Summations Only

Quite frequently, the power to interpret the constitution and to fashion remedies is indistinguishable from the power to make law. For example, the constitution says that the people are to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, but it is the Supreme Court that has decided that the evidence from an illegal search is to be thrown out, thus creating the exclusionary rule.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

What second amendment precedents were set between 1900 and 1930? The Supreme Court actually said nothing of significance about the second amendment during that period.Here are Justice Scalia's own words from DC v Heller.

quote:

---

The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. (54-55) Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so M-16 rifles and the like may be banned

---

If you are going to lean on Scalia so heavily, remember that he wrote the entire majority opinion in DC v Heller. If Scalia did not accept the part quote above, he was not required to acknowledge it as it had nothing at all to do with the case in front of him, which was about handguns and not M-16s. In other words it is dicta indicating Scalia's own thoughts on the matter.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The Supreme Court is the final authority on whether a law is or is not constitutional. In order to make that final determination, which we all seem to agree is described by the constitution, the Supreme Court must interpret the constitution. How could it be otherwise? The Supreme Court decides what kind of circumstances create an unreasonable search, and what kinds limits on purchasing and owning firearms constitute an infringement the right to bear arms.Not ICANT, not Alexander Hamilton or any dead founding dude. The majority vote of the non-recused Supreme Court Justices is the sole authority to make the final decision of constitutionality.

Wilmington Insurrection of 1898.

They were in fact the militia. They were called up, trained, at least for the time available to train, armed, and placed under the command of government appointed generals and officers. If there is some point for an armed citizenry other than the militia, I think something more than naming the battle and calling the soldiers rag tag is needed.As for the Alamo, which someone else mentioned, I don't see any point. A bunch of well armed soldiers gets their butt kicked by a foreign army because the government cannot or will not send reinforcements. Unless someone is rooting for the Mexicans, I don't see any point related to arming or not arming citizens during peacetime.On the other hand, the Wilmington Insurrection of 1898, an event Jon labels as 'democracy in action' was indeed a case of an armed citizenry rebelling against the local government and winning by bearing and use arms. It is quite possible the only example of s successful armed rebellion. Yet somehow, I never seem to hear Wayne LaPierre cite the Wilmington Insurrection. Why do you suppose that is?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Indeed. That would be the National Guard that you are describing.

Removed Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : Taq explained this quite well.

I'm 100 percent sure that you cannot back this assertion up with any facts. Your ridiculous attempt at logic is that because the federal government is involved in the National Guard, not only is the guard not a state militia, but it is actually a plot to prevent states from even having a militia.That's all despite the fact that the role of the State militia, and the feds relation to it is described in the constitution.Would it surprise you to learn that states do have their own militias which are not subject to call up by the US government, and which are authorized by federal law? Wouldn't such a thing stomp a complete mudhole into your proposition regarding a federal conspiracy to prevent states from having a milita?Look up State Defense Force.Here is the federal legislation which allows SDFs and separates them from federal control.From 32 U.S.C. 109c) In addition to its National Guard, if any, a State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands may, as provided by its laws, organize and maintain defense forces. A defense force established under this section may be used within the jurisdiction concerned, as its chief executive (or commanding general in the case of the District of Columbia) considers necessary, but it may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces.You do this routinely, and you are wrong so often as to leave you zero credibilty about objective stuff. your credibility.My dad used to say, 'Use your head for something other than a hat rack'. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Surely 'the Federal Government' is not the answer to all those questions.

Couldn't this be because high crime rates convince the public to support the death penalty?

I've addressed this nonsense elsewhere. The National Guard meets the constitution definition of the militia. I know you don't like that, but it is fact.And what about the twenty two states that have state defense forces that are cannot be called up by the federal government. Is that a 'very few' states? Every state is authorized to have such a unit, yet most states rely soley on the National Guard. These defense forces are responsible only to their state, and many of them are called the state guard or the state militia.Of course the states that don't do so simply aren't as smart as ICANT who sees a conspiracy where there is none.Added by Edit: There are two things wrong with this argument. 1) The constitution allows the federal government to utilize the militia of the several states in exactly this way. Accordingly, this usage confirms rather than refutes the fact that the National Guard is a state militia. If you don't like the US constitution or think that I've misinterpreted it, I'd like to hear your interpretation that avoids this problem.The second problem with your argument is that no matter what the the Governor of Alabama likes or dislikes, no provision of law allows him to defy the Supreme Court and the federal government in matters of federal law. Your on the wrong side of history and the law.What your example does do is undercut your own proposition that the purpose of the Militia is to oppose the federal government. I'll agree that the constitution does render the Militia of the several states quite ineffective for that purpose. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Nonsense.

Thanks Theodoric. This is exactly what ICANT is complaining happened in Alabama. Sounds like the President's actions in Alabama were proper according to that 1792 law.

Just as the Constitution requires. You never seem to mention that. And I have never told you that the state's don't need a Militia. The states can have a state defense force that meets as often as they want, composed of as many people as they want. They can even include ethnic Americans in it despite the fact that some founders wanted to use the militia to keep slaves in check.The 1792 law which you claim defines the militia provides for the federal government can call up the militia in exactly the circumstances that you consider to be a problem. What does that tell you about your 'definition'?I've noticed that your tactic when presented with a problematic question is to simply deflect by asking a question of your own. That's not very persuasive. Wrong ICANT. Your definition is wrong, so I need not play your game. What we can say is that the current Militia does not follow the requirements of that 1792 law. The militia is simply not compliant with that old statute. Further, that provision was a not a definition. Finally I have no clue how often the various SDF meet. However the question is irrelevant.Let's note this though, under the criteria you insist on, namely membership, training, and independence from the 'foxes', this country has never had a militia, at least not since 1792.Further, given that you don't want the militia to comply with the provisions of the same statute that put the federal government in charge, because apparently, in your world few the feds are the foxes, it seems dishonest for you to even cite that statute, because the statute itself as well as the constitution put the feds in the role of calling up the state Militia.This is exactly like the 'show me my math error' problem we encountered when discussing relativity. It's an obvious avoidance tactic that you pull out whenever you are cornered. Note that I answered your question. Now address mine. Which is, how do you justify cherry picking which parts of the constitution you care to observe?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Hello Mr. ICANT... Please meet Mr. ICANT.