Revitalizing “the Militia of the several States”

WE THE PEOPLE’S RESPONSIBILITY

Revitalizing “the Militia of the several States”

• 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:

• Through a revitalized Militia Structure, any State could insulate herself from the para-military police state being erected across the United States under the guise of “homeland security” to fight the purported “war on terror”.

• A revitalized Militia Structure would empower Americans with the constitutional legal authority to enforce their privileges and immunities against every unconstitutional form of “gun control”.

• A revitalized Militia Structure in any State could implement an alternative constitutional currency, empowering citizens to walk away from a depreciating and collapsing Federal Reserve System.

• As governmental institutions exercising governmental authority, revitalizing “the Militia of the several States” would empower WE THE PEOPLE to exercise their constitutional legal authority every day of the year, to provide themselves with every type of security they require, such as local emergency preparedness for natural and man-made disasters, such as emergency food, power, and medical care.

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’ 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.