crazytalk triptych

[solarbird]

Oh look, it's another installment of HAS EVERYONE GONE COMPLETELY INSANE?! It's mostly a set of quotes, all tied together into a neat. little. package. I hope you like it.

Part I:

The Constitution of the United States:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

[...]

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

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;

Part II:

Congress Eric Cantor (R-Virginia), on MSNBC last weekend, transcription excerpted from here:

Christ MATTHEWS (MSNBC): Right now, February 8, 2007, do you believe we should go to war with Iran?

Congressman Eric CANTOR (R-Virginia): I'll leave that decision up to the commanders on the ground and those in our military ...

MATTHEWS: Commanders on the ground ... whether we go to war with another country?

CANTOR: I will leave the decisions in the military arena to -- this is exactly the point.

[...]

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you Congressman Cantor, very clearly, to clear up our discussion, if the U.S. Congress were to discuss tomorrow morning whether to declare war on Iran, would you vote yay?

CANTOR: This congress is not going to do that because it's the commander in chief's role, Chris, and Steve knows that as well. It's not Congress that will ask for that. It is the commander in chief that will make that decision. Every president whether republican or Republican or Democrat since the War Powers Act was in place has interpreted it as being the commander in chief's role to do that.

[...]

MATTHEWS: Congressman Israel, what's the role of Congress in war and peace?

Congressman Steve ISRAEL (D-NY): Congress under the Constitution of the United States authorizes war. The War Powers Act requires Congress to vote on whether we should insert troops into hostile situations. The law is clear.

CANTOR: Absolutely not.

[...]

MATTHEWS: Congressman Cantor, why did the president ask for approval of Congress before he went to Iraq?

CANTOR: I certainly think his counsel gave him guidance why he need to do that but the Constitution gives the commander in chief the right to send our troops into battle.

Part III:

And in case anybody out there hasn't read Section 2 lately:

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States...

...which is not to say, "whenever the hell he feels like it."

---

The is an anti-Federalist nightmare come to life. This is one of the things they warned about. This is one of the things that the actual writers of the actual Constitution in their own actual words specifically said was not true, and you can read it in the Federalist papers if you want. Clearly, this jackass hasn't, and even if he did, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't care, because as far as I can tell, it is the position of the current chief executive's administration.

Virginia, I'm callin' you out. You gonna recall this jackass or what?

Comments

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

the National Guard is not the Militia. Not under the law, not under the [Constitution].

Then you're saying that the National Guard was not formed from the various state militias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Guard)? Or are you talking about the separate (and not regulated by the National Guard) state defense forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Defense_Forces)? (Which I must admit I'd never heard of until I started looking this up.)

And since Wikipedia isn't a reliable primary source, the National Guard's web site (http://www.ngb.army.mil/About/default.aspx) says:

In 1903, important national defense legislation increased the role of the National Guard (as the militia was now called) as a Reserve force for the U.S. Army.

Now "militia" as a generic term (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia) is something else, but as far as I can tell from my reading of the law and practice, the bodies that used to be known as the "state militia" of the several US states are now those states' National Guard units, subject to call up and federal service.

But I'm not a military historian or a Radical Lunatic Libertarian, either, so I admit to not knowing everything there is to know about this.

[banner.livejournal.com]

While the National Guard was formed out of what was considered the Organized Militia, the National Guard is not the Militia. The Militia is defined as every able body man between the ages of 18 and 45.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

The Militia is defined as every able body man between the ages of 18 and 45.

Where is it so defined? Not in the Constitution. Is it statute or common law? I'm not trying to be confrontational; I'm genuinely curious.

[banner.livejournal.com]

I think it's in USC100.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Aha! Thank you; that's enough information for me to find it, and I should have thought of looking there before: It's Title 10(A)(I)(13)(311) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html).

The "organized militia" are the National Guard. The "unorganized militia" are all of the other able-bodied males ages 17-44 years old inclusive. (Because of the way the definition is written, females can't possibly be part of the "unorganized militia," only the organized one.)

So you're right in a technical sense, but the practical sense was what I was getting at -- in practice, only the "organized militia" is ever called out under Presidential authority, and the "organized militia" is the National Guard.

[avram]

If you want the period terminology, the Founders used "militia" pretty much like Banner does, and used "select militia" for what Banner's calling "organized militia", which became the National Guard.

Here, check out the text of The Militia Act of 1792.

[banner.livejournal.com]

in practice, only the "organized militia" is ever called out under Presidential authority,

Ummm no. Check out the Spanish American war. The unorganized Militia has been called up in the past.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

I grant that you are technically correct. But hundred-year-ago wars aren't especially relevant today.

[stickmaker.livejournal.com]

I disagree with Banner on the main point, but he's right about this. I once had someone tell me that "under no definition" was I a part of a militia. I went to his bookcase, got his (abridged, yet) dictionary and looked it up. The first definition included both of us.

The important thing about understanding the Constitution is determining the intent of the writers, which often requires knowledge of archaic terminology. However, taking "militia" to mean "every legally responsible, physically able adult" seems to still be valid today.

So basicly...

[kensaro.livejournal.com]

... everybody who can be drafted.

Re: So basicly...

[(Anonymous)]

Everyone who can reasonably be expected and trusted to physically help defend their country.