by Robert Fireovid
A bill in the Vermont Legislature (H.785) will block the U.S. government from unilaterally federalizing the Vermont National Guard for deployment into active-duty combat within the U.S. or overseas unless the United States Congress passes a formal Declaration of War. (note: the U.S. Constitution, Article, Section 8 specifies other situations where Congress can federalize specific state militias). H.785 gives the Governor of Vermont the final say on allowing the Vermont National Guard to be federalized.
The Vermont Defend the Guard Act is part of a nationwide effort to return control of state militias to the states and to the U.S. Congress AS SPECIFIED IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
Did you know that units of the Vermont National Guardsmen may currently be deployed in active combat zones in the Middle East? The three dozen U.S. casualties in Jordan this past weekend from a terrorist attack (8 seriously, 3 died) were from a Georgia Army Reserve unit and the Arizona National Guard.
Might Biden federalize the Vermont National Guard to subdue Texas from defending itself? Never say never… In other state legislatures, such as in Arizona, Montana, and New Hampshire, where similar bills were considered, nearly every Republican legislator voted in favor of the bill, but NO Democratic legislator voted for these bills. Have any children of these Democrats enlisted in the U.S. armed forces?
Again, this bill is meant to return us to the type of operational military that the U.S. Constitution intends. The Constitution does NOT provide POTUS with unilateral control over state militias, nor does it allow Congress to abdicate its duty to be the sole decision-maker regarding declarations of war.
An excellent 15 minute video about the nationwide Defend the Guard movement is here. If you want to help pass H.785, please call members of the House Committee on Government Operations and Military Affairs which will act on this bill this week. Call them today. They can be reached through 802-828-2228…
Michael McCarthy, Chair
Matthew Birong, Vice-Chair
Mark Higley, Ranking Member
Rep. Lucy Boyden
Rep. Seth Chase
Rep. Lisa Hango
Rep. Philip Jay Hooper
Rep. Robert Hooper
Rep. Michael Morgan
Rep. Michael Mrowicki
Rep. Kate Nugent
Rep. Chea Waters Evans
Author is a farmer in South Hero and executive director of Better(not bigger)Vermont. Before coming to Vermont, he held managerial positions for General Electric, Black & Decker, and the federal government.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary, Legislation, Military, National News, State Government
i am sure you are watching the beginning of the third world war in other countries/// all pre planned/// keep your mind off the fiat money collapse//all
run by the same crooks //// any questions///
Wow! Rep. Michael Mrowicki the guy that wants to institute an “assault weapons ban” in this state sits on this committee and doesn’t even understand the 2nd Amendment or the Constitution for that matter will be making a decision and casting a vote on this? Let me help him out.
MADISON ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT and THE MILITIA CLAUSE
The Supreme Court in the Heller decision explained that the second amendment guarantees an individual right of the people to keep and carry arms for their defense in the event of a confrontation. The anti-gun crowd, however, refuses to accept this common sense reading of the amendment. The best way to interpret the Constitution begins with actually reading it. The next best thing is to read what the Constitution’s chief drafter, James Madison, had to say about America’s founding document. Madison was the chief author of the Federalist Papers, along with John Jay and Alexander Hamilton. The Federalist Papers offer great insight into the political theories of the day that led to our system of government.
Students of the second amendment should be familiar with both Federalist 29 and 46, which discuss the role of an armed populace in protecting the precious freedom which had so recently been won. It was that thinking that led to the adoption of the second amendment.
Madison was also the original drafter of the Bill of Rights, including what would become the second amendment. The anti-gun crowd regularly accuse second amendment supporters of only focusing on what Justice Scalia called the operative clause of the second amendment, the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” They assert that we ignore the prefatory clause that reads, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.” To them the prefatory clause confirms that the purpose of the amendment was to protect the right of the states to have militias or as they sometimes phrase it, the right to bear arms when in militia service.
However, beyond that, they never exactly explain what is meant by “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The anti-gun crowd cling to the so-called collective rights view of the amendment that held sway with a number of federal circuit courts pre-Heller. However, beyond denying an individual right to keep and bear arms, those courts said precious little on exactly what the amendment actually protected.
It was commonly stated outside the court room that the operative clause meant that the federal government could not disarm the state militias. But that is not what the amendment says, and no federal circuit court actually provided any reasoned discussion supporting such an interpretation. In any event, if that were what the amendment was meant to accomplish, one would think the amendment would have been written in some way like “A well-regulated militia being necessary for a free state, Congress shall not infringe the right of the states to arm the militia.” However, this interpretation of the amendment would have worked a radical transformation of Congress’s power over the militia. The Constitution addresses the militia in Article I, Section 8. It states “The Congress shall have the power … 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.”
Thus, it was Congress’s responsibility, not the states, to organize and arm the militia, with the states having only the responsibility to appoint officers and train the militia as Congress mandates. The militia is not treated by the Constitution as a creature of the several states, but of the nation as a whole to be organized, armed and disciplined by Congress, while being trained by the states as Congress directs.
Congress has in fact exercised this authority.
Title 10 of the United States Code, Section 311 defines the militia of the United States with certain exceptions as “all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and … under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and … female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.” The National Guard is the organized militia, and the unorganized militia consists of those militia members not in the Guard. In the Second Militia Act, passed in 1792, Congress specified the arms militia members were to have. It was incumbent on militia members to report for training and duty with their own arms. The second amendment did not change Congress’s authority over the militia, nor was that the intent of the amendment. Most notably, the second amendment did not provide that the states would or could arm the militia. If that were the meaning of the second amendment, then states could be free to arm the militia in any way they saw fit. States could for instance under the collective rights view of the second amendment, authorize each member of the unorganized militia to own a fully automatic weapon such as the M-16. That would raise issues with respect to the provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934, which greatly restricts the ownership and transfer of automatic weapons. States could also abrogate many other federal firearm restrictions. It is certainly the case that some founders, such as Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, feared that Congress would neglect its responsibility to arm the militia. And so, it is not an unreasonable view that a primary purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that the militia would not be disarmed by taking guns away from the people who constituted the militia.
Mr. Vitolanese,
That was quite a treatise you have written! Impressive for sure.
I’ve have searched, but haven’t found, any works on the phrase “free state”. Everyone thinks this word refers to its status as a noun. I posit, it was meant as a verb. The “state” of being free.
That puts an entirely different perspective on the whole thing, doesn’t it?
Any thoughts on this? Or perhaps any resources I might have overlooked in my quest?
Respectfully,
Pam Baker
not seeing any action on/// repel invasion/// congress has failed to perform///is this an insurrection when you do not repel invasion///