Comment: Training future Enemy Combatants Before Training our Own Militia

(See in situ)


Training future Enemy Combatants Before Training our Own Militia

Training future Enemy Combatants Before Training our Own Citizen Militia is what Disturbs me the Most.

Especially when they are suppose to be arming and training the Citizen Militia and not NEGLECTING THAT DUTY:

Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

"...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 (ONLY) within the ten miles square (OF WASHINGTON, DC) 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. ..."

"... But the worthy member fears, that in one part of the Union they (THE CITIZEN MILITIAS) will be regulated and disciplined, "AND IN ANOTHER NEGLECTED". This danger is enhanced by leaving this power to each state; for some states may attend to their militia, and others may neglect them.

***If "CONGRESS" "NEGLECT" OUR (CITIZEN) "MILITIA", "WE CAN ARM THEM" "OURSELVES".

CANNOT Virginia "import arms?> >CANNOT SHE (THE CITIZENS OF VIRGINIA) PUT PUT THEM INTO THE HANDS of "HER" militia-men? (i.e. EACH STATE "CAN")

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 STATES should be "INSISTING" that the CITIZENS TAKE PART IN ALL MILITARY EXERCISES in the states.

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

Daily Paul: http://www.dailypaul.com/user/14674

Now on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/American-Patriot-Party-CC-Nat...

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.