View Single Post
  #218  
Old 09-06-2019, 08:26 AM
Abatis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA.
Posts: 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Except for the part that says it does.
The word's appearance in the declaratory clause does not mean that it has any legal weight WRT militia, that it directs or controls or mandates any structure or action or condition to exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Miller.
No, Miller doesn't say that. Miller didn't say anything about the man and his militia status; that is a total misreading and misrepresentation. The Miller decision was focused only on the type of gun and whether it had any military / common defense usefulness, having no evidence presented that a sawed-off shotgun did have such usefulness, the Court did not invalidate the NFA's restrictions on the possession and use of that arm. It didn't really uphold them, the Court sent the case back down, but, Miller being dead, no more legal action took place.

What I'm actually talking about is how the 2nd Amendment is non-existent in actual militia cases; Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) (1820), Martin v. Mott, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) (1827), Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1917) and Perpich v. Dep't of Defense, 496 U.S. (1990). These are cases that the Court accepted and decided militia issues and conflicts.

The only words of the Constitution the Court examines to direct its reasoning and understanding of the organized militia is Art I, 8, cl's 15 & 16 and laws enacted under those clause's authority (e.g., The Militia Act of 1792, and state militia regulations -- in this case, Pennsylvania's).

In Houston v Moore, the Court states unequivocally (emphasis added):

"The laws which I have referred to amount to a full execution of the powers conferred upon Congress by the Constitution. They provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasion. They also 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; leaving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training them according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
The "full execution" of militia powers is only to be found in the body of the Constitution; the 2nd Amendment has noting to offer and is ignored. There are no latent, undefined powers to be found in the 2nd Amendment that would allow it to be interpreted the way you do. Your position is a complete perversion that has no support in the philosophical foundation, historical record or legal precedent of this Republic.

While the 2nd Amendment has no legal action WRT militia, it was mentioned one time in those militia cases, in Justice Story's dissent in Houston v. Moore. I guess he thought should at least look at it to see if it said anything about militia issues, but he discovered:
"The [Second] Amendment to the Constitution, declaring that "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," may not, perhaps, be thought to have any important bearing."
If SCOTUS long ago decided the 2nd Amendment does not have any militia implications, no connections or any latent influence on the organized militia and really has nothing to say on the subject, why can't you accept that? More importantly, how do you justify claiming the 2nd Amendment has this influence, especially imparting militia conditions and qualifications on the people's right to arms?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
That's pretty rich from somebody who can actually refer to Article 1, Section 8. Do you really think "suppress" means "enable"?
Insurrection assumes the government is legitimate and operating within the powers granted to it and the principles of its establishment. What Hamilton was discussing is the government when it is no longer operating within the confines of the Constitution and thus has lost the power to declare such action an "insurrection". If this sentiment is widely held, no other militia would respond to the fed's call to suppress their fellow countrymen.

The purpose of rescinding our consent to be governed is to take back the supreme, preemptive powers we lent to the federal government, denying it the protections of the Constitution including what you mention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Let's just skip the "How's that going for ya?" part and go right to the part where you distinguish between "the people" and "the nation". To wit, Huh?
Can I get that in English please?

.

Last edited by Abatis; 09-06-2019 at 08:30 AM.