US Militia Movement

This is a discussion on US Militia Movement within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by natticarry Judicial review in itself is not really in the constitution but since the constitution was silent on who decided what was ...

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 80

Thread: US Militia Movement

  1. #31
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by natticarry View Post
    Judicial review in itself is not really in the constitution but since the constitution was silent on who decided what was and wasn't constitutional the courts took it upon themselves and it is the best solution we have available to us.
    It is not only 'not really in the Constitution', it is most definitely NOT in the Constitution.

    To state that the process is constitutional makes anything that comes out of it constitutional is not really much of an argument.
    It is an argument that contains a logical fallacy called circular reasoning.

    The fact is that the People determine whether a law is Constitutional.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    Member Array GoldenSaber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    306
    Just another media attempt by the government to little by little convince people that this evil exists. Of course there are whack jobs out there but this kind of report puts us all in that boat with them. This is another slow and deliberate conditioning process to convince the that nobody should be armed. Hold on tight to your guns... they are coming sooner or later.

  4. #33
    VIP Member Array miklcolt45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    @ Wits' End
    Posts
    2,800
    Go to Southern Poverty Law Center and read the entire report.

    SPLCenter.org: SPLC Report: Return of the Militias

    Factual information there, no doubt. (sarcasm off)
    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliott

    The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.
    Albert Einstein

  5. #34
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,749
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    This is simply not true. Every piece of proposed legislation is examined for constitutionality. If something passes which "might not be" constitutional it can be, and often is challenged, immediately by one group or another.

    If something survives the court's review, then by definition it is constitutional.

    We do not have unconstitutional governance. We have individual issues on which there are sometimes legitimate points of contention,
    but so long as the courts exist, so long as the Supreme Court exists and is available to accept challenges, we have constitutional government.

    We live in a very complex society with 300 million people from very many different backgrounds and with very many different points of view. Uncle can't please everyone all the time, and those who are unhappy inevitably look to the constitution to justify their viewpoint. Under the constitution there are only 9 people, a president, and the 535 members of congress whose opinion on constitutionality count. When Congress passes a law, a president signs it, and the courts reject a challenge, that law is fully constitutional.
    What you've described looks like an oligarchy to me
    Trust in God and keep your powder dry

    "A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source

  6. #35
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by zacii View Post
    What you've described looks like an oligarchy to me
    +1

    Some people think the Supreme Court can overrule the other branches of government. And they think that is a good thing.

    The fact is that the Founders designed the Judicial Branch to be the weakest branch.

    We need to get back to the intent of the Founders.

  7. #36
    Member Array natticarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    cincinnati
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Here's how it works for real, not in folks imaginations.

    laws passed and signed are constitutional until a court rules otherwise......

    It is very easy to get worked up on one issue or another, to feel really strongly about one's own position, but that is the way things work.

    You can't disobey a law because you as an individual think it is unconstitutional. That is breaking the law. It is very very rare indeed that anyone can go to court and use as a defense their own opinion that the law is unconstitutional.....
    First you can disobey any law you wish for whatever reason you wish. You just might be arrested, jailed and or fined.

    I think the argument you are missing the original intent of the section or amendment to the constitution and how people interpret it. To put it another way what the statement means in fact as opposed to what other people interpret it to mean.

    If I understand your logic correctly you are stating that due to Plessy v Ferguson all segregation laws complied with the 14th amendment until brown v board of educations which said they didn't. The argument most people make is that the 14th amendment always meant equal rights for all people and separate but equal is not equal. Just because politically people at the time did not wish to embrace true equality doesn't mean that the things they did were in accordance with the amendment.

    How about a historical example. The Japanese internment camps without question were unconstitutional but they were set up with presidential authority. Do you really mean to say at the time they were constitutional because the supreme court said they were in 1944?

    If you apply your logic nothing is unconstitutional (as long as you have 5 justices to support it) because it is nearly impossible to write a set of rules that can not be "interpreted" to mean things that they most certainly do not. One of the main interests of this board (2nd amendment) could be virtually eliminated since a large number of leftists have already found a way to interpret it to mean it only applies to the national guard. Would you say that interpretation was constitutional because 5 justices said it was?

  8. #37
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,543
    Natti- not to be argumentative, what I said was that we have constitutional governance (something many here seem to dispute) and that laws passed by Congress and signed by the prez. are presumptively constitutional. The constitution doesn't give individuals a right to pick and chose which laws they individually think are constitutional--except that we are free to debate.

    There is no logical flaw in that.

    And yes, like it or not, as a matter of reality rather than personal opinion, until 5 justices say that a law passed by Congress and signed by the prez. is unconstitutional, it is constitutional.

    That doesn't mean it is good, or right, or proper. It doesn't mean we need to like it. But legally, it is constitutional. Violate it and watch what happens to you.

    What some participants here seem to presume is that almost everything Congress does is unconstitutional. Folks complain and rage against government in general. Got news for you. Anarchy won't work.

  9. #38
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,543

    re: zacil on oligarchy

    Quote Originally Posted by zacii View Post
    What you've described looks like an oligarchy to me
    It is. We elect the oligarchs. If we want to be an oligarch, we run for office ourselves. If we are smart and lucky and persistent, we win.

    In fact, no one ever thought the founders wanted us ordinary folk to run the government. They made no provision for the public to participate in election of the president.* I might be wrong but I think that at one time Senators were appointed by state legislatures and governors, not popular election. (Someone set me straight if I have this part wrong.) In other words, the founders intended an oligarchy of sorts.

    * Primary elections in which we all get to have a voice in nominations are relatively new. They mostly arose to strip the professional politicians of power as a backlash to the VN war and Watergate. There was a time the nominee was selected by oligarch in "smoke filled rooms."

  10. #39
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    It is. We elect the oligarchs.
    Supreme Court Justices are appointed.

  11. #40
    Member Array natticarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    cincinnati
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I might be wrong but I think that at one time Senators were appointed by state legislatures and governors, not popular election. (Someone set me straight if I have this part wrong.) In other words, the founders intended an oligarchy of sorts.
    This is true and I actually think it was one of the checks against Federal power. I think it was a mistake to remove it. The idea was an it actually worked was that a state legislature is more likely to select individuals who will try to maintain the state's rights. I realize at first this sounds undemocratic unless but if you think about the mechanisms it actually ensures people have more power. The general populace is less worried about what rights the federal government takes away from their states and often times do not think about state's right when electing their senators. Before, if the senators from a particular state voted for something that hurt their own state but is popular nationally their state legislature would have canned them. Now it doesn't really hurt them in elections. See strings attached to the stimulus money.

    Meanwhile the state legislators are much more available to their constituents and spend way more time in their districts let alone their state. At a national level many state's senators spend a lot of time in Washington and some forget what their states culture and view points are.

    If you take a look at the increased power of the federal in the federal government since 1911 (beginning of progressive era) when the amendment passed it becomes apparent that the original set of rules was meant to check federal power. The house of representatives was supposed to be the national legislative body that represented the populace as a whole, the Senate was supposed to equalize the states and protect their interests. Now they are pretty much the same body other than the equal representation from each state, which has less teeth than the original for reasons as discussed above.

  12. #41
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,543

    re : Natti on oligarchy

    Quote Originally Posted by natticarry View Post
    This is true and I actually think it was one of the checks against Federal power..
    O.K. So we agree. We have an oligarchy. That was the original intent.

    It beats anarchy and it beats having the least aware, least involved, least familiar with issues, and least of us, messing with the rules--precisely what the founders feared even as they set up a limited democracy that pretty much kept us riffraff out of the game.

    Anyway, laws passed by Congress and signed by a pres. are constitutional. They remain constitutional until challenged and overturned. The process is consistent with the constitution. It is consistent with the founder's intent as best anyone can discern that intent. Not to take up SD's cause, he would be happy to leave it such that anything Congress does can not be overturned by what he calls unelected "oligarchs." The only way that could work would be if we all had 100% faith that Congress never would pass an unconstitutional bill.

    Therefore, all the complaints about "unconstitutional governance" and rage directed at our duly elected government, is at some level a profound manifestation of dissatisfaction with our constitution, more so than at our Congress or our officials.

    I find it remarkable that so many who swore to uphold it, don't really believe in it-- and talk of rebellion and forming militias, and talk of encouraging soldiers to sign private oaths, simply because they are unhappy with one thing or another; or several things.

    There is nothing patriotic about such behavior.

    Anarchy doesn't work.

  13. #42
    Distinguished Member Array ErnieNWillis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Willis, TX
    Posts
    1,225
    Trolls are out in force today.

  14. #43
    Ex Member Array quantum36's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Southern Alabama
    Posts
    159
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Anyway, laws passed by Congress and signed by a pres. are constitutional. They remain constitutional until challenged and overturned.
    They can also pass a law that "dog poop doesn't stink".
    But dog poop will still stink.

  15. #44
    Ex Member Array quantum36's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Southern Alabama
    Posts
    159
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Therefore, all the complaints about "unconstitutional governance" and rage directed at our duly elected government, is at some level a profound manifestation of dissatisfaction with our constitution, more so than at our Congress or our officials.

    I find it remarkable that so many who swore to uphold it, don't really believe in it-- and talk of rebellion and forming militias, and talk of encouraging soldiers to sign private oaths, simply because they are unhappy with one thing or another; or several things.

    There is nothing patriotic about such behavior.
    I've got an idea! Hopefully by 2012 Obama will be thrown out and with a Republican President and Republican controlled Congress, Senate and Supreme court, we can pass a new tax law.

    "All prior registered democrats will pay taxes, while Republicans will not have to pay taxes" .

    Since it will be properly brought into law it will be "constitutional".
    And people who don't like this law should never speak against it, since there is nothing "patriotic" about speaking against the government.

  16. #45
    Member Array JBozeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Selma, Alabama
    Posts
    478
    I am not as informed as you folks and it shows that I am not as learned as many of you. So I will put my foot in my mouth now and say:

    The Goal of the Current Regime is to eliminate your Right to Vote!

    The Current Regime knows nothing of "Government" as the Founders provided and intended. When you have a Regime in place such as we have now the Constitution is Bothersome to that Regime as is being dismantled daily. The Current Regimes Constitution is seen daily when he looks in the Mirror. Who he sees in the Mirror is who he is accountable and answers to alone. "Government is of the People, By the People and For the People" With the Current Regime, it is "Government is Me, By Me and For Me"! Ask Pelosi, she is saying that Free Speech is UnAmerican!

    The Precious Document know as the Constitution of the United States of America means nothing to these people!

    Stay Safe while you can
    Boze
    Boze
    "If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to, this is the last stand on earth." Ronald Reagan

    "Gentlemen, Prepare to defend yourselves" SGM Basil Plumley

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Lets talk Militia (The US Code Militia)
    By paramedic70002 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: July 9th, 2010, 01:12 AM
  2. Militia movement's heroes will be packing heat at rally on the Potomac
    By WhoWeBePart1 in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: April 21st, 2010, 08:00 PM
  3. 'What is the Militia?'
    By Janq in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: February 14th, 2008, 09:53 AM
  4. Second Militia Act of 1792
    By raevan in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: March 17th, 2007, 03:23 PM
  5. Movement
    By Glockman21 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: August 4th, 2006, 05:07 PM

Search tags for this page

arizona certified militias groups
,
lucky 13
,
malisha groups good or bad
,

militia movement

,
militia movement in dayton ohio
,
san angelo tx militia
,
the militia movement
,
u.s militia movement
,

us militia

,
us militia movement
,
whenshtfmalita
,
why would someone think the militia movement was justified?
Click on a term to search for related topics.