20 votes

MILITIA the True Definition, Intent and the Limitations that James Madison set upon Standing Armies - Quotes

The Definition MILITIA by James Madison, is that of a CIVILIAN FORCE, which is to serve as an OPPOSING FORCE to any standing army;

Along with this is a very defining statement that the MILITIA be officered by men chosen "among THEMSELVES"; Not by the standing army, and not by government.

This being the intent in creating and understanding the compact and common law as the first law of nature being self preservation, no other description in law, however written or documented, can exceed it.

The quotes below establish this as fact:


President George Washington presented his mistrust in the federal government very clearly and defined the true intent where the powers should lay, and that is in the hands of the civilians.

In response to a proposal for gun registration George Washington in 1790 said: "Absolutely not. If the people are armed and the "federalists" do not know where the arms are, there can never be an oppressive government."

The RIGHT to "CONCEAL" from the federal government; The purpose clearly stated to have the power to put down an oppressive federal government...


This is clearly in line with the "12th Grievance of the Declaration of Independence" ( http://www.pacificwestcom.com/independence ); This defines the Intent of the 2nd Amendment and the intent of the Founders.


Elbridge Gerry, a representative to Congress from Massachusetts during the debates over the Bill of Rights "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to "prevent the establishment of a standing army", the "bane" of liberty ...

... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."


Lets review other words of James Madison with regards to "MILITIAS" and standing armies; The purpose and the "POWER RATIO" between them:


James Madison who wrote the Constitution together the Bill of Rights:

(Paraphrased - See full Actual Quote of Federalist #46 in Replies)

"The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth (1/25th) part of the number able to bear arms.

This "PORTION" would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men.

To "these" would be opposed

(APP: VERY IMPORTANT - indicating that the "MILITIA" is to be a >>>"OPPOSING FORCE" to the standing army as well as that of foreign enemies)

a "MILITIA" amounting to near half a million "CITIZENS" with arms in their HANDS,

"officered by men chosen from >>>"among THEMSELVES",

(APP: Not chosen by the government or by the standing army)

fighting for "their" (the citizen / militia's) common liberties and united and conducted by government"S" possessing their (the citizen / militia's) affections and confidence.

It may well be doubted whether a "MILITIA" "thus circumstanced" could ever be conquered by such a "proportion" (i.e. POWER RATIO) of regular troops (i.e. standing army).

Besides the advantage of (THE CITIZENS) being armed, it forms a barrier against the "enterprises of ambition", more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms.

If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did.

Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors."


John Adams in A Defense Of The Constitution:

"Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion ... in private self-defense."

Samuel Adams, John Adams' second or third cousin, during Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention in 1788.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."



"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government."


Part of the proposed Virginia Constitution, in 1776.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."


Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria — a Milanese criminologist whom he admired who was also his contemporary — in On Crimes and Punishment;

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."


Thomas Paine from his Thoughts On Defensive War written in 1775:

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."


George Washington January 7, 1790 :

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, "the rifle and pistol" are "equally indispensable". The very atmosphere of firearms "everywhere" restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."


George Mason when the Constitution was being debated:

"To disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."


Absolute Rights of the Colonists - Samuel Adams - 1772

In Full: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/oregonpatriotparty/Rights_of_t...

1st. Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men.--

Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First. a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the >>>"best manner they can"-- (APP: Note that there are no limitations in how our the means)

Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called >>>"the first Law of Nature"--

All Men have a Right to remain in a State of Nature as long as they please: And in case of intollerable Oppression, Civil or Religious, to leave the Society they belong to, and enter into another.--

When Men enter into Society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions, And previous limitations as form an equitable "ORIGINAL COMPACT".--

Every natural Right not "expressly" given up or from the nature of a Social Compact "necessarily" ceded "REMAINS".--


American Patriot Party.CC

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

DP: http://www.dailypaul.com/user/14674
FB: https://www.facebook.com/pages/American-Patriot-Party-CC-Nat...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Actual Quote from James Madison - Federalist #46


I have noticed that there is a number of websites now out trying to discredit strong and substantive Founders quotes in an attempt to suppress the up rise in true Constitutional law and reestablishment of Constitutional Principles.

This I am finding more and more correct; So beware of doubters that are there only to discredit the true intent.

Though some text may not be direct Quotes, they are in fact "correct paraphrases";

The Actual text below should arouse citizens greatest fears even more so than the paraphrase; and prompt a call of alarm;

The words James Madison speaks shows, that though he establishes the fact of the powers of the citizen militia and limitations of the standing army as the Paraphrase establishes; James Madison lacked the understanding, which Patrick Henry in the Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788 (which see: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...) clearly possessed with regard to power and corruption;

The actual text sufficiently establishes the necessity of a present call and alarm; that the counties and states whose representatives whom have not yet have been corrupted or whom have not arrived at their present position in complete ignorance of their rights, duties and responsibilities, should now move to arm the citizens of all ages able to bear arms, to a 25 to 1 superior Civilian force in armament and munitions as is the Minimum Citizen "Power Ratio" superiority to the Standing Army "in any Country" established by James Madison;

And that those in the standing army, should begin to relinquish their superiority and transfer any and all their arms within the United States, not necessary to repel foreign invasion, to the Citizens and most local communities and Counties so that the balance of power be resumed: To prevent themselves and their families from being enslaved.

And to prepare to repel a move by foreign, international, federal, Corporate, banking, union or other manipulators of power to infiltrate and control the standing army against the foundations established in the Original Constitutions and Common Law Principles of freedom.

The fears James Madison disregards, in his optimism of the sure limitations instituted by "delegated" powers set in the "ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION" which were never to be exceeded, have become in fact a reality of today.

American Patriot Party.CC

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.


Federalist #46: James Madison - Complete Quote Text (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm):

James Madison: "...The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both;

that THE TRAITORS should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment;

that the government"s" (local)" and "the people" of the States should "silently and patiently" behold the gathering storm, and "continue to supply the materials" (APP: As we are in fact doing by giving tax money through a Unenumerated income tax system) , until it should be prepared to "burst on their own heads", must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. (APP: This statement should show anyone who reads this how deep we are in federal and state corruption)

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government;

still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side (armed), would be able to repel the danger.

The "highest number" to which, according to the "best computation", a "standing army" can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or "one twenty-fifth" part of the number "able to bear arms". This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men.

"TO THESE" WOULD BE "OPPOSED" "A MILITIA" amounting to near half a million of "CITIZENS" with "ARMS IN THEIR HANDS", "OFFICERED BY MEN CHOSEN" FROM "AMONG THEMSELVES", fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

It may well be doubted, whether a "militia" "thus circumstanced" could ever be conquered by such a proportion of "regular troops".

Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be "most inclined to deny the possibility of it".

"Besides the advantage of being armed", which the "Americans possess" over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the "militia officers are appointed", "forms a barrier" against the "enterprises of ambition", more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several "kingdoms of Europe", which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms". And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to "shake off their yokes".

But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of "officers appointed out of the militia", by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be "affirmed with the greatest assurance", that the throne of every tyranny in Europe "would be speedily overturned" in spite of the legions which surround it.

"Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.

Let us rather "no longer insult them" with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it."

American Patriot Party

Now On Facebook:

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

25 to 1 Citizen Superiority as Defined

With the issue of "Guns" arises again the definition of Militia - and the term is not simply "guns" but "ARMS" of all types and "POWER RATIO" as presented above at a 25 to 1 "superiority" "possessed by the PEOPLE":

George Mason: 6-16-1788:

"Who are the militia? They consist now of the "whole people"


RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

good info

What's your perspective on Shay's Rebellion? Didn't his administration's action begin to undo the militia in favor of a strong federal standing army?

Miamisburg, Montgomery County, Ohio

The Principles to Shays Rebellion can be Summarized as this

The rebellion was created by public strife.

John Locke presents a historical lesson on WHEN and HOW such rebellions should occur:


229. The end of government is the good of mankind; and which is best for mankind, that the people should be always exposed to the boundless will of tyranny, or that the rulers should be sometimes liable to be opposed when they grow exorbitant in the use of their power, and employ it for the destruction, and not the preservation, of the properties of their people?

230. Nor let any one say that mischief can arise from hence as often as it shall please a busy head or turbulent spirit to desire the alteration of the government.

>>>It is true such men may stir whenever they please, but it will be "only to their own just ruin" and perdition.

>>>>>For till the mischief be "GROWN GENERAL", and the ill designs of the rulers become visible, or their (the peoples) attempts "sensible to the greater part", the people, >>>who are more disposed to suffer than "right themselves by resistance", are not apt to stir... "

(APP Note: Review the Declaration of Independence for these exact words and or meaning)

"...The examples of particular injustice or oppression of here and there an unfortunate man moves them not. But if they universally have a persuasion grounded upon "manifest evidence that designs are carrying on against their liberties", and the general course and tendency of things cannot but give them STRONG suspicions of the >>>>"evil intention of their governors", who is to be blamed for it?

Who can help it if they (the peoples representatives), who might avoid it, "bring themselves into this suspicion"? Are the people to be blamed if they have the sense of rational creatures, and can think of things no otherwise than as they find and feel them? And is it not rather their fault who put things in such a posture that they would not have them thought as they are?

I grant that the pride, ambition, and turbulency of private men have sometimes caused great disorders in commonwealths, and factions have been fatal to states and kingdoms.

But whether the mischief hath oftener begun in the people's wantonness, and a desire to cast off the lawful authority of their rulers, >>>>>or in the "rulers' insolence and endeavours to get and exercise an arbitrary power over their people", whether oppression or disobedience gave the first rise to the disorder, I leave it to impartial history to determine.

This I am sure, whoever, either ruler or subject, by force goes about to invade the rights of either prince or people, and lays the foundation for overturning the constitution and frame of any just government, he is guilty of the greatest crime I think a man is capable of, being to answer for all those mischiefs of blood, rapine, and desolation, which the breaking to pieces of governments bring on a country; and he who does it is justly to be esteemed the common enemy and pest of mankind, and is to be treated accordingly.

#231. That subjects or foreigners attempting by force on the properties of any people may be resisted with force is agreed on all hands; but that magistrates doing the same thing may be resisted, hath of late been denied; as if those who had the greatest privileges and advantages by the law had thereby a power to break those laws by which alone they were set in a better place than their brethren; whereas their offence is thereby the >>> greater, both as being ungrateful for the greater share they have by the law, and breaking also that trust which is put into their hands by their brethren.

232. Whosoever uses force without right -- as every one does in society who does it without law -- puts himself into a state of war with those against whom he so uses it, and in that state all former ties are cancelled, all other rights cease, and every one has a right to defend himself, and to resist the aggressor. "


So what we have in the Shays Rebellion, was a uprising because of several issues, heavy taxation; partly from a heavy war debt; Bad lending practices being allowed (most likely from the practice of USURY), poor local representation and protection of the citizen's private property by local government;

Then when it was too late, the common practice of government to "finance force" to resolve the issue was enacted, instead of standing up to represent those being misused or having legitimate grievances.


History, as John Locke presents, illustrates that the issue had not "grown general" enough to warrant a revolt (of this Type);

I see however in reading more on the rebellion, that the aftermath showed that the action made the way and created a new state by which those taking part in the rebellion received greater representation;

So the rebellion was actually successful.

I do not see anything that would favor a federal force over a local force; Nor any need of change in the Original Constitutional Principles that allows neighboring Local Militias to come to the aid in protecting private property at the request of a neighboring state.


You may note however, that John Adams had been making several major mistakes causing other provocations as well during that time not in line with his earlier "quotes" of the revolution; Using unjust force as well at that time; Namely signing the "Alien and Sedition Acts" and arresting Jefferson Followers who were "deemed seditious";

These acts were soundly NULLIFIED by the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions: See in full at: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/candidates


In summary:

The Shays Rebellion shows similarity to many of today's issues;

1.) Governments allowing Usury and confidence artistry to be practiced by lending institutions.

2.) Removal of Protections of private property, including removal of bankruptcy protections.

3.) Heavy Bureaucratic Debt.

4.) Heavy War Debt.

5.) Heavy handed tax collecting.

6.) Refusal of local Representatives to reduce the tax burdens, refusal to nullify laws against liberties and property, and refusal remove and reduce undelegated and unneeded state and federal bureaucracies.

7.) Continued granting of Exclusive Privileges that turn free trade into privileged trade and freedom of contract into Privileged Contracts.

(see http://www.pacificwestcom.com/americanpatriotpartynewsletter... )


So the inevitable, may very well become inevitable today because the the abuses may just become "grown general" enough.

Let's hope we can put a harness on the issues and turn it around before that takes place.

The rule is to Educate, Educate, Educate. Then take action within the government"S" that we have to make those changes.

American Patriot Party.CC

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

Thanks Richard

Your summary looks spot on. If this excerpt from the book, The Bible & War In America is true, I suggest you add #8, politicians who speak out of both sides of their mouth.

Joel McDurmon writes…

Whatever may be said of either side in these skirmishes, the central fact to take away is how difficult it was to raise an army for a corrupt cause PRIOR to the Constitution. Granted, the corrupt forces still eventually won out, but even this was a function of powerful centralized controls: first the imposition of colonial fiat paper, then the bailout laws for the banks and speculators, and the centralizing of the whole State’s legal system largely under the power of the Bostonians. Even here, out of 92,000 enrolled militiamen, only a tiny fraction was willing to support the cause.

And corruption did not stop with the Bostonian bailout and its mercenary militia, it continued in Knox’s leveraging of the crisis to convince Washington into the Constitutional Convention. Knox wrote,

“ What is to give us security against the violence of lawless men? Our government must be braced, changed, or altered to secure our lives and property….

The men of property and men of station and principle there are determined to endeavor to establish and protect them in their lawful pursuits; and, what will be efficient in all cases of internal commotions or foreign invasions, they mean that liberty shall form the basis, - liberty resulting from an equal and firm administration of law.

They wish for a general government of unity, as they see that the local legislatures must naturally and necessarily tend to the general government.”

Urged on by others as well- not to mention by his own predilections for stronger central government- Washington bit. You know the rest of the story; we got that “government of general unity,” along with its new military powers, including a standing army and central control over state militias.

In light of this new government, we now move to the second rebellion in this tale of two: the Whiskey Rebellion of 1792. The situation was very much similar to Shays’: the government (national now as opposed to state) had now centralized all war debts from the revolution, and Hamilton was seeking new sources of revenue to pay them off.

Would you tend to agree with Joel’s assessment?

Miamisburg, Montgomery County, Ohio

With some definition..

Because I have not read the book, I will have to stay within the confines of what I see;

Joel's description regarding raising "armies", which I am taking to mean standing armies (or temporary militia), for a "corrupt cause"... I would more relate this to a "mercenary" cause (which he does as well) or a "cause that was purposely not correctly defined"; As I believe if the "corruption" part would have been explained to those they were wishing to hire, the task of raising a army of citizen Milita would be almost impossible.

Since they were able to raise a good number, there are probably other issues going on; Often governments use the excuse of "peace" as a means to quell valid grievances.

The "fear" of weakness is what a number of federalists had used to usher in the Constitution; Not just Knox;

However the intent, as clearly presented in the Ratifying Conventions, was NOT a "central government", but a VERY LIMITED "COMPACT" between free and independent states;

With a central "district" to be used ONLY for national defense and paying for the National debt (caused by that defense);

Or in the case of internal strife, a place where grievances could be aired; Or when states request (and "consent" to), have assistance from nearby state Militias provide aid; The federal government can only "constitutionally" prosecute or define 4 crimes, cannot govern police outside the 10 miles square of Washington DC, and cannot make ANY regulation that even MAY affect the citizens of the Union at Large.

See the Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/americanpatriotpartynewsletter

So I think the "New government" "definition" by Joel here, blurs the intent of a limited "COMPACT";

Which if correctly applied within the DELEGATED powers, it would remain; ...and not a "central government";

This is the same "change in perception", which had been warned would happen by Patrick Henry and George Mason; Even though James Mason and other founders assured them that they were not giving them that power, and by not giving it to them in the Compact, the federal government could not by "ANY MEANS" arrogate ANY new power.

See Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions http://www.pacificwestcom.com/candidates when James Madison tells the federal government that it has "EXPOUNDED" on the "GENERAL PHRASES" on the Constitution to give the federal government powers no where intended; Such as the "supremacy clause" i.e. "supreme law of the LAND"... LAND meaning the 10 miles square of Washington DC, except for the very limited delegated powers; NOT all the states in all matters.

Again Read this here:
See the Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/americanpatriotpartynewsletter


The statement on the central control over state militias "within" the states, is actually incorrect Constitutionally; This is an arrogated power; Once territories became states, the states had full authority over militias and management of the land within them.


The Whiskey Rebellion was a just rebellion because the tax was not enumerated to be distributed across the public by census or consent; and granted " EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES" of one distiller or person over the other through government favoritism;

More on "EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES" can be found here: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/americanpatriotpartynewsletter...

No taxation without representation at that period of time, really was defined as "no taxation" without "ones" "CONSENT". Representation meant "a deputy" delivering a person's consent; Not a representative assuming or dictating what "he thought in his own interest" as others consent; The British gave the Colonists "Representatives", so simply having a general representative was not what they meant.

See the Declaration of Independence: " 17.) For imposing taxes on us without our CONSENT;" was one (#17) of the grievances which defined "TYRANNY".


When the latter definition of representation began again to occur, then representation as earlier defined was lost to a self serving bureaucracy.

This is why states need to be small, so that the people have greater access to their representatives for a closer representation of their CONSENT.




So actually we never really "got" a central government;

We "have" a "Limited Compact" that has been usurped "by" a "central government", that, by our Constitution, that "DISTRICT" government can NEVER have authority beyond the limits of the "Original Compact".

And this Compact is the limit to their power. The rest remain with the states, and ultimately to the people.

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

But now what?

I love all of the information which you have provided here, but how does it apply to today? I know there are active militias in this country. But what is their legal standing? They do have the right to exist, train and bear all types of arms, correct? I would assume they are under watch or suspicion from the current government. But do they hold the absolute right of power over anything else in this country, which one would think they should, or would a militia automatically be looked at as a domestic terrorist group? Does the people's militia hold a higher jurisdicttion than the National Guard? I would say yes on principal but I would probably be wrong legally.


I will answer a few of your questions first, Then explain Authority and the Solution on what we do;

"Do the peoples Militia hold a higher jurisdiction?"

Yes. When we have locally supported Militias and we empower them as intended; (and George Mason Warned that the Militias that were held in high regard may one day looked down upon):

Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788 (See link for full day debate):


Mr. MADISON. "Mr. Chairman, I will endeavor to follow the rule of the house, but must pay due attention to the observations which fell from the gentleman. I should conclude, from abstracted reasoning, that they were ill founded I should think that, if there were any object which the general government ought to command, it would be the direction of the national forces. And as the force which lies in militia "IS MOST SAFE", the direction of that part ought to be {413} submitted to, in order to render another force unnecessary. The power objected to is necessary, because it is to be employed for "NATIONAL" purposes. It is necessary to be given to every government. This is not opinion, but fact. The highest authority may be given, that the want of such authority in the government protracted the late war, and prolonged its calamities.

He says that one ground of complaint, at the beginning of the revolution, was, that a "standing army was quartered upon us". This was not the WHOLE complaint. We complained because it was done without the "LOCAL Authority" of this country without the CONSENT of the "PEOPLE" of America. As to the exclusion of standing armies in the bill of rights of the states, we shall find that though, in one or two of them, there is something like a "prohibition", yet, in most of them, it is only provided that "no armies shall be kept without the legislative authority"; that is, without the CONSENT of the COMMUNITY itself. Where is the impropriety of saying that we shall have an army, if necessary? Does not the notoriety of this constitute security? If inimical nations were to fall upon us when defenceless, what would be the consequence? Would it be wise to say, that we should have no defence? Give me leave to say, that the only possible way to provide against "standing armies" is to make them UNNECESSARY.

The way to do this is to organize and discipline our MILITIA (CITIZENS), so as to render "THEM" (the CITIZENS) CAPABLE of defending the country against external invasions and internal insurrections. But it is urged that abuses may happen. How is it possible to answer objections against the possibility of abuses? It must strike every logical reasoner, that these cannot be entirely provided against. >>>I really thought that the objection in the militia was at an end..."

George Mason: "This was no conclusive argument. His fears, as he had before expressed, were, that grievous punishments would be inflicted, in order to render the service disagreeable to the militia themselves, and induce them to wish its abolition, which would afford a PRETENSE for establishing a "standing army". (APP Note: This has already happened) He was convinced the STATE GOVERNMENTS ought to have the control of the militia, except when they were "absolutely necessary" for "general purposes". The gentleman had said that they would be only subject to martial law when in "actual service". >>>He demanded what was to hinder Congress from >>>inflicting it always, and making a >>>general law for the purpose. (APP Note: And This has already happened) If so, said he, it must finally produce, most infallibly, the annihilation of the state governments. These were his apprehensions; but he prayed God they might be groundless."

Mr. MADISON replied, that the obvious explanation was, that the "STATES" (Each "INDIVIDUAL" STATE their OWN & NOT military) were to appoint the officers, and govern all the militia except that part which was called into the actual service of the United States..."

Mr. JOHN MARSHALL asked if gentlemen were serious when they asserted that, if the state governments had power to interfere with the militia, it was by implication. If they were, he asked the committee whether the least attention would not show that they were mistaken. The state governments >>>"DID NOT" derive their powers from the general (FEDERAL) government"; but each government derived its powers FROM THE "PEOPLE", and each was to act "according to the powers given it". Would any gentleman deny this? He demanded if powers not given were retained by implication. Could any man say so? Could any man say that this power was not retained by the states, as they had not given it away? For, says he, does not a power remain till it is given away? The state legislatures had power to command and govern their militia before, and have it still, undeniably, unless there be something in this Constitution that takes it away.

For "Continental" purposes Congress may call forth the militia, as to suppress insurrections and repel invasions. "But the POWER" given to the STATES by the people is "NOT taken away"; for the Constitution "does NOT say so". In the Confederation Congress had this power; but the state legislatures had it "also". The power of legislating given them within the ten miles square is exclusive of the states, because it is expressed to be exclusive. The truth is, that when power is given to the general legislature, if it was in the state legislature before, both shall exercise it; unless there be an incompatibility in the exercise by one to that by the other, or negative words precluding the state governments from it. But there are NO negative words here. It rests, therefore, with the "STATES".

To me it appears, then, unquestionable that the state governments can call forth the militia, in case the Constitution should be adopted, in the SAME MANNER as they could have done BEFORE its adoption.

Gentlemen have said that the states cannot defend themselves without an application to Congress, because "Congress" can interpose!

Does not every man feel a refutation of the argument in his own breast? I will show {420} that there could NOT be a combination, between those who formed the Constitution, to take away this power.

All the restraints intended to be laid on the state governments (besides where an exclusive power is expressly given to Congress) are contained in the 10th section of the 1st article. This power is NOT included in the restrictions in that section. But what excludes every possibility of doubt, is the last part of it that "no state shall engage in war, unless "actually" invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay." When invaded, they "CAN" engage in war, as also when in "imminent danger". This clearly proves that the states can use the militia when they find it necessary. The worthy member last up objects to the Continental government's possessing the power of disciplining the militia, because, though all its branches be derived from the people, he says they will form an aristocratic government, unsafe and UNFIT to be trusted." (APP: Which by not declaring wars, it has been proven true)

John Marshall: "...If Congress neglect our militia (citizens), "we can arm them OURSELVES". CANNOT Virginia "import arms?> >Cannot she put them into the hands of "HER" militia-men? He then concluded by observing, that the power of governing the militia was NOT vested in the states by implication, because, being "POSSESSED of it" > "antecedent to the adoption of the government, and "not being divested of it" by any grant or restriction in the Constitution, they must necessarily be as "FULLY POSSESSED" of it as ever they had been.> And it could NOT be said that the states derived ANY powers from that (the federal government or Constitution) system, "but RETAINED them," >>>>>>>>"though not acknowledged in ANY part of it"."


The First danger, is that most states are far too large in size to give adequate representation to the citizens (i.e. militias) of local communities; Most original states were small which gave more direct representation. (See our 2008 news letter: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/americanpatriotpartynewsletter...)

The Second danger that presents itself now, is that the state "militias" once controlled by the state and it's Governor when not in foreign service, have been assimilated into the "standing army" as a "National Guard" so that all military men are "always in the service of the United States" as George Mason had warned would happen; Further, the soldiers from one state are now mingled with soldiers from another; Hardly a force that would represent the will of a local community;

A feature that completely alienates them from being a MILITIA. The "troops" are also sent here and there from one side of the country to the other and to fight without even the check of "declaring" war; EXACTLY what was warned by the founders.

Read it here: Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/americanpatriotpartynewsletter/

Patrick Henry warned us of this in that same convention:

Patrick Henry: "...Suppose an insurrection in Virginia, and suppose there be danger apprehended of an insurrection in another state, from the exercise of the government; or suppose a national war, and there be discontents among the people of this state, that produce, or threaten, an insurrection; suppose Congress, in either case, demands a number of militia, will they not be obliged to go? Where are your reserved rights, when your militia go to a neighboring state? Which call is to be obeyed, the congressional call, or the call of the state legislature? The call of Congress must be obeyed. I need not remind this {423} committee that the sweeping clause will cause their demands to be submitted to. This clause enables them "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry into execution all the powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

James Madison answered this way:

"..."With respect to suppressing insurrections, I say that those clauses which were mentioned by the honorable gentleman are compatible with a concurrence of the power. By the first, Congress is to call them forth to suppress insurrections, and repel invasions of "FOREIGN powers". A concurrence in the former case is necessary, because a whole state may be in insurrection against the Union. What has passed may perhaps justify this apprehension. The safety of the Union and particular states requires that the general government should have power to {425} repel "foreign" invasions. The 4th section of the 4th article is perfectly consistent with the exercise of the power by the states. The words are, "The United States shall guaranty to every state in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion, and, on application of the legislature, or of the executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened,) against domestic violence." The word invasion here, after power had been given in the former clause to repel invasions, may be thought tautologous, but it has a "DIFFERENT MEANING from the other". This clause speaks of a "PARTICULAR STATE". It means that it shall be protected from invasion by "OTHER STATES". A republican government is to be guarantied to each state, and they are to be protected from invasion from "OTHER STATES", as well as from "FOREIGN POWERS"; and, on APPLICATION by the legislature or executive, as the case may be, the militia of the other states are to be called to suppress domestic insurrections. Does this bar the states from calling forth their OWN militia? - "NO" -; but it gives them a SUPPLEMENTARY security to suppress insurrections and domestic violence.

The other clause runs in these words: "No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty on tonnage, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay." They are restrained from making war, unless invaded, or in imminent danger. When in such danger, they are "not restrained". I can perceive no competition in these clauses. They cannot be said to be repugnant to a concurrence of the power. If we object to the Constitution in this manner, and consume our time in verbal criticism, we shall never put an end to the business.

Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has asked who are the militia, if they be not "THE PEOPLE" of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, by our representation? I ask, Who are the MILITIA? They consist now of the "WHOLE PEOPLE", except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and {426} rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people.

If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected. Under the present government, ALL ranks of people are subject to MILITIA duty. Under such a full and equal representation as ours, there can be no ignominious punishment inflicted. But under this national, or rather consolidated government, the case will be different.

The representation being so SMALL and INADEQUATE, they will have no fellow-feeling for the people. They may discriminate people in their own predicament, and exempt from duty all the officers and lowest creatures of the national government. If there were a more particular definition of their powers, and a clause exempting the militia from martial law except when in actual service, and from fines and punishments of an unusual nature, then we might expect that the militia would be what they are. But, if this be not the case, we cannot say how long all classes of people will be included in the militia. There will not be the same reason to expect it, because the government will be administered by different people. We know what they are now, but know not "how soon they may be altered"."

Well, we know now. Every warning Patrick Henry and George Mason presented would come true, has come true.


Now onto AUTHORITY or Lack of it.

When the federal (or any) government uses the force they have to impose laws they have never been given the authority to impose, then what you have what John Locke in his 2nd Treatise on Civil government called a "PRETENSE OF AUTHORITY";

The use of such force by the government Locke establishes by history, both was an "ACT OF WAR" on the people AND dissolved the government i.e. "Dissolution of Government"; and their authority is AUTOMATICALLY removed by their actions (whether in words indicating their intent, laws or actions); Such acts reduce them to a standing of all common man without any authority;

They be opposed as if they were a criminal and by any means if they invade your liberty or property.

This is because it was a force that was never granted in the ORIGINAL COMPACT which "CREATED the AUTHORITY" in the first place;

Note also the important point John Locke establishes, when a government CHANGES from the principles it was created under, it DISSOLVES. All authority given goes away. Force used after that is force without authority.

In this case, Militias were proclaimed "safely held" by the people, and the federal government is expressly prohibited from interfering with the importing of weapons to the state militias; This is found in Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788, defining the words in the Constitution; and ALL governments are actually prohibited the governments from interfering or infringing with the right to keep and bear the arms from The Bill of Rights which is acknowledged as a inalienable right as a means of self preservation.

Now the Solution(s) as to your question, as to what to do;

This was given by James Madison, Thomas Jefferson as well as others both in the Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; and in no Uncertain terms in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798 where they used the CURE by ACTUAL EXAMPLE.

It is called NULLIFICATION; and can be enforced by any "WELL REGULATED COMMUNITY"; Including COUNTIES; A Judge, Governor, Legislative branch, County Commission, or "ANY FORM" of "well regulated Community" can simply NULLIFY undelgated state or federal powers.

This as was clearly done by example by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, by writing a very short description as to the infraction by the law or use of force; Solidify it by putting it into the law books.

This indicated that their states would have nothing to do with the unauthorized power. This should, and in most cases will, resolve the issue. Simply the threat of an engaged community should be enough.

Now comes ENFORCING that nullification; This is accomplished by engaging the deputized police, to enforce it against all forces that attempt to ignore it. If necessary, they deputize as many citizens necessary to enforce the nullification against those who would attempt to impose their will without authority. i.e. They engage the unorganized MILITIA of CITIZENS.

The above is the procedure taken "IF" your representatives actually represent our laws and your rights;

Now what if they don't; First you exhaust your resources;

You use the COURTS, PRESS, MEDIA and PROPAGANDA. If your representatives will not engage the people, you must.

You change it back by taking office; or vote in those that believe in the same principles. You educate and appeal to the people's duty to uphold their and your rights.

You can see this happening in the Ron Paul movement.

And above is what you do.

Now, Your "Worse" case scenario:

All the powers invade Yours and Other's rights; They engage unauthorized force, invade your person, liberty and properties (granted, they are doing a lot of that now);

Then you are at war.

And as Locke so clearly states:

223. "...I answer: Self-defence is a part of the law of Nature; nor can it be denied the community, even against the king himself;

235. "But to resist force with force, being the state of war that levels the parties, "cancels" all former relation of reverence, respect, and superiority;

239. "That is in short -- not to multiply cases -- in whatsoever he has no authority, there he is no king, and may be resisted: for wheresoever the authority ceases, the king ceases too, and becomes "like other men who have NO authority"."

229. The end of government is the good of mankind; and which is best for mankind, that the people should be always exposed to the boundless will of tyranny, or that the rulers should be sometimes liable to be opposed when they grow exorbitant in the use of their power, and employ it for the destruction, and not the preservation, of the properties of their people?

230. Nor let any one say that mischief can arise from hence as often as it shall please a busy head or turbulent spirit to desire the alteration of the government. It is true such men may stir whenever they please, (APP: Here Locke presents a CAUTION he has found as a fact in history:) but it will be only to their own just ruin and perdition. For till the mischief be "GROWN GENERAL", and the ill designs of the rulers become VISIBLE, or their attempts sensible to the greater part, the people, who are "more disposed to suffer" than right themselves by resistance, are not apt to stir... "

(APP: Review the Declaration of Independence for these words and meaning; Locke wrote the principles that the founders read and established.)

Then you engage:

Locke 332: "Whosoever uses force without right -- as every one does in society who does it without law -- puts himself into a "STATE OF WAR" with those against whom he so uses it, and "in that state" ALL former ties are cancelled, ALL other rights cease, and every ONE has a right to defend himself, and to resist the aggressor.


Here are links to the above documents:

John Locke 2nd Treatise on Civil Government, 1689:

The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, 1798: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/candidates

Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/americanpatriotpartynewsletter

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.


That was an awesome post! Thanks so much!

Tremendous Research and Analysis... Thank you.


The link to the American Patriot Party here is weighty indeed... Your quoting and paraphrasing of Madison's arguments as well as those of others, impart absolute credence to the fact that the individual has an unalienable right to Keep and Bear arms in defense of his and others Life, Liberty, and Property, against any and all who would abridge.


"The moment the idea is admitted into society that
property is not as sacred as the law of God, and
that there is not a force of law and public justice
to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."
~John Adams


"The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue,
and if this cannot be inspired into our People ... they may
change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they
will not obtain a lasting liberty." --John Adams, June 1776

Article Resurrection...

Article Resurrection...

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.



RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.



RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.