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.