by
Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <10/4>
Anyone paying attention knows that militias are forming all over the country primarily in response to the excesses of the government particularly at Waco. A rational federal government would throw a few of their own to the wolves in hopes of stopping the preparations for revolution. This is not a rational government.
As to the justification for the citizen formation of the militia there are many justifications. As the citizens of the state delegated to their cities the formation and control of the police so to did they delegate to their states the formation and control of the militia. Should the city disband the police the citizens have the right even the duty to form a citizen police force.
Similarly, as so many states have abandoned their delegated power to train the militia and appoint officers the citizen have a similar duty to create the militia. Citizen delegation of a power to the government is based solely upon the determination that the government is the best executor of that power. Should that power not be executed then the power devolves back to the citizens by default.
As the citizens have the ultimate power to form a militia there can be no objection to such militias save all the reasons that the state can better form militias. The failure of the state to do what it can do best is an indictment of the state rather than of the people forming militias. That they may be unruly, undisciplined and lacking a proper officer corp is a failing of the state to exercise the delegation the members of the militia had originally chosen.
The formation of militias in themselves is also considered by those who are afraid of them to be a risk to society as a whole. This disregards the members of such militias. Granted there will always be some horrible examples but by and large their members are ex-military at the least a likely veterans of some war or other.
It appears obvious by inspection those who have taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America are to be trusted to be members of the militia. If that is not sufficient then what is sufficient? If that is not sufficient for trust of the militia why is the US army which has taken the same oath trusted?
The argument that a militia is not needed as there is no risk of invasion rings hollow in that there is less a reason for there to be a US Army now that the Cold War is over. To claim there is no risk of insurrection flies in the face of the professed concern over citizen militias. Invasion and insurrection are the only two matters addressed at the Federal level for the militia. The state constitutions may have other uses for the militias but the failure of the state to exercise its reserved powers as discussed by Hamilton in Federalist Paper 29 is the very reason for a citizen militia.
Can a state have a state militia as does Ohio and Texas and a few others and by so doing preclude a citizen militia? This is a stickier question. To answer it one has to go back to the original intent of the militia.
The original concept was that the whole of the people was the militia; the concept that the community was responsible for its own defense. The original laws only bound males between 18 and 45 to become trained members. That a state should constitute a paid militia vice a citizen militia is contrary to this concept of a militia. That the requirement for payment and providing uniforms and such vice establishing minimum criteria for volunteers is considered and exclusionary criteria is not the intent of the original citizen delegation of the power to the state.
Thus the people have a right and a duty to pursue the original intention despite the actions of the state when that state fails to require by law a minimum level of participation and equipment.
One can go back to the earlier failure of the militia and citizen soldier first identified by President Theodore Roosevelt citing the uselessness of the militia as a pool from which to create an army when needed. That was a matter of state failure and advancing technology. That was a determination based upon national preparation for foreign wars only. It had nothing to do with dissolving the militia.
That is the crucial point. That the states do not maintain a citizen militia does not take away from the citizens the power to constitute a militia. Nonfeasance does not mean nullification of a power.
That the people delegate to the state and the state does not perform does not mean the people have lost the power. The power in the past, now, and forever resides in the hands of the people. The only blame on the people is not forcing the state to comply with the delegation or to rescind the delegation. In the meantime the citizens retain the power to constitute a militia.
It takes a bit of consideration and construction but in the final analysis, the citizens are the defense of the community of citizens. The citizens are the final authority upon the constitution of that defense. That it is called the militia means only it is the whole of the people.
P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, 813-969-0362
[note new address and phone]