[subego]

This seems to be the central question from the other thread.

I'm arguing it is, and offer as evidence Hamilton envisioning the officers being appointed "solely and exclusively" by state government.

[Chongo]

Hamilton or Hamilton ?

[The Final Dakar]

Thank you subego. And to answer your question, I don't think it was exclusively so. I just think it was conceived as a local entity.

[reader50]

That's not saying anything about who the Militia is, only who he wanted to control it. Gotta keep a firm hand on those rowdy land owners.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

This seems to be the central question from the other thread.

I'm arguing it is, and offer as evidence Hamilton envisioning the officers being appointed "solely and exclusively" by state government.

Yes. But at this stage in the game it's a moot point. The McDonald vs City of Chicago SCOTUS decision has affirmed the "individual right" to keep and bear arms. Regardless of the original intent of the Framers.

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by reader50 

That's not saying anything about who the Militia is, only who he wanted to control it.

That's my take as well, that specifies leadership, not the body of the "militia", which according to precedent and period sources, is the American people.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Yes. But at this stage in the game it's a moot point. The McDonald vs City of Chicago SCOTUS decision has affirmed the "individual right" to keep and bear arms. Regardless of the original intent of the Framers.

OAW

You are absolutely correct. This is an academic discussion.

[subego]

Is not the body of the US Army the American people?

Edit: don't forget the draft when answering.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is not the body of the US Army the American people?

Edit: don't forget the draft when answering.

No, and if I'm frank about it, a permanent standing army should have never happened in the first place. IMO, everyone from 18-35 should be a member of the nat'l guard, trained and ready, only activated when there's a crisis or war, with no permanent military (except some officers). We've become far too spoiled and passive, if your life, or the lives of your friends and family, is on the line, you'll think much more carefully about who is the CiC and the price of liberty (and about the military ops we perform all over the globe).

[subego]

Volunteers do seem to make for better soldiers than conscripts, though.

What is the practical difference between the US Army and the militia (as the FF saw it) other than Federal vs. State? Centralized vs. less centralized?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

They aren't conscripts if they know they'll be part of the military, no matter what, and that it's a requirement for citizenship (like Israel). Our Nat'l Guard isn't composed of conscripts.

The difference is that a permanent standing army was something they never envisioned for the USA, and in fact warned about several times.

[subego]

The National Guard aren't conscripts because they volunteer.

They have compulsory service in Israel. Compulsory service is the definition of conscription.

Israel has a standing Army, not a militia.

My Israeli friend from college went to college here to avoid having to serve. It's walkin' like a duck here.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Yeah, I don't have an issue w/ compulsory service.

[subego]

My only issue is quality.

I kinda secretly like the Starship Troopers model where getting to vote is tied to service.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is not the body of the US Army the American people?

Edit: don't forget the draft when answering.

No. No one has been drafted for over 40 years; and women have never been drafted or required to register for thr draft, nor should they.

[subego]

Women absolutely should get drafted. Equality, yo.

If one is going to question whether there'll be a draft in the future, I point to whether the legal grounds exist to do so rather than the amount of time since the last one.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by subego 

I kinda secretly like the Starship Troopers model where getting to vote is tied to service.

Heinlein's method has logic flaws. It gives the people an incentive for a large military regardless of need. Which is close to an incentive for missions to happen. People have a reason to join, so they join. And we have this spiffy big military, so our politicians can be stupid on international relations. Go for the easy action rather than the risky negotiations. Risky for re-election, since the outcomes aren't guaranteed.

Alternatively, if we don't get into fights just because, the military experience could turn into boot camp followed by citizenship+discharge. Because no fights are happening, no further soldiers are needed in the standing army, and the budget isn't there for more people.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

The difference is that a permanent standing army was something they never envisioned for the USA, and in fact warned about several times.

Originally Posted by James Madison in The Federalist No. 46

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government

So, maybe not never envisioned.

[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Heinlein's method has logic flaws. It gives the people an incentive for a large military regardless of need. Which is close to an incentive for missions to happen. People have a reason to join, so they join. And we have this spiffy big military, so our politicians can be stupid on international relations. Go for the easy action rather than the risky negotiations. Risky for re-election, since the outcomes aren't guaranteed.

Alternatively, if we don't get into fights just because, the military experience could turn into boot camp followed by citizenship+discharge. Because no fights are happening, no further soldiers are needed in the standing army, and the budget isn't there for more people.

Good points, but not really unique to Heinlein. Compulsory service has the same issue.

[reader50]

Compulsory service by itself can go away when the need does. Tying it to voting rights means it cannot go away.

Does Israel require service of citizens, or actually require service to obtain citizenship? They are surrounded by people who dislike them. But I thought if relations improved, they retain the option to dial back the compulsory service.

[subego]

Another good point.

[Paco500]

I've been doing a bit of reading of Federalist 29 and 46. Unfortunately, neither are truly clear on the topic. Of the two, 29 does seem to support the idea that the right to bear arms (RTBA) could be limited to the militia, and that militias should be regulated by the states. But honestly, it's not cut and dried. He does only explicitly state that the leaders of the militia are to be regulated by the state.

46, on the other hand, does seem to favour the idea that militias are more temporal and would be formed as required from the general population of armed citizens. The counter argument to this would be that he also speculates as to limits to the numbers of militia members, which could be interpreted as not supporting as general RTBA.

Either way, it's not explicit. It's no secret that I am not a fan of the 2nd Amendment and how it has been interpreted by the courts, however, given the lack of explicit clarity in the foundational documents, my inclination to err on the side of freedoms means that I, begrudgingly, think it's the right call.

That does not mean, however, that I would not enthusiastically support an amendment to the constitution to gut the 2nd. I'm not stupid enough to believe it will happen in my lifetime.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Compulsory service by itself can go away when the need does. Tying it to voting rights means it cannot go away.

It's a good thought experiment, but when 40% of eligible voters didn't bother to show up the polls in November, what leads you to believe the right to vote is a strong enough motivation to perform national service? As an expat, it's a bit of a pain for me to to vote, and roughly half my expat acquaintances didn't this year. Hassle I had to go through is nowhere near the level of effort that would be required for national service. I have a 15 year old son. In the next election Presidential election cycle, he will be eligible to vote. If he had to put his life on hold and move back to the US for X number of years to exercise his right, I'm not sure how I would advise him. That may sound horrible, apathetic and un-patriotic, but it's honest.

I think the main result of this policy would be even less political participation than the pathetic numbers we have today.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

... but when 40% of eligible voters didn't bother to show up the polls in November, what leads you to believe the right to vote is a strong enough motivation to perform national service?

We all want what we do not have. Grass greener on the other side of the fence, etc. The chance to get the right and not be a 2nd class citizen all one's life would likely be motivational. More so than passing on an election between two stinkers, while retaining the right to vote in any later election. Passing on this election cost you nothing. Passing on the right to vote is a bit bigger.

[subego]

In all my research, this is the closest I've found to something directly addressing the question. It's from floor debate of the first Congress.



It's not as clear-cut as I recall, but he does appear to be making the point a standing army would "violate" the right to bear arms in some manner.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

46, on the other hand, does seem to favour the idea that militias are more temporal and would be formed as required from the general population of armed citizens. The counter argument to this would be that he also speculates as to limits to the numbers of militia members, which could be interpreted as not supporting as general RTBA.

Either way, it's not explicit. It's no secret that I am not a fan of the 2nd Amendment and how it has been interpreted by the courts, however, given the lack of explicit clarity in the foundational documents, my inclination to err on the side of freedoms means that I, begrudgingly, think it's the right call.

That does not mean, however, that I would not enthusiastically support an amendment to the constitution to gut the 2nd. I'm not stupid enough to believe it will happen in my lifetime.

46 explicitly states that the People should always be armed.

"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. . . . Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

There's no "seems to" about it.