-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
The Unorganized Militia Once Again is Needed
- Thread starter Repeater
- Start date
Alexcabbie
Regular Member
imported post
You want to know the definition of "unorganized Militia"? Look at this forum. We are all members of the "unorganized Militia"; and in fact trying to organize the lot of us would probably be akin to herding cats.
You want to know the definition of "unorganized Militia"? Look at this forum. We are all members of the "unorganized Militia"; and in fact trying to organize the lot of us would probably be akin to herding cats.
imported post
Alexcabbie wrote:
We have found the militia and it is us.
Yata hey
Alexcabbie wrote:
So that is with what Mike and John are contending. Does a cat herder use a shepherd's crook or just a mailed fist?You want to know the definition of "unorganized Militia"? Look at this forum. We are all members of the "unorganized Militia"; and in fact trying to organize the lot of us would probably be akin to herding cats.
We have found the militia and it is us.
Yata hey
Alexcabbie
Regular Member
imported post
Grapeshot wrote:
Grapeshot wrote:
Neither. You use a can opener.Alexcabbie wrote:So that is with what Mike and John are contending. Does a cat herder use a shepherd's crook or just a mailed fist?You want to know the definition of "unorganized Militia"? Look at this forum. We are all members of the "unorganized Militia"; and in fact trying to organize the lot of us would probably be akin to herding cats.
We have found the militia and it is us.
Yata hey
imported post
Alexcabbie wrote:
Yata hey
Alexcabbie wrote:
Leading by example or with tempting with candy is fine, but a rope does not push well - does make a good noose though.Grapeshot wrote:Neither. You use a can opener.Alexcabbie wrote:So that is with what Mike and John are contending. Does a cat herder use a shepherd's crook or just a mailed fist?You want to know the definition of "unorganized Militia"? Look at this forum. We are all members of the "unorganized Militia"; and in fact trying to organize the lot of us would probably be akin to herding cats.
We have found the militia and it is us.
Yata hey
Yata hey
okboomer
Regular Member
imported post
A little OT here, but you remember that commercial where they were herding cats (some kind of insurance I think)? At the end, it showed all the cowboys with bandages ... well, I saw an interview with one of the wranglers and he said that by the end of the shoot, those bandages were real! :lol:The cats just wouldn't take onset direction well and it took a while to get some of the horses acclimated to the cats!
A little OT here, but you remember that commercial where they were herding cats (some kind of insurance I think)? At the end, it showed all the cowboys with bandages ... well, I saw an interview with one of the wranglers and he said that by the end of the shoot, those bandages were real! :lol:The cats just wouldn't take onset direction well and it took a while to get some of the horses acclimated to the cats!
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
[flash=320,256]http://www.youtube.com/v/Pk7yqlTMvp8&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00[/flash]
[flash=320,256]http://www.youtube.com/v/Pk7yqlTMvp8&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00[/flash]
KansasMustang
Regular Member
imported post
That Vid is just too funny Tomahawk :celebrate True,,we are all the unorganized militia.
That Vid is just too funny Tomahawk :celebrate True,,we are all the unorganized militia.
Virginiaplanter
Regular Member
imported post
KansasMustang wrote:
Not in Virginia. The Declaration of Rights requires a Well-regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people , trained to arms. An Unorganized, unarmed, untrained militia is not a well-regulated militia and in violation of the Constitution.
KansasMustang wrote:
Not in Virginia. The Declaration of Rights requires a Well-regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people , trained to arms. An Unorganized, unarmed, untrained militia is not a well-regulated militia and in violation of the Constitution.
Task Force 16
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Virginiaplanter wrote:
Might you be getting the Declaration of Independence mixed up with the Bill of Rights?
The Declaration of Independence didn't require anything, but rather, was a formal letter to theKing of Englandstating the intentions of the colonies to cast off their loyalty to the Crown and become an independant nation.
The Bill of Rights didn't really require anything either. It enumerated the Rights of the people to be protected. That an armed militia may be needed to insure that those rights be protected, is why the 2A was included in the protected rights.
Unless you are referring to something in the Va Constitution.
Virginiaplanter wrote:
Might you be getting the Declaration of Independence mixed up with the Bill of Rights?
The Declaration of Independence didn't require anything, but rather, was a formal letter to theKing of Englandstating the intentions of the colonies to cast off their loyalty to the Crown and become an independant nation.
The Bill of Rights didn't really require anything either. It enumerated the Rights of the people to be protected. That an armed militia may be needed to insure that those rights be protected, is why the 2A was included in the protected rights.
Unless you are referring to something in the Va Constitution.
Virginiaplanter
Regular Member
imported post
Task Force 16 wrote:
Virginia had declared her independence from Great Britain on May 15, 1776. The Virginia Declaration of Rights was issued on June 12, 1776 to declare the rights and liberties of the people of Virginia. Jefferson borrowed from the Virginia Declaration of Rights to write the Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776).
"MR. GEORGE MASON, still thought that there ought to be some express declaration in the constitution, asserting that rights not given to the general government, were retained by the states. He apprehended that unless this was done, many valuable and important rights would be concluded to be given up by implication. All governments were drawn from the people, though many were perverted to their oppression. The government of Virginia, he remarked, was drawn from the people; yet there were certain great and important rights, which the people by their bill of rights declared to be paramount to the power of the legislature. He asked, why should it not be so in this constitution? Was it because we were more substantially represented in it, than in the state government? If in the state government, where the people were substantially and fully represented, it was necessary that the great rights of human nature should be secure from the encroachments of the legislature; he asked, if it was not more necessary in this government, where they were but inadequately represented? He declared, that artful sophistry and evasions could not satisfy him. He could see no clear distinction between rights relinquished by a positive grant, and lost by implication. Unless there were a bill of rights, implication might swallow up all our rights." June 16, 1788.
The Bill of Rights did have requirements: Jury of your peers, speedy and fair trial, a well-regulated militia, etc.
Task Force 16 wrote:
Virginia had declared her independence from Great Britain on May 15, 1776. The Virginia Declaration of Rights was issued on June 12, 1776 to declare the rights and liberties of the people of Virginia. Jefferson borrowed from the Virginia Declaration of Rights to write the Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776).
"MR. GEORGE MASON, still thought that there ought to be some express declaration in the constitution, asserting that rights not given to the general government, were retained by the states. He apprehended that unless this was done, many valuable and important rights would be concluded to be given up by implication. All governments were drawn from the people, though many were perverted to their oppression. The government of Virginia, he remarked, was drawn from the people; yet there were certain great and important rights, which the people by their bill of rights declared to be paramount to the power of the legislature. He asked, why should it not be so in this constitution? Was it because we were more substantially represented in it, than in the state government? If in the state government, where the people were substantially and fully represented, it was necessary that the great rights of human nature should be secure from the encroachments of the legislature; he asked, if it was not more necessary in this government, where they were but inadequately represented? He declared, that artful sophistry and evasions could not satisfy him. He could see no clear distinction between rights relinquished by a positive grant, and lost by implication. Unless there were a bill of rights, implication might swallow up all our rights." June 16, 1788.
The Bill of Rights did have requirements: Jury of your peers, speedy and fair trial, a well-regulated militia, etc.
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
Virginiaplanter wrote:
Virginiaplanter wrote:
So if it's not enumerated in the constitution it's illegal? Where have I heard that before.
Virginiaplanter
Regular Member
imported post
Tomahawk wrote:
From His Excellency Patrick Henry:
"The honorable member must forgive me for declaring my dissent from it; because, if I understand it rightly, it admits that the new system is defective, and most capitally; for, immediately after the proposed ratification, there comes a declaration that the paper before you is not intended to violate any of these three great rights — the liberty of religion, liberty of the press, and the trial by jury. What is the inference when you enumerate the rights which you are to enjoy? That those not enumerated are relinquished. There are only three things to be retained — religion, freedom of the press, and jury trial. Will not the ratification carry every thing, without excepting these three things? Will not all the world pronounce that we intended to give up all the rest? Every thing it speaks of, by way of rights, is comprised in these things. Your subsequent amendments only go to these three amendments. I feel myself distressed, because the necessity of securing our personal rights seems not to have pervaded the minds of men; for many other valuable things are omitted: — for instance, general warrants, by which an officer may search suspected places, without evidence of the commission of a fact, or seize any person without evidence of his crime, ought to be prohibited. As these are admitted, any man may be seized, any property may be taken, in the most arbitrary manner, without any evidence or reason. Every thing the most sacred may be searched and ransacked by the strong hand of power. We have infinitely more reason to dread general warrants here than they have in England, because there, if a person be confined, liberty may be quickly obtained by the writ of habeas corpus. But here a man living many hundred miles from the judges may get in prison before he can get that writ.
Another most fatal omission is with respect to standing armies. In our bill of rights of Virginia, they are said to be dangerous to liberty, and it tells you that the proper defence of a free state consists in militia; and so I might go on to ten or eleven things of immense consequence secured in your bill of rights, concerning which that proposal is silent. Is that the language of the bill of rights in England? Is it the language of the American bill of rights, that these three rights, and these only, are valuable?... In my weak judgment, a government is strong when it applies to the most important end of all governments — the rights and privileges of the people. In the honorable member's proposal, jury trial, the press and religion, and other essential rights, are not to be given up. Other essential rights — what are they? The world will say that you intended to give them up. When you go into an enumeration of your rights, and stop that enumeration, the inevitable conclusion is, that what is omitted is intended to be surrendered." - Speech of Patrick Henry, June 24, 1788, Virginia's Debates on The United States Constitution- Elliots Debates
Tomahawk wrote:
From His Excellency Patrick Henry:
"The honorable member must forgive me for declaring my dissent from it; because, if I understand it rightly, it admits that the new system is defective, and most capitally; for, immediately after the proposed ratification, there comes a declaration that the paper before you is not intended to violate any of these three great rights — the liberty of religion, liberty of the press, and the trial by jury. What is the inference when you enumerate the rights which you are to enjoy? That those not enumerated are relinquished. There are only three things to be retained — religion, freedom of the press, and jury trial. Will not the ratification carry every thing, without excepting these three things? Will not all the world pronounce that we intended to give up all the rest? Every thing it speaks of, by way of rights, is comprised in these things. Your subsequent amendments only go to these three amendments. I feel myself distressed, because the necessity of securing our personal rights seems not to have pervaded the minds of men; for many other valuable things are omitted: — for instance, general warrants, by which an officer may search suspected places, without evidence of the commission of a fact, or seize any person without evidence of his crime, ought to be prohibited. As these are admitted, any man may be seized, any property may be taken, in the most arbitrary manner, without any evidence or reason. Every thing the most sacred may be searched and ransacked by the strong hand of power. We have infinitely more reason to dread general warrants here than they have in England, because there, if a person be confined, liberty may be quickly obtained by the writ of habeas corpus. But here a man living many hundred miles from the judges may get in prison before he can get that writ.
Another most fatal omission is with respect to standing armies. In our bill of rights of Virginia, they are said to be dangerous to liberty, and it tells you that the proper defence of a free state consists in militia; and so I might go on to ten or eleven things of immense consequence secured in your bill of rights, concerning which that proposal is silent. Is that the language of the bill of rights in England? Is it the language of the American bill of rights, that these three rights, and these only, are valuable?... In my weak judgment, a government is strong when it applies to the most important end of all governments — the rights and privileges of the people. In the honorable member's proposal, jury trial, the press and religion, and other essential rights, are not to be given up. Other essential rights — what are they? The world will say that you intended to give them up. When you go into an enumeration of your rights, and stop that enumeration, the inevitable conclusion is, that what is omitted is intended to be surrendered." - Speech of Patrick Henry, June 24, 1788, Virginia's Debates on The United States Constitution- Elliots Debates
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
All of that is interesting reading, but it's of no consequence. An informal militia exists whenever a group of people band together for the common defense with each other's consent, like the people in the jetliner. This is not unconstitutional, nor would a ban on it be enforceable.
Imagine if you're out with friends and witness a violent crime in progress. Your friends refuse to help because...it violates the state constitution?
All of that is interesting reading, but it's of no consequence. An informal militia exists whenever a group of people band together for the common defense with each other's consent, like the people in the jetliner. This is not unconstitutional, nor would a ban on it be enforceable.
Imagine if you're out with friends and witness a violent crime in progress. Your friends refuse to help because...it violates the state constitution?
Virginiaplanter
Regular Member
imported post
Tomahawk wrote:
Again, there is no such thing as an informal militia in Virginia. "All our freemen are bound to be trained." Governor William Berkeley , 1671. Every able-bodied male is required to be enrolled in the militia and to be ready at a moments notice to repel invasions and insurrections and to enforce the laws of the Commonwealth. Burroughs v. Peyton, 57 Va. (16 GRATT), 470, (1864) ("An army is a body of men whose business is war: the militia a body of men composed of citizens occupied ordinarily in the pursuits of civil life, but organized for discipline and drill, and called into the field for temporary military service when the exigencies of the country require it... for the militia can be called out only for the purpose of executing the laws, suppressing insurrections, or repelling Invasions ... ". Your friends would be in the militia too. Ordinarily the scenario you produced would fall under civil law i.e. the Hue and Cry, Posse Comitatus, etc.
The government is required to guard the Colony/Commonwealth with a well-regulated militia in time of peace and a standing army only in times of war. When the Royal Government refused to do its duty, the people did theirs by forming the Independent companies with structure and discipline. When Dunmore retreats, the Virginia Committee of safety re-institutes compulsory militia service. The Royal Government had deliberately let the militia bill expire and at the same time had the militia in the field fighting Dunmore's war. Without a militia bill, without a legislature in session, Lord Dunmore Commanded an army without authority of the people or their representatives.
Tomahawk wrote:
Again, there is no such thing as an informal militia in Virginia. "All our freemen are bound to be trained." Governor William Berkeley , 1671. Every able-bodied male is required to be enrolled in the militia and to be ready at a moments notice to repel invasions and insurrections and to enforce the laws of the Commonwealth. Burroughs v. Peyton, 57 Va. (16 GRATT), 470, (1864) ("An army is a body of men whose business is war: the militia a body of men composed of citizens occupied ordinarily in the pursuits of civil life, but organized for discipline and drill, and called into the field for temporary military service when the exigencies of the country require it... for the militia can be called out only for the purpose of executing the laws, suppressing insurrections, or repelling Invasions ... ". Your friends would be in the militia too. Ordinarily the scenario you produced would fall under civil law i.e. the Hue and Cry, Posse Comitatus, etc.
The government is required to guard the Colony/Commonwealth with a well-regulated militia in time of peace and a standing army only in times of war. When the Royal Government refused to do its duty, the people did theirs by forming the Independent companies with structure and discipline. When Dunmore retreats, the Virginia Committee of safety re-institutes compulsory militia service. The Royal Government had deliberately let the militia bill expire and at the same time had the militia in the field fighting Dunmore's war. Without a militia bill, without a legislature in session, Lord Dunmore Commanded an army without authority of the people or their representatives.
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
Virginiaplanter wrote:
Virginiaplanter wrote:
That's very interesting, I never thought of that. Now I have something else to study later, thanks.
opusd2
Regular Member
imported post
Amongst all the conjecture and opinions here, every now and then there is a morsel of history I find myself wanting to do some more reading on.
Amongst all the conjecture and opinions here, every now and then there is a morsel of history I find myself wanting to do some more reading on.
imported post
opusd2 wrote:
Unfortunately, I am sometimes required to put some money in the jar for not reading far enough or soon enough. :quirky
Yata hey
opusd2 wrote:
That's one of the "At No Additional Cost" benefits of OCDO.
Unfortunately, I am sometimes required to put some money in the jar for not reading far enough or soon enough. :quirky
Yata hey
Alexcabbie
Regular Member
imported post
This speech resulted in the 9th and 10th Amendments, which say that the Federal government can do ONLY that which is SPECIFICALLY authorized by the Constitution; and that lack of enumeration in the Constitution does not mean that no other rights are held by the States and/or the People.
In other words the Federal government may do ONLY what is specifically permitted by the Constitution, while the States and the People can do anything not specifically prohibited to them by the Constitution.
It's a darn good arrangement. Now all we gotta do is elect some politicians and appoint some judges who give a damn about this very plainly worded set of instructions outlining the proper relationship of the States and the People to the Federal govenment.
This speech resulted in the 9th and 10th Amendments, which say that the Federal government can do ONLY that which is SPECIFICALLY authorized by the Constitution; and that lack of enumeration in the Constitution does not mean that no other rights are held by the States and/or the People.
In other words the Federal government may do ONLY what is specifically permitted by the Constitution, while the States and the People can do anything not specifically prohibited to them by the Constitution.
It's a darn good arrangement. Now all we gotta do is elect some politicians and appoint some judges who give a damn about this very plainly worded set of instructions outlining the proper relationship of the States and the People to the Federal govenment.