Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
What are your thoughts on sections 1.8.12 through 1.8.16 of the US Constitution?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="flybeech" data-source="post: 2082424" data-attributes="member: 7557"><p>I see. So section 1.8.16 reserved to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. As the lawful military, the citizen militia looked toward their respective State for armament, training and appointed officers for leadership. No where in this section, or any other part of the Constitution, do I see any authorization to invade any foreign nation, without a declaration of war to prevent an invasion of the Union.</p><p></p><p>Stepping back to 1.8.12, it appears the Framers limited the formation of armies to 2 year funding increments in the case of declared war, since the only lawful military was the citizen militia and making standing armies illegal, since they could be used against the people.</p><p></p><p>Section 1.8.13 appears the Constitution allows maintenance of a standing Navy, since invasion at that time would have been most likely by sea, suggesting that the Navy was needed as the first line of defense of our borders, to fend off a foreign invasion. We had a small navy, presumably to act as the first line of defense, while the State citizen militia were mobilized to conduct defense of the land from foreign invasion. As technology evolved and we learned to fly, it appears an Air Force armed with aviation assets and further space defense assets would fall into the same category as the Navy, since the primary purpose of maintaining those assets was to defend the border.</p><p></p><p>Examination of section 1.8.15 "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions", appears to say that Congress would call forth and mobilize the respective State citizen militias to execute the Laws of the Union, that is, enforcement of the Constitution and the preservation of liberty. The respective State citizen militias were to self-police and suppress insurrection, but insurrection or rebellion from whom? According to section 1.8.12, We the People as the citizen militia, are the only lawful military within the United States and our duty is to defend the Constitution and preserve liberty, so those who rebel are those who would seek to destroy the Constitution and take away liberty, right? How could We the People rebel against ourselves, if we control our own destiny? The States citizen's militia is also charged with repelling invasions, which suggests border defense, since an invader attacks from outside the Union, should they get through the defensive naval force required under 1.8.13.</p><p></p><p>These sections taken together indicate to me that standing armies are unlawful since they can be used against the American citizen. Leadership of the sovereign States provides for training, equipping and appointment of officers for leadership of the respective State's citizen militias, naval forces and by extension air and space forces are needed at the front line to defend the union from invasion of foreign aggressors, with the citizen militia having sole and full responsibility to preserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Taken together, these sections charge We the People with the full responsibility of policing ourselves. I do not believe there is any other nation on Earth, where the supreme law of the land requires citizens to police themselves and have full control of their own destiny.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="flybeech, post: 2082424, member: 7557"] I see. So section 1.8.16 reserved to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. As the lawful military, the citizen militia looked toward their respective State for armament, training and appointed officers for leadership. No where in this section, or any other part of the Constitution, do I see any authorization to invade any foreign nation, without a declaration of war to prevent an invasion of the Union. Stepping back to 1.8.12, it appears the Framers limited the formation of armies to 2 year funding increments in the case of declared war, since the only lawful military was the citizen militia and making standing armies illegal, since they could be used against the people. Section 1.8.13 appears the Constitution allows maintenance of a standing Navy, since invasion at that time would have been most likely by sea, suggesting that the Navy was needed as the first line of defense of our borders, to fend off a foreign invasion. We had a small navy, presumably to act as the first line of defense, while the State citizen militia were mobilized to conduct defense of the land from foreign invasion. As technology evolved and we learned to fly, it appears an Air Force armed with aviation assets and further space defense assets would fall into the same category as the Navy, since the primary purpose of maintaining those assets was to defend the border. Examination of section 1.8.15 "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions", appears to say that Congress would call forth and mobilize the respective State citizen militias to execute the Laws of the Union, that is, enforcement of the Constitution and the preservation of liberty. The respective State citizen militias were to self-police and suppress insurrection, but insurrection or rebellion from whom? According to section 1.8.12, We the People as the citizen militia, are the only lawful military within the United States and our duty is to defend the Constitution and preserve liberty, so those who rebel are those who would seek to destroy the Constitution and take away liberty, right? How could We the People rebel against ourselves, if we control our own destiny? The States citizen's militia is also charged with repelling invasions, which suggests border defense, since an invader attacks from outside the Union, should they get through the defensive naval force required under 1.8.13. These sections taken together indicate to me that standing armies are unlawful since they can be used against the American citizen. Leadership of the sovereign States provides for training, equipping and appointment of officers for leadership of the respective State's citizen militias, naval forces and by extension air and space forces are needed at the front line to defend the union from invasion of foreign aggressors, with the citizen militia having sole and full responsibility to preserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Taken together, these sections charge We the People with the full responsibility of policing ourselves. I do not believe there is any other nation on Earth, where the supreme law of the land requires citizens to police themselves and have full control of their own destiny. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
What are your thoughts on sections 1.8.12 through 1.8.16 of the US Constitution?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom