Posted on 02/01/2011 8:44:21 AM PST by george76
My original question was, "How does that square with America's founding principles?".
Your answer is non-sequitur.
Sounds like the SD politicians are having some fun poking the Obama bots...
To your question : State governments, unlike the federal government, are not limited to the US Constitution on federal enumerated powers ?
Also there is the Federal Militia Act of 1792, male citizens were required to equip themselves with firearm and military gear:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2666765/posts?page=24#24
Thanks for the explano.
Because it is specifically political speech that is protected. That’s why I said ‘speak your mind’ as the example rather than ‘don’t shout fire in a crowded theatre’ as the example.
Kennesaw did but they have no penalty of any kind for those who disregard the requirement. It is just a way to show that the city is wholeheartedly in support of self defense and second amendment rights.
“The state can’t force folks to buy stuff unless like car insurance it is required to facilitate the privilege to drive.”
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Yep and the idiots on the left see no difference between a state requiring the purchase of liability insurance to protect other people from you if you want to drive a car and the federal government requiring the purchase of health insurance to cover you if you simply want to live in America.
Reference my tagline.
>Your government should not have the power to compel your participation in any behavior, whether it’s one you agree with, or not.
Then what is the basis of penal systems? Or would you argue that your conduct is not forced upon you therein?
Or, perhaps more “on topic” what is the basis for the draft, or conscription, or declaring that some group *is* the militia?
>If you agree with a law compelling gun ownership, then you believe in something other than a representative, constitutional republic, with unalienable rights guaranteed to the sovereign citizens, and only limited powers granted to a central government.
Ah, but is there a “right to be unarmed”? Certainly there is a right to keep and bear arms, which may or may not be exercised at will.
If the government can require one to be in the militia, and my government State does (I’ll show the State Constitution section later), then can’t it also require that one possess the proper equipment? Furthermore, the protection of the People from invasion/attack is one of the complaints in the Declaration of Independence (the DOI can be likened to a Work Order, whereas the Constitution would be the Statement of Work).
ARTICLE XVIII — Militia
Sec. 1. [Composition, name and commander in chief of militia.]
The militia of this state shall consist of all
able-bodied male citizens between the ages of
eighteen and forty-five, except such as are exempt
by laws of the United States or of this state. The
organized militia shall be called the “national
guard of New Mexico,” of which the governor shall
be the commander in chief.
Sec. 2. [Organization, discipline and equipment of militia.]
The legislature shall provide for the organization,
discipline and equipment of the militia, which
shall conform as nearly as practicable to the
organization, discipline and equipment of the
regular army of the United States, and shall provide
for the maintenance thereof.
Clearly, “all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of eighteen and forty-five” is quite spanning; and notice that there is no mechanism for excepting oneself unless one wants to a) enact a law excepting someone based on, say, religion; b) violate a state law to so exempt yourself; or c) violate a federal law as to exempt yourself. {Given that b & c are likely in practice “commit felonies” I wouldn’t recommend them.}
But, upon examination of my State’s Constitution you will find some interesting sections like:
Art II — Sec. 2. [Popular sovereignty.]
All political power is vested in and derived
from the people: all government of
right originates with the people, is founded
upon their will and is instituted solely for
their good.
Art II — Sec. 3. [Right of self-government.]
The people of the state have the sole and
exclusive right to govern themselves as a
free, sovereign and independent state.
These two articles together mean that The People are what gives a political entity its power, but further that this group has the ability/right “to govern themselves as a free, sovereign and independent state.” If this is the case then, as a whole, if the people wish to require every able-bodied male of 18 to 45 to be in the militia then, as a principal of sovereignty, it is so. Furthermore, if the People wish to require every head-of-household to have a firearm, and there is an instance of this at the county-level in my State, then that too is their right.
The way in which one changes this should, rightly, be via Constitutional Amendment; something like “No Citizen shall be required by any law to buy, obtain, or possess any good or service.” There are Sections which do exactly that limiting of the validity of laws:
ART II
Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen
to keep and bear arms for security and
defense, for lawful hunting and recreational
use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing
herein shall be held to permit the carrying
of concealed weapons. No municipality
or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident
of the right to keep and bear arms.
Sec. 11. [Freedom of religion.]
Every man shall be free to worship God
according to the dictates of his own conscience,
and no person shall ever be molested
or denied any civil or political right
or privilege on account of his religious opinion
or mode of religious worship. No person
shall be required to attend any place of worship
or support any religious sect or denomination;
nor shall any preference be given by
law to any religious denomination or mode
of worship.
Sec. 17. [Freedom of speech and press; libel.]
Every person may freely speak, write and
publish his sentiments on all subjects, being
responsible for the abuse of that right;
and no law shall be passed to restrain or
abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.
In all criminal prosecutions for libels, the
truth may be given in evidence to the jury;
and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter
charged as libelous is true and was published
with good motives and for justifiable ends, the
party shall be acquitted.
Sec. 19. [Retroactive laws; bills of
attainder; impairment of contracts.]
No ex post facto law, bill of attainder
nor law impairing the obligation of contracts
shall be enacted by the legislature.
ALL of these sections specifically prohibit some sort of law.
A civilized society has to make some provision for those who would trample the rights of others by committing barbarous acts against them, hence penal systems.
A man who violates the life, liberty, property, or the pursuit of happiness of others, has forfeited his right to be treated as a free and responsible citizen.
As to the balance of your reply, you seem to still be trying to make a case for the right of government to force the citizens into activities and behaviors which they may not choose for themselves.
Because our government has done this in the past, doesn't make it right.
America was founded upon certain foundational principles of individual freedom and liberty. Of these, the principle of the supremacy of the citizen and the individual states over the federal government, is fundamental.
This is the point I am making, and the one you seem to be failing to come to terms with.
We are Citizens, not Subjects.
EXACTLY!!!
And THEY work for US and have ONE TASK:
To protect our Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of happiness.
NOT to tell us what to do or buy!!
>America was founded upon certain foundational principles of individual freedom and liberty. Of these, the principle of the supremacy of the citizen and the individual states over the federal government, is fundamental.
>
>This is the point I am making, and the one you seem to be failing to come to terms with.
*sigh* - You fail to see the thrust of my point; it is that freedom is not “free.” It requires maintainance. The responsibilities of the Citizen include certain obligations: of which include serving in the militia (if that Citizen is male) and Jury duty; both of these ARE as you put it coerced-actions. Jury duty *IS* coercable on part of the government, refusal to go/serve could result in your arrest; the penalties of disregarding your obligation to the militia are, however, disastrous: invasion.
It is precisely because of the attitude of “the militia isn’t me, so I don’t have to care” in the general population of the US that we have an illegal alien problem — while the government can call out the militia there is no law, to my knowledge, preventing the militia from “calling itself” to uphold/enforce* the law with it’s implements of war {though most people would knee-jerk calling them vigilantes} — and because it is “somebody else’s problem” and “that’s what the [federal] army is for...” people allow themselves both the false sense-of-security and the never-think-to-themselves/what-if possibility that they could find themselves in a battlefield.
*The minuteman border project is/was a militia of sorts; the problems weren’t because government was requiring their actions, but precisely because government was impeding their actions. AZ is an interesting case in its immigration law because it showed that the federal government has “refused [its] Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good;” and there is a method which, using the militia, would determine if it is actually actively hostile and/or Treasonous (in the US Constitution definition).
No, freedom is not free, and yes, it does require maintenance. But, how does giving the central government the power to force a (supposedly) free people to do what it commands, including those things which most would hold are in their 'best interests', square with our founding principles?
If you reach the point where you have to give the government that sort of power, then you're no longer a free people, and now have something resembling a feudal totalitarianism.
The Founders said that our form of government wasn't fit for any but a moral people. That's because it is founded on the supremacy of the individual, who has absolute, unalienable rights - while the government has none. It only has responsibilities, and a duty to serve the people who created it. It has no power, but that granted to it by the people for their protection and enjoyments.
If the people will not engage themselves in the service of their own self interests, and the protection of all they hold dear, then they have ceased to be worthy of our founding form of government, and deserve whatever heinous tyranny befalls them.
>If you reach the point where you have to give the government that sort of power, then you’re no longer a free people, and now have something resembling a feudal totalitarianism.
>
>If the people will not engage themselves in the service of their own self interests, and the protection of all they hold dear, then they have ceased to be worthy of our founding form of government, and deserve whatever heinous tyranny befalls them.
Then please explain to me the Militia Act of 1792 — It mandated that certain people be enrolled in the militia; further, it required that they themselves furnish their equipment. Note that this was less than twenty years from 1776 (Declaration of Independence) AND only 5 years from the Constitution’s ratification (1787); and it was held to be Constitutional under Art 1, Sec 8. — and why it was *not* tyranny.
See: http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
It's an "Act", not a part of our Founding Charter, or of the Declaration of Independence, or the Federalist Papers, or the individual writings of the Founders, nor of Thomas Paine, or of anyone who spoke to our people's cause of freedom in that day.
In other words, it's not a part of our nation's Founding Principles. It's a statute law. Apparently one of the first in a long line of usurpations of Americans' individual, inalienable rights.
Now, you've brought up mentions of the militia in nearly every reply, which has given me the impression that you're a militia member, or you're some sort of advocate. That's fine, but here's the thing about a citizen militia - it needs to be a man's free choice to stand and serve in one - not a government mandate.
Men who are forced to serve in a military capacity are conscripts, not free men. They do not serve for a higher good and purpose - they serve because they have no choice.
Let free men make their own choice to form military units for their own protection against foreign OR domestic threats. Do not put them under the overarching rule of a government, which just may be the power they should stand against.
And while we're at it, let's not confuse this with our nation's Armed Forces.
>Now, you’ve brought up mentions of the militia in nearly every reply, which has given me the impression that you’re a militia member, or you’re some sort of advocate.
>And while we’re at it, let’s not confuse this with our nation’s Armed Forces.
I’ve been all of these.
>It’s an “Act”, not a part of our Founding Charter, or of the Declaration of Independence, or the Federalist Papers, or the individual writings of the Founders, nor of Thomas Paine, or of anyone who spoke to our people’s cause of freedom in that day.
But it is directly related, through Art 1 Sec 8; and also I wouldn’t be surprised if the SECOND Congress DID contain some of the signatories of the Constitution.
>In other words, it’s not a part of our nation’s Founding Principles.
But the post that I gave, regarding my State’s Militia, apparently *IS* part of its founding principles. (No such annotation is given for an amendment.)
You have argued that the a state/governmental requirement is antithetical to a Constitutional-based society; I have given, from my own state, contrary proof (as it is impossible for a portion of the Constitution to be unconstitutional).
Now, as to the supposition that this is antithetical to the overall United States Constitution I direct your attention to the 9th and 10th Amendments which state that powers not explicitly given to the federal government are retained by either the state or the people; and it is the state and/or the people that instituted the requirement/definition of the militia.
Please state how that is contrary to the founding principals; which to quote in part: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” {Simply because you do not agree with *HOW* the people, or past generations, organized its powers does not mean that it is “unconstitutional” or contra-constitutional.}
Indeed, it would be unconstitutional for Congress to require people to buy firearms, for the same reason Judge Vinson ruled it unconstitutional for Congress to require us to buy health insurance.
However, it could well be argued requiring people to be part of the militia (in the original understanding as the armed citizenry) is one of the rights reserved to the states, so if South Dakota wants to insist everyone over 21 who does not have a legal disability own a firearm, that seems to be within South Dakota’s rights.
Friend, we seem to be on different planes here. We’re nearly having separate conversations.
My entire point is that the fundamental American principles of freedom and liberty are senior to even our Founding Documents. These basic concepts and ideas came before the construct of an agreement hammered out between men.
Our “unalienable rights” have existed throughout time immemorial, and are as immutable as any law of physics. They weren’t formulated, nor were they granted by the Framers.
Laws, statutes, ordinances, edicts, treaties, orders, rules, contracts, and even constitutions are are agreements hammered out by men to organize themselves. Within those agreements, we may all agree to grant some measure of control and authority to the organizing bodies we call governments, but at no time should that control or authority be confused with “rights”.
To return to the original premise of this argument, let me state again; It’s inconsistent with the American people’s native understanding of our inalienable rights to allow our government the power to force us to purchase health insurance, a firearm, or any other thing that the government may deem necessary, fit, or proper.
Free men have the power of choice. Slaves do not.
If you have to use force to make men stand and fight for each other, then that culture has already passed the point of no return, and isn’t worth fighting for.
>My entire point is that the fundamental American principles of freedom and liberty are senior to even our Founding Documents. These basic concepts and ideas came before the construct of an agreement hammered out between men.
My point, which you are missing, is that the Nation NEVER conformed to that degree of these founding principles that you are citing/claiming; this indicates several generally non-exclusive possibilities:
1 — Mankind’s inherient imperfection prevents it;
2 — The founding principals as stated were not used {i.e. hypocrisy and/or fraud}
3 — A misunderstanding, or a vastly different conceptual-framework, on your part as to what the founding principals were.
Says you. You're obviously in favor of the supremacy of the state over the individual, and I am not.
I think my considerations regarding natural rights and freedom are in closer alignment with our nation's founding ideals than yours are. The documentary evidence of our country's history supports my view.
If you want to support giving government bureaucrats the power to force you to engage in behaviors that it deems proper and necessary, be my guest. I don't, and won't support that.
ObamaCare’s toast. If this works in S.D it’ll work in other states too. The Swiss have done this for years...
You FOOL!
Did you read ANYTHING I posted about the proper amendment process for the Constitutions!?
If a Constitution is the Supreme law of the Land then it is the Law for EVERYONE in that land; what it allows is allowed, what it prohibits is prohibited, and what it mandates *IS* mandated. You are arguing that States cannot have even punitive powers for criminals! Because the Law is obviously to be enforced by SOMEBODY (usually government, but not required); and people charged with crimes are charged in a Court of Law (which *IS* part of Government),.
Many of the problems we face are PRECISELY because the Constitutions (and even inferior laws) are treated with contemptible “selective enforcement!” “shall not be infringed” obviously doesn’t mean BATFE, and such regulatory powers are allowed, it means the opposite. Likewise, things like “freedom of speech” are assaulted with “common sense” regulation (the example of yelling ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater) are put in place [weakening the supremacy of the Constitution; instead of amending it] instead of properly prosecuting him for the injuries he caused rather than the methods he used to accomplish it.
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.