Comment: Hello Greg, thank you for your comments

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Heh? My post was just to (see in situ)

Hello Greg, thank you for your comments

I Just wanted to post more on the foundations.

If we followed the political structure we have as it was intended and defined, there would be no reason to make changes;

The problem with altering the political structure outside that of the Original (limited) Constitutional Compact, is that in doing so, the Compact as a "republic" dissolves, This is because we are not a democracy, nor are we "one nation";

James Madison establishes very clearly both in the Ratifying conventions and very clearly in the Virginia Resolutions.

This principle of this "Dissolution of Government" is explained by Locke on Civil government - See Locke #211 on...

In Full:

Locke #212: "When any one, or more, shall take upon them "to make laws" whom the people "have not appointed so to do", they make laws "without authority", which the people are not therefore bound to obey; by which means they come again to be out of subjection, and may constitute to themselves a new legislative, as they think best, being in "full liberty to resist" the force of those who, without authority, would impose anything upon them. Every one is at the disposure of his own will, when those who had, by the "delegation" of the society (i.e. Original Compact to create the Society), the declaring of the public will, are excluded from it, and others usurp the place who have no such authority or delegation....."

Samuel Adams: Absolute Rights of the Colonists 1772:

In Full:

"...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" (i.e. Limited Delegated Powers) as form an equitable "ORIGINAL COMPACT"(i.e. Original Constitution).--

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

All positive and civil laws, should conform as far as possible, to the Law of natural reason and equity.--"

Though the Swiss have a model militia, it is not the type of Militia that the Founders intended or defined. Except for the fact that it is about the size of Maine (a smaller state) and would have more direct representation of the people because of this limited area; The State government central military (country) as a whole would still decide who would "officer" it's men, not the local community citizens themselves. Therefore the Swiss simply have an efficient military, not a "Militia" defined as the founders defined it.

I would agree that "libertarians" would not go in for out and out conscription;

But in reality, they are actually accepting a "type" of conscription by not acting against the present military "registration" we have in the US today. When one registers, they are "in"; Like it or not. And it will be in the Standing Army, not the militia.

What I was trying to illustrate, is that the militia as defined by Madison doesn't need a "formal conscription" because, officered by those you "very locally" choose, everyone has a hand in their own survival and freedom. So there is no need for a conscription; and as well no need for harsh penaltys which are associated with conscription.

This was discussed in the VA Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788 by George Mason:

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 (the Constitution being debated) 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...."


What brought about this statement by George Mason was this prior debate moments earlier in the same convention:


Mr. GEORGE MASON asked to what purpose the laws were read. The objection was, that too much power was given to Congress power that would finally destroy the state governments more effectually by insidious, underhanded means, than such as could be openly practiced.

This, said he, is the opinion of many worthy men, not only in this Convention, but in all parts of America.

These laws could only show that the legislature of this state could pass such acts. He thought they militated against the cession of this power to Congress, because the state governments could call forth the militia when necessary, so as to compel a submission to the laws; and as they were competent to it, Congress ought NOT TO HAVE THE POWER.

The meeting of three or four persons might be called an insurrection, and the militia might be called out to disperse them.

He was not satisfied with {416} the explanation of the word "organization" by the gentleman in the military line, (Mr. Lee.)

He thought they were "not confined to the technical explanation", but that Congress could "inflict severe and ignominious punishments" on the militia, as a necessary "incident to the power" of organizing and disciplining them.

The gentleman had said there was no danger, because the laws respecting the militia were less rigid in the other states than this.

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 IT"S (THE CITIZEN MILITIA'S) ABOLITION,

>>>>>which would afford a PRETENCE for establishing a standing army.

(APP Note: This has already happened)

He was convinced the STATE GOVERNMENT Sought 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 (KEEPING A STANDING ARMY CONTINUALLY ON FOOT AND THEREFORE ALWAYS IN THE SERVICE OF THE NATIONAL ARMY.

(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 were to appoint the officers, (A CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT AND SAFEGUARD NO LONGER OBEYED) and govern all the militia except that part which was called into the "actual service" of the United States.

He asked, if power were given to the general government, if we must not give it executive power to use it.

The vice of the old system was, that Congress could not execute the powers nominally vested in them. If the contested clause were expunged, this system would have nearly the same defect.

Mr. HENRY wished to know what authority the state governments had over the militia.

Mr. MADISON answered, that the "state governments" might do what they thought proper with the militia, when they were not in the actual service of the United States. They might make use of them to suppress insurrections, quell riots, and call on the general government for the militia of any other state, to aid them, if necessary. "...

There is much more, but as can see we are way beyond the limits set by the founders in respect of the intended definition of "Militia".

Mr. Corbin Responding to Patrick Henerys earlier statement that the french and other countries Citizens and Citizen Militias were "Enslaved by the hands of their "OWN PEOPLE"; Said this, which is true of today's people and their lack of understanding of our own laws and rights:

Mr. CORBIN: "...Animadverting on Mr. Henry's observations, that the French had been the instruments of their own slavery, that the Germans had enslaved the Germans, and the Spaniards the Spaniards, &c., he asked if those nations knew ANY THING OF (LOCAL WELL REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLICS) "REPRESENTATION".


More on this Virginia Ratifying Convention can be read in Full at:

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.