Revitalizing “the Militia of the several States”
WE THE PEOPLE’S Responsibility

“[T]he political status of the Militia, not just their longevity, is superior to that of Congress, “the Office of the President”, the Supreme Court, and the States. All of the latter are THE PEOPLE’S mere “representatives”, whereas the Militia are THE PEOPLE, unmediated by possibly faulty “representation”. Because in America THE PEOPLE alone are sovereign, (footnote 1) they themselves must always control “‘[p]olitical power [that] grows out of the barrel of a gun'”, (footnote 2) not delegate (let alone surrender) that control to “representatives”. To be sure of such personal control they must always hold the gun in their own hands. The only institutions which enable them to do that are the Militia.” The Militia enjoy governmental status and exercise governmental authority.

By Tyranny Out of Necessity: The Bastardy of Martial Law, by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Bookmasters Inc., Ashland, Ohio (2014), page 454-456.

Also see Militia: Permanent Constitutional InstitutionsMilitia: Not Private Associations • Militia: Immune From Contemporary “Gun Control” • Militia: Largely Outside the Jurisdiction of Congress • Oxymoronic “Unorganized” Militia


Revitalizing “the Militia of the several States”: WE THE PEOPLE’S Responsibility

Revitalization of “the Militia of the several States” along strict constitutional lines within a State benefits that State immediately. Some of those benefits would be:

Under present conditions, raising Independent Companies composed of volunteers on a Local basis provides the best means to begin revitalization of “the Militia of the several States”.

 

Revitalization of “the Militia of the several States”: WE THE PEOPLE’S Responsibility.

The unfortunate but undeniable reality today is that “the Militia of the several States” are not constitutionally “organiz[ed], arm[ed], and disciplin[ed]”, either by Congress for the three purposes the Constitution explicitly allows, (footnote 3) or by their individual States for all other purposes (and for those first three purposes, too, should Congress continue to default in its duty in that regard). (footnote 4) Indeed, no true constitutional Militia is “organiz[ed], arm[ed], and disciplin[ed]” for any purpose anywhere within the United States. Rather, the vast mass of Americans eligible—and therefore constitutionally required—to serve in some capacity in the Militia has been relegated to the unconstitutionally oxymoronic, impotent, and even imbecilic “unorganized militia”. (footnote 5) As a result, no “well regulated Militia” exists in any State, which means that no State can—and, in light of the National para-military police-state apparatus being elaborated as of this writing at an ever-accelerating pace around the United States Department of Homeland Security, no State now does or without affirmative action on her part will hereafter—enjoy “the security of a free State”. (footnote 6)

During the last hundred years, insouciant, incompetent, or intentionally rogue public officials have denied WE THE PEOPLE the proper organization of the Militia to which all Americans are constitutionally entitled. The history of “militia” in America during this period exhibits a sorry cavalcade of ignorance, confusion, conflicts, and exaggerated concerns for amassing institutional authority and advancing personal careers within the regular Armed Forces, the National Guard, so-called “State Guards” and “State Defense Forces”, and among various public officials of both the General Government and the States. (footnote 7) Perhaps even worse, devoid of a collective memory of the true state of affairs, deprived of relevant personal experience, and deluded by malign propaganda put out by the big media and various subversive special-interest groups, all too many Americans have come to treat the very noun “militia” as a dirty word that implies “extremism”, “racism”, “illegality”, “violence”, and even nascent “terrorism”—to the extent that not just a few patriots are reluctant even abstractly to advocate anything to do with the constitutional Militia any more, lest they be mocked, vilified, and politically ostracized for their efforts. Certainly a nadir of constitutionalism has been plumbed when constitutionalists themselves shrink from affirming the one and only institution the Constitution itself declares to be “necessary to the security of a free State”. (footnote 8)

  • Revitalization of ‘the Militia of the several States’ will not occur until WE THE PEOPLE take control of the project.

    The obvious response to the dangers threatening the American way of life is to return the pillars of “well regulated Militia” in each and every one of the several States to their original positions and strength—immediately, if not sooner. That accomplished, WE THE PEOPLE will benefit from “the security of a free State”, in which:

    (i) every Locality will be adequately prepared for all eventualities, with its manpower and resources under the control of its own inhabitants;

    (ii) proper divisions of constitutional responsibilities and labor will exist between “the Militia of the several States” and the Armed Forces; and

    (iii) no burgeoning para-military national-security police state apparatus centered in the Department of Homeland Security will any longer arguably be needed, on even the most paranoiac calculus, and therefore will no longer be tolerated.

    The requisite reconstruction will not occur, however, until WE THE PEOPLE themselves take charge of the project. For rogue public officials, professional politicians, and the factions and special-interest groups that pull their strings will not undertake the task, but instead will oppose it at every turn.

To begin the process of returning America to her constitutional fundamentals, patriots do not need to recruit most Americans most everywhere, but only enough Americans somewhere to prove the theory, establish the practice, and above all set a successful example.

WE THE PEOPLE are not mere “human resources” available for scheming politicians, avaricious factions, rogue public officials, and Napoléonic “men on white horses” to misuse for their pet projects, particularly when those projects involve aggressive military adventures abroad or police-state oppression at home. A free people does not exist to provide cannon fodder and logistical support for “a garrison state” or a “national-security state”, or informers, investigators, and enforcers for “a para-military police state”. Rather, the critical mass of military force available in “a free state” must remain in the people’s own hands, through their organization in the Militia, in order to prevent the emergence of such conditions in the first place, and to prevail against any attempts to maintain and expand any such conditions that rogue public officials might somehow insinuate into the polity behind the people’s backs. (footnote 9) 

  • Footnotes

    1.) See Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 257 (1967); and Chisolm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dallas) 419, 454 and 456-457 (opinion of Wilson, J.), 470-472 (opinion of Jay, C.J.) (1793).

    2.) See Quotations Fro Chairman ao Tse-tung (Peking China: Foreign Languages Press, First Edition, 1960), at 61. Presumably, Mao would have put forth the precepts of Marxism-Leninism as the standards by dint of which political power should be exercised “‘out of the barrel of a gun’”. As those teachings lead inexorably to the unmitigated horrors of Stalinism—and of Maoism, too, for that matter—they can hardly be considered suitably restraining influences, however.

    3.) See U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 15 and 16.

    4.) See U.S. Const. amends. II and X.

    5.) See, e.g., 10 U.S.C. § 311(b); General Laws of Rhode Island §§ 30-1-4(4) and 30-1-5; Code of Virginia §§ 44-1 and 44-4. Also see The Sword and Sovereignty: The Constitutional Principles of “the Militia of the several States”, Front Royal, Virginia CD ROM Edition 2012, by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., page 786-793.

    6.) See U.S. Const. amend. II (emphasis supplied).

    7.) See generally, e.g., B. Stentiford, The American Home Guard: The American Home Guard: The State Militia in the Twentieth Century (College Station, Texas: Texas A&M University Press, 2002). Although useful in many respects, this particular study does not review the pre-constitutional history of the Militia, or come to grips with the constitutional problems the statutes from 1903 onwards raise. For example, referring to various “State Defense Forces” (which the book ambiguously treats as “militia” although many if not most of them lack the constitutional characteristics necessary for that appellation), the author opines that these forces “continue to prepare for the day when the National Guard again leaves the states for distant battlefields, while attempting to develop new reasons for existing in the event that the entire National Guard never leaves. As such, they represent the latest chapter in a long struggle over the proper role for militia in the United States.” Id. at 241. Evidently the author never considered that the Constitution has already determined “the proper role for militia in the United States”, and that therefore no “long struggle” to define that “role” was ever necessary in the past or is necessary now. So, to the extent that some “long struggle” has gone on, at least one side in that contest has been promoting unconstitutional action all along, and apparently will continue to do so until the American people finally demand that the Constitution be enforced in these particulars.

    8.) The Sword and Sovereignty: The Constitutional Principles of “the Militia of the several States”, Front Royal, Virginia CD ROM Edition 2012, by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., page 1247-1248.

    9.) Id., at 404-405.