@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:I find it significant that you never quote the text of the constitution.
I'm pretty sure I've quoted it before.
Setanta wrote:Article One, Section Eight contains the following paragraph:
[Congress shall have the power] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
That does not state or imply that those are the only conditions under which the militia may be employed. The people who wrote that document were lawyers or were in a position to consult with lawyers every day. They made a flexible document by not hedging the actions of the government around with nit-picking details of their action, and they left a lot of lattitude for action by not attempting to "micro-manage." That paragraph neither retstricts the use of militia to those occasions, nor addresses at all whether or not the militia may serve outside our borders. There is no "only" in that text--you've put that in there
Wrong. The Framers intentionally made the Constitution so that the federal government only has the authority to do what the Constitution expressly authorizes it to do.
That's been the most fundamental principle of our Constitution from the beginning, and has been the core issue of almost all the cases ever heard by the Supreme Court.
As one prominent example, note the recent health care challenge before the Supreme Court. Remember how there was a big risk of it being struck down because the court might find that the Constitution did not authorize the feds in that area? Remember how the court upheld it because they found that the mandate counted as a tax, which was an area that the feds did have jurisdiction over?
Setanta wrote:In fact, in 1812, Isaac Brock invaded United States territory at the site of persent day Detroit. As a part of the effort to repel that invasion, the New York militia (that portion of it which didn't actually run away) was assembled opposite the Niagara Peninsula, which they eventually invaded at Queenston, Upper Canada. The assembly of the New York militia and a handful of regulars was quickly reported to Brock, who rushed clear across southern Upper Canada to Queenston, where he was kiulled in the battle which took place the day he arrived (stupid, stupid, stupid gesture of useless heroics).
Yes, some militiamen did cross into Canada in the War of 1812. But some states flatly refused to send militia, for the very reason that it was a violation of the Constitution for them to serve outside US borders.
Setanta wrote:When you try to cobble together your feeble arguments,
You might be better served by devoting a greater effort to actually trying to disprove my arguments instead of making so many empty claims that they are feeble.
Setanta wrote:why don't you rely on actually quoting the document,
Well, I knew you were familiar with the part in question, so there was no need to quote it.
And as I recall, the first half dozen times you tried to challenge me on this point, I did quote it.
Setanta wrote:rather than just making your bullshit up as you go along.
I note again your failure to ever point out any inaccuracies in what I say.
Setanta wrote:So, for example, although certainly the text of the constitution has the force of law, that law cannot be construed to mean things which the document doesn't actually say.
Indeed. And the legal history of the right makes it abundantly clear that the intent was to require the government to always have a militia.
Setanta wrote:That's what you do constantly
Nope. You cannot show a single instance of me ever construing any part of the Constitution to mean what it doesn't say.
Setanta wrote:that's not how the courts interpret the document
The courts have thus far devoted little time to interpreting the first half of the Second Amendment.
Again, if someone were willing to pay all the legal bills, I would gladly join the Michigan Volunteer Defense Force and then sue the government for my right as a militiaman to keep a stockpile of military weaponry in my home.
