by your logic, you will be required to keep a muzzle loading musket and a big horse.
good luck with that...
SCALIA: We'll see. I mean, obviously, the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It's to keep and bear. So, it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be -- it will have to be decided.
Nope. You cannot show a single instance of me ever construing any part of the Constitution to mean what it doesn't say.
One quote of your drivel can stand for the rest:
Mr. 600 IQ wrote:Nope. You cannot show a single instance of me ever construing any part of the Constitution to mean what it doesn't say.
You do this constantly.
The constitution is mute on the subject of whether or not the militia can serve outside the United States, yet you so construe it, without a hint of logic nor reference to any specific langauge.
Please provide evidence of any state refusing to allow their militia to serve outside the borders of the United States on constitutional grounds. Please provide the arguments they presented in court. You saying a thing doesn't make it so. State miliitas served outside our borders in the War of 1812 and the Mexican War. Were there a concerted resistence to that service by any states on constitutional grounds, it should be simplicity itself for you to present the evidence.
In the beginning of the war of 1812 the governors of Massachusetts and Connecticut declined to call out their troops at the call of the president, on the sole ground that their States were not threatened with invasion. The president ordered the militia of the northern states to march to the frontiers; but Connecticut and Massachusetts, whose interests were impaired by the war, refused to obey the command. They argued that the constitution authorizes the federal government to call forth the militia in cases of insurrection or invasion, but that in the present instance, there was neither invasion nor insurrection.
When war was declared against Great Britain, June 18, 1812, (U. S. Stat. at Large, II, 755) the Federalist minority issued an Address to their Constituents, protesting both against the war and the manner in which the declaration of war had been secured. That this war was "a party and not a national war" and entered upon by the United States "as a divided people" was soon evident by the position taken by the authorities of several of the New England States, relative to the power of the Federal Government over the State Militia. By authority of the President, General Dearborn, on June 22, addressed the Governors of Massachusetts and Connecticut, making requisition for certain detachments of their militia, for service in the defence of the coast, but did not include in the call any officer of high rank. Governor Strong, of Massachusetts, not considering the call warranted by the Constitution, did not comply with the requisition, for reasons set forth in his correspondence with the Secretary of War, and as later stated in his Speech to the Legislature. Renewed requisitions from General Dearborn, and the Secretary of War during July, finally led to the submission of the questions involved to the Supreme Judicial Court of the State.
However, my experience is that your posts are wonderfully evidence-free.
It doesn't take you long these days to descend into name-calling.
The funny part of that oralloy is I simply used your words as my excuse to not back up statements.
But you don't seem to recognize your own buffoonery.
Neither of your sources state or even imply that the refusal of the states in question was based on the prospect of their militias being required to serve outside the nation's borders.
As i said, your claims are always wonderfully evidence free.
I can't see any reason to continue this, as your two likeliest rhetorical crutches will be ipse dixit assertions and the "nope" rebuttal. Have fun.
That refusal on quasi-constitutional grounds (the truth was they were trading with the enemy and didn't want to stop) did not involve an objection to service outside the the national borders
you're begging the question which is no surprise.
So, in fact, you provide no evidence at all, never mind "tons."
I can face reality,
i'm just tired of hearing your unsubstantiated bullshit again, and again, and again, and again, and again . . .
Their objection was to the fact that the militia was being used for a purpose other than the only three purposes allowed for the federal government.
This brings up another discussion I've seen. Maybe the USA is too big. Should it be divided up into smaller separate countries?