Like I said, the plan. The intention, if you will.
"Has that portion been altered or voided by an amendment?"
Nope. It's just not used anymore as we do not have state militias. The states don't appoint officers either, and that's in Article I also.
"There is no Illinois National guard?"
There is now. And the Guard is bought and paid for by the U.S. Government, not the State of Illinois, and are under the President's orders, if he so chooses. Unless they all go AWOL, I wouldn't consider them to be "securing a free Illinois".
"The militia of the United States ..."
Yes, the militia of the United States is so described. This is not the well regulated state militia. Two different animals.
10 USC 311 describes the organization that replaced the well regulated state militia described in The Militia Act of 1792 (an attempt to standardize the independent and individual state militias).
You and your friends are being discussed, paulsen.
V A N I T Y - Subversive activities on FR?
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1183115/posts?page=114
Is it your claim then that the Federal government cannot disarm the individual state militias, but that the federal government can replace them with something which can be disarmed by the federal government? Wouldn't this constitute an illegal attempt to amend the Constitution?
There is now. And the Guard is bought and paid for by the U.S. Government, not the State of Illinois, and are under the President's orders, if he so chooses. Unless they all go AWOL, I wouldn't consider them to be "securing a free Illinois".
That is exactly what's described in Article I. Does not Illinois appoint officers and train according to Congress' directives?
I wrote: "The militia of the United States ..."
Yes, the militia of the United States is so described. This is not the well regulated state militia. Two different animals.
State Militia have always been under Federal control, including the power to arm them.
Are you saying there was a time since 1789 when that has not been the case?