CarolSeer2016 wrote:
Perhaps we OPP posters haven't been on the same page vis-a-vis standing armies, state militias and the 2nd amendment.
I'll introduce the thread by explaining that a very real fear, in fact the major motivation for the Constitutional Convention, is that the Confederacy of States would devolve into the same kind of factious warring states so typical of European history. They were already beginning to show signs of that tendency.
The Federalist 28 was Hamilton's argument for ratification in the face of the healthy doubts and concerns, at that time, of a standing army.
Here are the major points of his argument:
"It may safely by received as an axiom in our political system that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority."
"They can readily communicate with each other in the different States, and unite their common forces for the protection of their common liberty."
"When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire, who are in a situation through the medium of their governments to take measures for their own defense, with all the celerity, regularity, and system of independent nations."
Publius (the author of the Federalist Papers) was more concerned with the disintegration and anarchy resulting from a weak central government, as history had taught them. Central government had to exercise some control over State forces to prevent State's warring against each other or against the "head". One firewall preventing the despotism contingent on a standing army was that Congress could only appropriate funds for 2 years; another was the assumption that the member States would more likely encroach on the "head" than the opposite. This, I think, has been proven not to be true, thanks in part to the 16th amendment--the federal income tax.
So the Constitution provides for the Central Government to raise and support land and naval armies, but at the same time, left grounds for States to keep a Militia, (now known as the National Guard, a French term, in honor of LaFayette); the States could appoint the Officers, and undertake their training.
Thus my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment: A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State--I wonder if the Constitution would have been ratified without that stipulation.
I have more to share, but we can all mull this info over.
Perhaps we OPP posters haven't been on the same pa... (
show quote)
Correct me if I am wrong! It is my understanding, via Federalist Papers, that the a standing Federal Army, the National Guard and a Militia are separate entities.
The difference being the officers of a militia are chosen by the members and the members are also UNPAID whereas the other two are completely controlled and paid for by the Federal Government.