Comment: Read Federalist #46

(See in situ)


Read Federalist #46

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 uninterrupted 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 governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and " continue to supply the materials", "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. 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, 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" (The United States Military) WOULD BE "OPPOSED" A (CITIZEN) "MILITIA" amounting to near half a million of "CITIZENS" with "ARMS IN THEIR HANDS", OFFICERED BY MEN CHOSEN FROM "AMONG THEMSELVES" (CHOSEN BY THE LOCAL CITIZEN'S - NOT MILITARY OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT), fighting for their (THE CITIZEN'S) common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their (THE CITIZEN MILITIA'S) affections and confidence.

It may well be doubted, whether a (CITIZEN) MILITIA "thus circumstanced" (25 to 1 ARMED POWER RATIO) could ever be conquered by such a (SMALL) proportion of "regular troops" (i.e. federal US ARMY, NAVY, AIR FORCE, MARINES).

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 (THE CITIZENS) being armed, which the Americans (CITIZENS) possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of "subordinate governments", to which the people are attached, and by which the (CITIZEN) MILITIA officers are appointed (officered by men chosen among themselves), 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 (CIVILIAN) militia, by these (LOCAL) governments, and attached both to them and to the (CITIZEN) 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"."

-------

APP: This should alarm any US Citizen, as our present condition of Citizens NOT armed with a 25 to 1 superiority over our own standing army; and the fact that our "Citizen Militias" officered by men "chosen among THEMSELVES" do NOT exist in any number near this in military capability or armament, is CLEAR EVIDENCE that the "long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it" have "ALREADY OCCURRED".

-------

CITIZEN MILITIA

WHO ARE THE MILITIA?

Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

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" (of each LOCAL COMMUNITY OR STATE), except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If "that paper" (THE LIMITED CONSTITUTIONAL COMPACT BEING CONSIDERED) 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 (APP: i.e. jail and imprisonment for simply being armed - or being armed with equal ARMS with the standing federal US MILITARY) 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. ..."

---------

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 (STATE & LOCAL COUNTY) 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 (CITIZEN) 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.e. CONGRESS CANNOT INTERPOSE)

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 (the States and People) "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 (Patrick Henry) fears, that in one part of the Union they 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 (i.e. "CITIZENS"), "WE" (the States and People) "CAN ARM THEM" "OURSELVES".

>>> CANNOT Virginia "import arms? >>>Cannot she put them into the hands of "HER" militia-men?

(APP: i.e. THE CITIZENS OF THE INDEPENDENT STATE "CAN" import arms; and as clearly established above, "without ANY application to Congress / federal government")

(APP: So much for the "MYTH" that the Federal government can "interpose or prevent" military arms from being imported across state lines, by (mis)using the Commerce Clause)

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"."

----

Educate yourself. Educate Others.

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

FB: https://www.facebook.com/pages/American-Patriot-Party-CC-Nat...

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

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.