[papertyger]

Papertyger, could you please direct me to the portion of the Constitution that states "You can't have a private army according to the Constitution". I had always thought the "militia" was origionally envisioned to be comprised of nothing but private citizens.

Article 2, Section 2 states: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States.

The milita is NOT a private army, but are subject to military discipline despite being drawn from private citizenry.

No military force is allowed in the United States that is not subject to the President of the United States.

[Bear_Slayer]

No military force is allowed in the United States that is not subject to the President of the United States

What if the president were a despot? Would the military still report to him? What if they did?

Would it be immoral, illegal, unethical, unconsititution for a private army to arise to overthrow a despotic president and his armies?

---------------

DISCLAIMER:

[yarddog]

Since the second amendment was put there, partly for the purpose of being a check on the powers of the federal government, if the citizens rebelled, then they probably would not consider themselves as under the president's authority.

Of course there was also the idea which is present in Switzerland that the citizens be always ready for call to duty which is why they all keep assault rifles (real ones) in their closets.

[B4Ranch]

>>No military force is allowed in the United States that is not subject to the President of the United States.<<

State militias are under the State governors command.