Federal Constitution and the Arizona Constitution and simply called out the Militia, there would be no room for any argument. — Except some may contend that the influx of illegal aliens is not an Invasion.
Now, to the crux of the matter.
The Federal Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 16, requires the Federal Government to Provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
Clearly the Militia belongs to the States. The States have the power to appoint the officers and train the men.
We think, that in view of our enlighten[ed] age we now live in, the Militia should be all able bodied men and women between the ages of 18 and 65.
Once the Governor has restored the Militia, then the State needs to turn to the Federal Government and DEMAND the arms required to be distributed to all able bodied men and women in the State be immediately provided. That should end all discussions about gun laws, and give the State an army to defend itself from any invasion of its sovereign territory.
It's actually an addendum to another article pertaining to a resolution which was proposed in the state legislature of New Hampshire, that if passed, would have given the federal government the strongest warning to date, that the states will nullify any further usurpation of power by the feds.
I don't claim to have any studied expertise on the constitutional claims made by the author. I'm simply presenting this as food for discussion. I personally agree with it.
Our own guns will do just fine! The less we have to do with the feds the better!
Factual error in your video. The VA legislature did not vote for secession, a special convention called into being by the legislature did so.
Also, the militias of the loyal states were just as active in suppressing the rebellion as those of the secession states were in promoting it.
Loyalty to a tyrant is no virtue...
On November 15, 1860 Virginia Governor John Letcher called for a special session of the Virginia General Assembly to consider, among other issues, the creation of a secession convention. The legislature convened on January 7 and approved the convention on January 14. On January 19 the General Assembly called for a national Peace Conference, led by Virginia’s former President of the United States, John Tyler, to be held in Washington on February 4, the same date that elections were scheduled for delegates to the secession convention.[5]
Oh, and times have changed. I see this as the face of the new militia (We're talking about fighting drug cartels here. No need to present a target for revenge):
Anyway, this is all speculation. Why in the world would I believe anyone in government is willing to protect this nation for real? It's all just talk and political posturing until we see SB1070 truly enforced.
Nope, but loyalty to the Constitution is, if necessary fighting to defend it against enemies foreign and domestic.
-- Jefferson Davis Pres. CSA
Old Jeff’s comment would have been a lot more convincing if he’d been able to point to violations of the Constitution that justified his treason.
The man asked for a trial, never got one. The trial would have exposed that secession was/is legal. The Feds couldn’t chance that.
Secession cannot be “legal.” As a revolutionary act, it is by definition outside of the constitution and the legal system. Just as the American Revolution was and could not be “legal,” as it destroyed the existing legal system and replaced it with another. That’s what revolutions do. You will note the Founders, in the Declaration, did not appeal to “law.” They were fully aware they were rejecting and attempting to replace the existing legal system with another.
A revolution is sort of like treason, which of course it is, if sometimes a fully justified treason. A revolution becomes legal when it prospers. If it doesn’t prosper, it ain’t legal.
A revolution can, in theory, be fully justified, but not by appeal to “law.” The Constitution defines itself as the supreme law of the land, and it is silent on the question. If the supreme law doesn’t specifically allow for secession, there is no higher law to which an appeal can be made.
Except, of course, for “an appeal to arms,” which is what the CSA tried, and which comprehensively failed.
Secession cannot be “legal.” As a revolutionary act, it is by definition outside of the constitution and the legal system. Just as the American Revolution was and could not be “legal,” as it destroyed the existing legal system and replaced it with another. That’s what revolutions do. You will note the Founders, in the Declaration, did not appeal to “law.” They were fully aware they were rejecting and attempting to replace the existing legal system with another.
A revolution is sort of like treason, which of course it is, if sometimes a fully justified treason. A revolution becomes legal when it prospers. If it doesn’t prosper, it ain’t legal.
A revolution can, in theory, be fully justified, but not by appeal to “law.” The Constitution defines itself as the supreme law of the land, and it is silent on the question. If the supreme law doesn’t specifically allow for secession, there is no higher law to which an appeal can be made.
Except, of course, for “an appeal to arms,” which is what the CSA tried, and which comprehensively failed.
The people are sovereign. There is no higher law than the will of the people. If a state votes to leave the union, then the union can only prevent that from happening by resorting to armed force against the people.
The Constitution was established by “the people of the United States,” not by the states.
If the “people of the United States” ever decide to dissolve the Union, they have every right to do so. But the people of an individual State do not have that right, as the southerner and slaveowner Andrew Jackson pointed out with great forcefulness to the people of South Carolina.
To carry your principle to its logical conclusion, the “people of a county” have a right to secede from the state if they vote to do so. And the people of a town have a right to secede from the county. Heck, the people of a household have a right to vote to secede from nation, state, county and town.
Unless you believe a State for some reason has a sacred status that make it indivisible, while all other governmental jurisdictions are mutable at the will of the inhabitants.
Neither counties nor towns have special recognition within the constitution. But the states have powers that the federal government does not. I would argue that if it is the will of the people of a state that they leave the union, then the constitution does not expressly forbid this action, and therefore it is a lawful action.
Of course, tyrants believe that might makes right, so in 1861 there was a war and the legal question was eventually settled in favor of the victor. But I still say the CSA was on solid legal ground.
I have found that appealing to logic never works when dealing with the fascist mindset. It appears that some didn't just drank the 'state-ist' Kool-aid. No, some have clearly main-lined it. Is there any wonder how an educated and sophisticated Germany bought the Nazi Party Line? May their chains lay lightly upon them.
I offer a link for the federal boot lickers on FreeRepublic, that they can try to educate themselves: Anti-Federalist Papers
I dissagree. The war settled nothing except that might makes right. Legally Texas v. White decision of 1868 did not settle anything either. IMO Texas v. White decision created Constitutionality where none existed previously.
Perhaps I should have worded it differently — I would agree that the first American Civil War didn’t really settle much of anything. I’m convinced there will be a do-over, and next time it won’t have anything at all to do with slavery based on skin color. It will be about states rights and the slavery of individuals to an oppressive federal government. Which is largely what the first war was about.
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.