What will history say about Trump?

[Politruk]

Some quotes here from and about the Constitution... They take space, so please read all of it.

The Militia Clauses​

Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
Annotations

Calling Out the Militia
The states as well as Congress may prescribe penalties for failure to obey the President’s call of the militia. They also have a concurrent power to aid the National Government by calls under their own authority, and in emergencies may use the militia to put down armed insurrection.1784 The Federal Government may call out the militia in case of civil war; its authority to suppress rebellion is found in the power to suppress insurrection and to carry on war.1785 The act of February 28, 1795,1786 which delegated to the President the power to call out the militia, was held constitutional.1787 A militiaman who refused to obey such a call was not “employed in the service of the United States so as to be subject to the article of war,” but was liable to be tried for disobedience of the act of 1795.1788

Regulation of the Militia
The power of Congress over the militia “being unlimited, except in the two particulars of officering and training them . . . it may be exercised to any extent that may be deemed necessary by Congress. . . . The power of the state government to legislate on the same subjects, having existed prior to the formation of the Constitution, and not having been prohibited by that instrument, it remains with the States, subordinate nevertheless to the paramount law of the General Government. . . .”1789 Under the National Defense Act of 1916,1790 the militia, which had been an almost purely state institution, was brought under the control of the National Government. The term “militia of the United States” was defined to comprehend “all able-bodied male citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied males who have . . . declared their intention to become citizens of the United States,” between the ages of eighteen and forty-five. The act reorganized the National Guard, determined its size in proportion to the population of the several States, required that all enlistments be for “three years in service and three years in reserve,” limited the appointment of officers to those who “shall have successfully passed such tests as to . . . physical, moral and professional fitness as the President shall prescribe,” and authorized the President in certain emergencies to “draft into the military service of the United States to serve therein for the period of the war unless sooner discharged, any or all members of the National Guard and National Guard Reserve,” who thereupon should “stand discharged from the militia.”1791

The militia clauses do not constrain Congress in raising and supporting a national army. The Court has approved the system of “dual enlistment,” under which persons enlisted in state militia (National Guard) units simultaneously enlist in the National Guard of the United States, and, when called to active duty in the federal service, are relieved of their status in the state militia. Consequently, the restrictions in the first militia clause have no application to the federalized National Guard; there is no constitutional requirement that state governors hold a veto power over federal duty training conducted outside the United States or that a national emergency be declared before such training may take place.1792

1784 Moore v. Houston, 3 S. & R. (Pa.) 169 (1817), aff’d, Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 1 (1820).
1785 Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869); Tyler v. Defrees, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 331 (1871).
1786 1 Stat. 424 (1795), 10 U.S.C. § 332.
1787 Martin v. Mott, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 19, 32 (1827).
1788 Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 1 (1820); Martin v. Mott, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 19 (1827).
1789 Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 1, 16 (1820). Organizing and providing for the militia being constitutionally committed to Congress and statutorily shared with the Executive, the judiciary is precluded from exercising oversight over the process, Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1 (1973), although wrongs committed by troops are subject to judicial relief in damages. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 233 (1974).
1790 39 Stat. 166, 197, 198, 200, 202, 211 (1916), codified in sections of Titles 10 & 32. See Wiener, The Militia Clause of the Constitution, 54 Harv. L. Rev. 181 (1940).
1791 Military and civilian personnel of the National Guard are state, rather than federal, employees and the Federal Government is thus not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for their negligence. Maryland v. United States, 381 U.S. 41 (1965).
1792 Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 434 (1990).

None of that supports a theory that the founders intended an armed citizenry for insurrectionary purposes.

 

[Politruk]

Ever question whether or not the ATF itself is a constitutional department, or if its very existence violates the express intent of the founders as expressed in the very clear words "Congress shall not"?

What on Earth are you talking about?

 

[Politruk]

Texas doesn't have this problem. Why? Because bad guys will always be able to get guns and other weapons. If they can't buy them, they will steal or build them. It's not hard to do

In countries that have vigorous gun control, such as the UK and Japan, the outlaws do not have guns.

And they remain free countries.

 

[HisArpy]

Then we pair nicely fuckfist.
Youk’re the micropeen that told me to ask the wind to blow me.

Ya, I did.

I wonder if Maria obliged or gave you the finger like all the rest have.

 

[JaySecrets]

None of that supports a theory that the founders intended an armed citizenry for insurrectionary purposes.

Yes it does, and again, read the federalist papers.... But here is a quick overview that you could have found by simply Googling the topic... And it is a summary by Google AI....

According to the Federalist Papers, particularly in Federalist No. 29 written by Alexander Hamilton, the purpose of the right to bear arms is primarily to maintain a well-regulated militia, where the citizenry is armed and able to defend the nation against tyranny by serving in a state militia, acting as a check against a powerful standing army; essentially, the people's ability to bear arms serves as a safeguard against government overreach.
Key points from the Federalist Papers on the right to bear arms:

• Citizen Militia:
  The primary focus was on the citizen militia, where ordinary citizens would be armed and trained to defend their communities and the nation if needed.
• Fear of Tyranny:
  The Founding Fathers were concerned about the potential for a tyrannical government, and believed an armed citizenry would act as a deterrent against such abuses of power.
• State Power:
  The Federalist Papers emphasized the importance of state militias, which would be controlled by individual states and not subject to direct federal command.

 

[JaySecrets]

What on Earth are you talking about?

The Constitution, in its enumerated rights, relegates and strictly binds what government can and can't touch. The ATF stuff.... That falls under the category of all other things not mentioned that belong to the states and the citizenry, not the federal government.

 

[Politruk]

The Constitution, in its enumerated rights, relegates and strictly binds what government can and can't touch. The ATF stuff.... That falls under the category of all other things not mentioned that belong to the states and the citizenry, not the federal government.

No court in the country would take that seriously.

 

[JaySecrets]

In countries that have vigorous gun control, such as the UK and Japan, the outlaws do not have guns.

And they remain free countries.

If you consider the tyranny of Socialism free. A Christian cannot quote the Bible or proselytize without being arrested. Doctors can't give proper care (I have friends in the UK dealing with both these issues), and you can't homeschool your children. They must be in government approved Communist state brainwashing centers... I mean schools. That isn't freedom.

 

[JaySecrets]

No court in the country would take that seriously.

That is because the courts themselves have replaced the rule of Constitutional Law with rule of precident. Arrogant opinion trumps clear constitutional language. That is why the founders intentionally made it clear that the judicial branch doesn't make or enforce the law.

 

[Politruk]

acting as a check against a powerful standing army

That no longer has any relevance. We've long since scrapped the militia model for national defense and moved to an army model.

The Army has not often been used as an instrument of domestic rule -- and never regrettably. Reconstruction, some incidents during the period of the black civil rights struggle, and that's about it. It is entirely a good thing that no sector of the populace has any way to fight the Army effectively.

 

[Rebel5soul]

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B Franklin

 

[Politruk]

That is because the courts themselves have replaced the rule of Constitutional Law with rule of precident. Arrogant opinion trumps clear constitutional language. That is why the founders intentionally made it clear that the judicial branch doesn't make or enforce the law.

That is simply how Anglo-American common law works. The law has been made by judges for a thousand years. That began centuries before England even had such thing as a Parliament.

 

[Politruk]

If you consider the tyranny of Socialism free. A Christian cannot quote the Bible or proselytize without being arrested. Doctors can't give proper care (I have friends in the UK dealing with both these issues), and you can't homeschool your children. They must be in government approved Communist state brainwashing centers... I mean schools. That isn't freedom.

Not good examples. America would still be a free country if homeschooling were suppressed.

 

[JaySecrets]

That is simply how Anglo-American common law works. The law has been made by judges for a thousand years. That began centuries before England even had such thing as a Parliament.

Not the basis of American Law. The Constitution says what it says. No judge can change that. And the Constitution, not the court, is the highest Law of the land. An unchangeable document, not a fickle group of men. If you don't get that, it is clear why you are proving to hate the vision of America as it was founded. And that is why your side lost. Everything. Badly.

 

[JaySecrets]

Not good examples. America would still be a free country if homeschooling were suppressed.

No it would not. The Right of the parents to raise their children as they see fit is one of the most fundamental rights of any society. There is only one group that disagrees: Communist Marxists. And THAT always leads to dictatorship and tyrants and death of freedom. Every time in every case in history. Control the education of the children you control the future.

 

[Politruk]

Not the basis of American Law. The Constitution says what it says. No judge can change that.

But only a judge can say what it means. Not you.

 

[JaySecrets]

That no longer has any relevance. We've long since scrapped the militia model for national defense and moved to an army model.

The Army has not often been used as an instrument of domestic rule -- and never regrettably. Reconstruction, some incidents during the period of the black civil rights struggle, and that's about it. It is entirely a good thing that no sector of the populace has any way to fight the Army effectively.

Yet

 

[JaySecrets]

But only a judge can say what it means. Not you.

No... The FOUNDERS SAID what they meant. Any judge who ignores that is illegitimate, unconstitutional, and should be removed from their office. By Constitutional Standard.

 

[Politruk]

Yet

You will not live to see the day when any sector of the populace has any way to fight the Army effectively.

 

[Politruk]

No... The FOUNDERS SAID what they meant. Any judge who ignores that is illegitimate, unconstitutional, and should be removed from their office. By Constitutional Standard.

It is in the nature of law as such that it must be interpreted and that only judges can do it.

 

[JaySecrets]

You will not live to see the day when any sector of the populace has any way to fight the Army effectively.

And that is why America will one day fall to tyranny as the government you worship turns to the Socialism you love, whether Marxist, Maoist, Nazi, or Communitarian, doesn't really matter, removes the defense of the people, first by bribery then by force. Then the standing military will be used against the ones who resist. How do I know? Because that is the story of every nation in history that fell to Communism. The Communism your party worships. Enjoy your tyranny.

 

[JaySecrets]

It is in the nature of law as such that it must be interpreted and that only judges can do it.

They spoke clearly. There is nothing to interpret. Only to apply. THAT was ALWAYS the role of the court, Marshal Thurgood and his revisionist views and their poison not withstanding.

 

[JaySecrets]

You will not live to see the day when any sector of the populace has any way to fight the Army effectively.

You are right though. Between unconstitutional regulations and American apathy, we don't have the spine for the insurrection the founders envisioned for when the government gets to the point it is at in today's America. Thank God they at least had the sense to tell your side to get the hell out of government.

 

[Politruk]

Marshal Thurgood and his revisionist views and their poison

 

[Politruk]

And that is why America will one day fall to tyranny as the government you worship turns to the Socialism you love

Don't expect that to happen either. The plutocracy is too powerful and entrenched.