2ND Amendment idea: National Militia!

a reply to: machineintelligence

Of course the government wouldn’t like this idea…because it would be watching them

But I bet if the people heard it they would like it.

I'm already a member of a well regulated militia. I call them my friends and neighbors. Not much trouble in these parts.

a reply to: Willtell

This force has two primary duties: watching the powers of the government(s) and in this age of terrorism protect the public

You know that the government has three branches, right?
You want a forth?

a reply to: Phage

The SCOTUS and the regular police forces

they would balance each other

This is a national private militia

Right now we have nothing to balance the government from doing anything it wants.

This organization is perfect because it would have a direct connection to the highest court in the land.

a reply to: Willtell

Right now we have nothing to balance the government from doing anything it wants.

You know the government has three branches, right?
You know what each branch does, right?

a reply to: Phage

NO the SCOTUS is the watchdog of this group its also a part of the three branches.

I'm not a constitutional lawyer but this is a dam good idea imo

In this age of police violence and terrorism we need a national militia to safeguard the rights of the people and to protect the constitution

police the police

where else should it come from but the SCOTUS

a reply to: Willtell

I'm not a constitutional lawyer but this is a dam good idea imo

Except that you're just creating another police force.

police the police

To be policed by whom?

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: peter vlar

I’m not a lawyer but the congress could pass the law and empower the Supreme Court to be its watchdog.

No, Congress can not empower SCOTUS to do any such thing. There are 3 seperate but equal branches of government for a reason.

They empowered the Federal reserve to steal our money didn’t they?

Not the example I would have chosen to convince someone my idea was a good one.

It should be separate from congress and the president and NOT funded by the feds directly

Who funds it then? How exactly do you propose that works if you want the Feds entirely out of it yet want a branch of the Federal Govt. to oversee it?

a private militia with court and congressional powers to enforce law against terrorists and politicians and the president.

Do you not see how dangerous something like that is? It sounds a lot like the SS when you give your organization such broad sweeping powers with no oversight. Whatever it is,
What you describe isn't a militia. At least not the way people like George Mason and Thomas Jefferson viewed the militia.

These our the guys who would and could arrest the
President if he goes rogue

Right now the president has the power to order the executive branch to kill anybody it deems fit to kill


what if the president goes crazy and starts killing his political opponents?

Then we utilize the legal system currently in place. It's not as if the POTUS is above the law and unimpeachable suddenly.

There's no real safe guard

Yes there is. It's called the Constitution.

It should be a national terrorist watchdog and a police of all the police forces in the country including the CIA

Do you even grasp the scope of the agency you are contemplating? You need enough militia members to oversee all state, local and federal entities? That's bold and borderline treasonous. You are essentially advocating for creating another government seperate from the government. Sounds kind of like a coup. You enact a massive armed force and utilize it to keep the POTUS and Congress in line under threat of arrest if you don't like what they're doing. That's some scary noise you're throwing.

a reply to: peter vlar

What are you talking about…the congress can do anything it wants

It gave up its right to control the money to the Fed didn't it?

It can and does govern the SCOTUS and so does the president as Roosevelt tried to change it and failed.

The SCOTUS tells us what is constitutional

In fact many people believe the SCOTUS has gone too far and shouldn’t be de-facto making laws as it does but it should be doing what it did originally and that is be ONLY an arbiter of the law.

They say when the SCOTUS makes a decision the congress should fix the law but now the SCOTUS makes and changes laws something that originally it didn't do.

But it now has gone on to determine what is lawful and it can I think empower a national militia.

We hire lawyers to figure all this stuff out

Congress can very well pass a law that calls for the creation of a national private militia...that I am sure of

Bottom line we need a national militia to balance all the powers that this federal and state have abrogated to itself.

There are local militias all over the place here in the south. They are mostly ex military types. Loosely organized, well trained, and will raise arms if push came to shove. Like an invasion. And it's legal. So I don't get the op. Is this supposed to be new?

a reply to: Willtell

It can and does govern the SCOTUS

False. You know that Congress enacts laws, right? You know that the SCOTUS has deemed a number of laws illegal, right? How does that constitute the Congress governing the SCOTUS? It would seem that the opposite is the case, if anything. "No, no Congress. Bad Congress, You can't do that Congress." It's called checks and balances.
nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com... lifornia

Congress can very well pass a law that calls for the creation of a national private militia...that I am sure of

And it would ultimately up to the SCOTUS to determine the legality of that law. Congress does not govern the SCOTUS.

a reply to: Sillyosaurus
OP wants a national version.

a reply to: Willtell

Yeah that was actually the whole purpose of drafting the 2nd amendment. A cheaper replacement for a national standing army.

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: Willtell

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It often happens like this…a guy who never held a gun in his life wants to start a real national militia with national local branches certified by the constitution and have thousands of trained and certified deputies all over the country working with private resources.

This militia is totally a national guard force but the difference is that it would be completely separate from the US or state governments but still certified by the government to be a national watch dog for the general public, in this terror age, and a watch dog on the US and states governments, including the police.

In other words a real live national militia proscribed by the very constitution!

"Still certified by the government"? Uh, no. It's protection FROM the government.

"The militia is totally a national guard force." Uh, no. The "militia" meant every able bodied man.

The term "well regulated" meant "working well, like a "well regulated clock." We don't use "regulated" that way any more, but that's what it meant back then. It meant a group of citizens who could shoot straight.

Your idea is completely different and nowhere near what is proscribed by the constitution.

Read you're constitution

That would be "your" constitution, but thank you; I've read it.

The 2nd amendment is in enough trouble without you taking off on a tangent. Nowhere, including the letters of the founding fathers, including the Federalist Papers, and including interpretations thus far rendered by the US Supreme Court does your idea of what the 2nd amendment means have any traction at all.

In fact, the dependent clause at the beginning is largely irrelevant. It's the main sentence that is important and actually lays out the "right," which is that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period.

I'm not thinking you have established yourself as a constitutional scholar here. But thanks for playing.

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: peter vlar

What are you talking about…the congress can do anything it wants

False

It gave up its right to control the money to the Fed didn't it?

Not quite. The 12 board members of the Federal Reserve are appointed by the POTUS and Congress has far
More control over our currency than it did prior to Dec. 1913. This led to some popular things happening that were economically horrid in the long run but it was all on Congress not the Fed.

It can and does govern the SCOTUS and so does the president as Roosevelt tried to change it and failed.

Again, false. While Roosevelt may have lost his bid to stack the court, he got his New Deal provisions through anyway when Justice Roberts pulled the ole switcheroo and supported the New Deal when aspects were challenged. So in the end, FDR didn't need to stack the court and won anyways.

The SCOTUS tells us what is constitutional

Ruling on case law isn't the same thing as being given the power to oversee a seperate government, which is essentially what you're advocating whether you can see it or not.

In fact many people believe the SCOTUS has gone too far and shouldn’t be de-facto making laws as it does but it should be doing what it did originally and that is be ONLY an arbiter of the law.

SCOTUS does not make laws. Congress Makes laws. SCOTUS simply interprets the constitutionality of those laws. You know, it's basic mandate.

They say when the SCOTUS makes a decision the congress should fix the law but now the SCOTUS makes and changes laws something that originally it didn't do.

Who are "they"? Someone needs to let them know that they're wrong.

But it now has gone on to determine what is lawful and it can I think empower a national militia.

It has always determined what is constitutional. That's the job of the Court. What it can't do is "empower" a national mutual because it's going to tell you there already is one, the National Guard and that what you are advocating isn't a militia it's a quasi government/ intelligence agency with police powers.

We hire lawyers to figure all this stuff out

Shouldn't you have done that prior to deciding this was a great idea and easily doable? It's kind of hard to insist on the viability of something if you haven't covered your due diligence.

Congress can very well pass a law that calls for the creation of a national private militia...that I am sure of

Citation? If you're sure then you've looked it up, right?!

Bottom line we need a national militia to balance all the powers that this federal and state have abrogated to itself.

Technically, they haven't delegated anything to themselves. We The People have duly elected them as our representatives and the people always get the government they deserve so we are at least equally to blame for electing buffoons.

What would be the point of this militia? We have active duty military forces, we have ready reserve forces, we have the national guard, we have the inactive ready reserve, we have the retired reserve, we have State Defense Forces, we have auxiliaries like, the Merchant Marine, the Civil Air Patrol, the Coast Guard Auxiliary, the Military Auxiliary Radio System, and we have ROTC units, JROTC units, cadet organizations, and the selective service that encompasses the national militia. What more do you want?

What would this militia do? Militia's have no role in modern combat unless they are fighting other militias. And what would they be doing? They are not law enforcement, they have no use as a military organization, just what would they do? State Defense Forces have faded because they have no mission. What the hell would some half trained underfunded national militia do?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Willtell

It can and does govern the SCOTUS

False. You know that Congress enacts laws, right? You know that the SCOTUS has deemed a number of laws illegal, right? How does that constitute the Congress governing the SCOTUS? It would seem that the opposite is the case, if anything. "No, no Congress. Bad Congress, You can't do that Congress." It's called checks and balances.
nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com... lifornia

Congress can very well pass a law that calls for the creation of a national private militia...that I am sure of

And it would ultimately up to the SCOTUS to determine the legality of that law. Congress does not govern the SCOTUS.

That’s called irony…there is really no such thing as a perfect theoretical or practical system

Buy no, your wrong the SCOTUS lives by the laws passed by congress.

And sure they rule on the laws that govern them.

That's why its called a division of powers

The congress can certainly pass a national private militia act, I believe

If it passes the act will go into being, into law and if someone thinks its unconstitutional then they have to bring a case and the SCOTUS will decide its constitutionality

a reply to: Willtell

Buy no, your wrong the SCOTUS lives by the laws passed by congress.

You said the Congress governs the SCOTUS. You are wrong. The Congress has no say in how the SCOTUS operates nor does it have the power to assign new roles to it.

The congress can certainly pass a national private militia act, I believe

Sure. If it is passed by both Houses and if the President does not veto it.

If it passes the act will go into being, into law and if someone thinks its unconstitutional then they have to bring a case and the SCOTUS will decide its constitutionality

And, in the mean time...who "certifies" the members of your national militia? Who oversees it?

originally posted by: MrSpad
What would be the point of this militia? We have active duty military forces, we have ready reserve forces, we have the national guard, we have the inactive ready reserve, we have the retired reserve, we have State Defense Forces, we have auxiliaries like, the Merchant Marine, the Civil Air Patrol, the Coast Guard Auxiliary, the Military Auxiliary Radio System, and we have ROTC units, JROTC units, cadet organizations, and the selective service that encompasses the national militia. What more do you want?

What would this militia do? Militia's have no role in modern combat unless they are fighting other militias. And what would they be doing? They are not law enforcement, they have no use as a military organization, just what would they do? State Defense Forces have faded because they have no mission. What the hell would some half trained underfunded national militia do?

You’re not getting my point.

This is a militia for two primary functions:

To watchdog all those agencies--including the executive branch--you just mentioned and to guard against domestic and international terrorism.

Here me out

What happens when this giant surveillance state becomes too powerful?

The national Militia will be there to safeguard our rights

Folks are always complaining about big government this…big government that

Here is a national militia to watch big government and excessive law enforcement and people are complaining

This is a law that comes directly from the early constitution

What would they do?

They would have the right to investigate the actions of any police agency in the national US

Investigate and guard people and US sovereign property from terrorism

You don’t think the FBI needs help?

They will be like national security guards against potential terror plots often working with the CIA and FBI but having the potential authority to investigate them

They in that regard could have investigated 911 on its own

a reply to: Phage

The Congress once the act is passed into law and signed by the president

The SCOTUS would be the monitor of this new force NOT the congress nor the executive branch