# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  Militia under Federal control via Article 1 Section 8?

## unknown

"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;"

----------


## phill4paul

Article 1 section 8 clause 15...




> For the Founders, the militia arose from the posse comitatus, constituting the people as a whole and embodying the Anglo-American idea that the citizenry is the best enforcer of the law. "A militia when properly formed," wrote Richard Henry Lee in his Letters From the Federal Farmer, "are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." From its origins in Britain, the posse comitatus (meaning to be able to be an attendant) was generally understood to constitute the constabulary of the "shire." When order was threatened, the "shire-reeve," or sheriff, would raise the "hue and cry," and all citizens who heard it were bound to render assistance in apprehending a criminal or maintaining order. The Framers transferred the power of calling out the militia from local authorities to the Congress.
> 
> The Anti-Federalists were not pleased. They wanted the militia to remain under state control as a check on the national government. Many feared that an institution intended for local defense could be dispatched far from home. As Luther Martin objected:
> 
> As it now stands, the Congress will have the power, if they please, to march the whole militia of Maryland to the remotest part of the union, and keep them in service as long as they think proper, without being in any respect dependent upon the government of Maryland for this unlimited exercise of power over its citizens. "Genuine Information," 1788.
> In the "Calling Forth" Act of 1792, Congress exercised its powers under the Militia Clause and delegated to the President the authority to call out the militia and issue it orders when invasion appeared imminent or to suppress insurrections. While the act gave the President a relatively free hand in case of invasion, it constrained his authority in the case of insurrections by requiring that a federal judge certify that the civil authority and the posse comitatus were powerless to meet the exigency. The President had also to order the insurgents to disband before he could mobilize the militia. This was the procedure that President George Washington followed during the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794.
> 
> In 1795, Congress refined the language authorizing the President to federalize the militia:
> 
> ...


http://www.heritage.org/constitution...militia-clause

Article 1 section 8 clause 16...




> The militia, long a staple of republican thought, loomed large in the deliberations of the Framers, many of whom were troubled by the prospect of a standing army in times of peace. For the Founders, a militia, composed of a "people numerous and armed," was the ultimate guardian of liberty. It was a means to enable citizens not only to protect themselves against their fellows but also, particularly for the Anti-Federalists, to protect themselves from an oppressive government. "The militia is our ultimate safety," said Patrick Henry during the Virginia ratifying convention. "We can have no security without it. The great object is that every man be armed....Every one who is able may have a gun." Both the Pennsylvania and Vermont constitutions asserted that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state...."
> 
> The Anti-Federalists feared that Congress would permit the militia to atrophy, leaving the states defenseless against the central government. In the Virginia ratifying convention, George Mason, while advocating a stronger central control over the militia, nevertheless argued that there was a danger that Congress could render the militia useless "by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them &c." The desire to prevent enfeebling state militias, which provided a check to a standing army, prompted the ratifying conventions to call for an amendment guaranteeing the right of citizens to bear arms. The First Congress responded, but the Second Amendment did not remove national control over armed forces or the state militias.
> 
> Federal preemption of state-militia legislation commenced very early in the history of the Republic. In Houston v. Moore (1820), the Supreme Court stated that the federal government's power over the militia "may be exercised to any extent that may be deemed necessary by Congress."
> 
> Despite the generally poor performance of the militia during the Revolution, Federalists recognized that without a militia, there would be no United States military establishment. They believed, however, that they could minimize the weaknesses of the militia by creating a select militia corps in each state and establishing federal control over officership and training. The ultimate Federalist goal was to turn the militia into a national reserve of uniform, interchangeable units. In 1792, Congress passed the Uniform Militia Act, which remained the basic militia law of the United States until the twentieth century. This act established an "obligated" militia, based on universal military service. All able-bodied white men between the ages of eighteen and forty-five were required to enroll. But the act fell far short of Federalist goals. It did not create select state corps and, most importantly, did not impose penalties on the states or individuals for noncompliance. For the most part, the states ignored the provisions of the act. The abysmal performance of the militia during the War of 1812 ensured the demise of the obligated reserve as established by the Founding generation.
> 
> The obligated militia was succeeded by the "uniformed" militia, local volunteer units generally equipped and supported by their own members. In addition, the states continued to provide volunteer citizen-soldiers when the regular U.S. Army had to be expanded, as was the case during the Mexican War and the Civil War. After the Civil War, the uniformed militia reemerged as the National Guard, but, unhappy with their largely domestic constabulary role, guardsmen lobbied for the mission of a national reserve. In the Militia Act of 1903 (the Dick Act), amended and expanded in 1908, Congress divided the eligible male population into an "organized militia" (the National Guard of the several states) and a "reserve," or "unorganized," militia.
> ...


http://www.heritage.org/constitution...ng-the-militia

----------


## Pericles

The wall of text went a bit off the rails. The militia Act of 1792  provided for a universal militia as the anti - federalists desired.

The  system did not work well in the War of 1812, but remained in place  until 1903. The Mexican War, War Between the States., and Spanish -  American War were fought using the US Volunteer system. Congress called  for states to supply a number of regiments. The states then took  volunteers (either the core of a militia company that volunteered as a  unit which usually supplied the number of troops needed) or via  recruitment and built companies and regiments, when then participated in  the War under standing army control. They were then released at the  conclusion of the war.

The Militia Act of 1903 created the  National Guard as a reserve of the Army, with the provision that the  states could use the National Guard of their state as a militia for  state uses if there was no federal need for the unit at the time.

From  a Constitutional and legal point of view it is important to note the  the National Guard was created under the power to raise and support  armies, not the power to arm and organize the militia, because National  Guard officers hold federal commissions, and militia officers hold state  commissions.

----------


## oyarde

My home state has the Indiana Guard Reserve which is an unpaid volunteer militia at the Governors disposal to be used in absence of the Guard which is just an arm of the US Army . They have four brigades with support ( medical , Chaplains , search & rescue etc )  and have been used to evacuate flooded hospitals etc , things of that nature. The state miltia predates ( 1801) the state itself ( 1816) by 15 years .

----------


## oyarde

Being in the early militia was tough , as an example 1811 deployment of around 74 days for a , ( Yellow Jackets ) Harrison County ( In ) Cavalry private pd between 6.66 and 8.00 .  Head down the Buffalo Trace on Sept 08 , reach Prophetstown by Nov 6 , on Nov 7 under Indian attack taking over 30 percent casualties. Three weeks later reaching home and disbanded ( Nov . 27 ). That is a pretty tough 6.66 .

----------


## phill4paul

> Being in the early militia was tough , as an example 1811 deployment of around 74 days for a , ( Yellow Jackets ) Harrison County ( In ) Cavalry private pd between 6.66 and 8.00 .  Head down the Buffalo Trace on Sept 08 , reach Prophetstown by Nov 6 , on Nov 7 under Indian attack taking over 30 percent casualties. Three weeks later reaching home and disbanded ( Nov . 27 ). That is a pretty tough 6.66 .


  By a CPI calculator that works out to $139.24 over 74 days. Or $1.88 a day. But, hey look at the benefits. Maggot ridden hardtack, free medical when your fellow militiaman could run through the fire to bind your wound and travelling to far away and exotic places.

----------


## oyarde

> By a CPI calculator that works out to $139.24 over 74 days. Or $1.88 a day. But, hey look at the benefits. Maggot ridden hardtack, free medical when your fellow militiaman could run through the fire to bind your wound and travelling to far away and exotic places.


LOL , no that was 6.66 total for the whole 74 days , lump sum payment . No taxes withheld though .

----------


## phill4paul

> LOL , no that was 6.66 total for the whole 74 days , lump sum payment . No taxes withheld though .


  Yes. I took the upper $8 limit. In today's dollars that works to $1.88 a day.

----------


## oyarde

> Yes. I took the upper $8 limit. In today's dollars that works to $1.88 a day.


Well , better than I thought , but not really . At a dime a day then you could buy something with it . Buying anything now with 1.88 is going to be a challenge . Good Lord .

----------


## oyarde

In my home state there is also a citizens militia that has a battalion in ea county . ISL . Indiana Sons of Liberty

----------


## unknown

FWIW:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

U.S. Code › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 12 › § 246

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

*(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
*

----------


## unknown

> The wall of text went a bit off the rails. The militia Act of 1792  provided for a universal militia as the anti - federalists desired.
> 
> The  system did not work well in the War of 1812, but remained in place  until 1903. The Mexican War, War Between the States., and Spanish -  American War were fought using the US Volunteer system. Congress called  for states to supply a number of regiments. The states then took  volunteers (either the core of a militia company that volunteered as a  unit which usually supplied the number of troops needed) or via  recruitment and built companies and regiments, when then participated in  the War under standing army control. They were then released at the  conclusion of the war.
> 
> The Militia Act of 1903 created the  National Guard as a reserve of the Army, with the provision that the  states could use the National Guard of their state as a militia for  state uses if there was no federal need for the unit at the time.
> 
> From  a Constitutional and legal point of view it is important to note the  the National Guard was created under the power to raise and support  armies, not the power to arm and organize the militia, because National  Guard officers hold federal commissions, and militia officers hold state  commissions.


Howd you know so much?

----------


## pcosmar

It used to be,, and should be volunteer.



but like my Grampa,, I'm casual.

----------


## oyarde

My home state has militia requirements listed in the state constitution.

----------


## mrsat_98

> FWIW:
> 
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
> 
> U.S. Code › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 12 › § 246
> 
> (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> 
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> ...


If you read your state code of military justice you may come to the contusion that women and children as well as everyone else (the people) who are not part of the organized militia are inducted into the "unorganized militia" in a "war game" in which the unorganized milita are playing the part of the conquored enemy. Its been a while but read it you will see it in Louisiana.

----------


## Pericles

> Howd you know so much?


History degree with two areas of concentration - US military history and North America 1750 to 1800.

And while I'm at  it, the feds can only use a state militia to repel invasions, suppress insurrections, and enforce the laws of the union. As a reserve of the Army, the National Guard is not subject to these restrictions, and why it was created under the power to raise and support armies, not the power to arm, organize, and discipline (train) the militia.

----------


## Geoff

I'm a historian. This is new. Article on the 2nd amendment and what some of the framers were up too. New dynamic. 16 months research. https://medium.com/militia-stand-dow...t-58d51f2d42e4

----------


## unknown

> The wall of text went a bit off the rails. The militia Act of 1792  provided for a universal militia as the anti - federalists desired.
> 
> The  system did not work well in the War of 1812, but remained in place  until 1903. The Mexican War, War Between the States., and Spanish -  American War were fought using the US Volunteer system. Congress called  for states to supply a number of regiments. The states then took  volunteers (either the core of a militia company that volunteered as a  unit which usually supplied the number of troops needed) or via  recruitment and built companies and regiments, when then participated in  the War under standing army control. They were then released at the  conclusion of the war.
> 
> The Militia Act of 1903 created the  National Guard as a reserve of the Army, with the provision that the  states could use the National Guard of their state as a militia for  state uses if there was no federal need for the unit at the time.
> 
> From  a Constitutional and legal point of view it is important to note the  the National Guard was created under the power to raise and support  armies, not the power to arm and organize the militia, because *National  Guard officers hold federal commissions, and militia officers hold state commissions*.


If you were countered with this from Art 1 Sec 8, how would you respond (so I'll know what to say, lol): 

"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;"

----------


## oyarde

> If you were countered with this from Art 1 Sec 8, how would you respond (so I'll know what to say, lol): 
> 
> "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;"


That is interesting . I am sure Pericles will get back to you . The state does appoint officers and non commissioned officers in my state in the state militia. In the US Army though which the US Army Reserve and National Guard are part of this is not the case . I have never read all of Title 10 US Code but what you may be looking for ( when congress federalized appointments ) might be there . Subtitle A , B  & E cover General Law , the Army and Reserve components .

----------


## Pericles

> If you were countered with this from Art 1 Sec 8, how would you respond (so I'll know what to say, lol): 
> 
> "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;"


That Constitutional requirement is why the National Guard is not a militia, and is a reserve of the Army. National Guard officers hold federal commissions and must meet the requirements of the Reserve Officer Personnel Act (having been an officer in the regular army, and a National Guard), I have more than theoretical knowledge of this particular subject. After receiving a federal appointment, the state Adjutant General then issues a state commission in the name of the Governor of the state, so that a guard unit may act as a state militia.

----------


## Geoff

With no disrespect to your history degrees or education it's my home that neither is required to actually do research especially in this day and age. What I have researched has not yet been taught in any school. Its new. I'm not here for debate but only to share a few new narratives in history that have never been known before. After 224 years it is a bit of a daunting task and incredulity is a tough thing to battle but I have truth on my side including "some" of the framers. 

For just a moment lets examine what the word Militia actually IS. It is in it's rawest form people and Arms and are usually associated to exist in the public domain.
I take no side in the "gun debate" and my bias is only with a deference to the intelligence and wisdom of the framers. Some men are more intelligent than others just as some men are more educated than others. From an education comes knowledge and knowledge is only arrived at by the perception of any man's intelligence. knowledge is like a lego set with lots of pieces but it's intelligence that is able to assimilate them. The end product would of course be wide and varied. 

There is no such thing as a self-regulating man, just as there is no such thing as a self-regulating president where a society is concerned. We are emotional creatures and sometimes the decisions we make are by whim or accident. Sometimes they are made with a nefarious or selfish motive. On the day every man agrees with every other about everything throughout the entire span of his lifetime then governments will no longer be required to keep the order for society and constitutions will no longer be required to keep the order of government. This is how reality works. 
I don't debate your knowledge of Militia's and how they were used. I don't debate article 8 of the constitution as it is completely consistent with the history and legitimate meaning of the 2nd amendment (instrument) as stated by James Madison almost 30 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified. The talk of States forming Militias is all fine and dandy, however states still fall within the jurisdiction of the Supremacy Clause. Its what the "Militia's" are allowed to Arm themselves being that they exist in the public domain that is of issue to society at large. The militia's of the National guard are not of issue because they are in fact "well-regulated" through governance. The 2nd amendment has ZERO to do with "Militia's" and their subjective interpretation regardless of how accurate it is. The buck stops with the text of the Constitution and when read from left to right like sentences are authored by men of intelligence and education the 2nd amendment is a right of the people to reality based gun control. Reality is the judge and it's Arms that are on trial.  I have updated the link to better explain the preview to my research. In perhaps a years time from now if you were to go back to a remedial course in history you will be taught it and only then will we be on the same page. "To provide for Organizing, arming and disciplining" the Militia is to make it both "well-regulated" but it is the Arming that may be required because of the gun-control laws. This situation is basically what we call conscription. The soldier must return his Arms back to the jurisdiction of the government. Congress must also do prescribing because they cannot be in violation of the 2nd amendment because gun control laws shall not be infringed.  No nation requires a sentence to tell them that they have a right to self defence. That supposition and conflation to Arms is ridiculous. Any person will defend themselves if under attack with what whatever they can Arm themselves with. It's simply survival instinct.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" was nothing more than a sales pitch so that it would become ratified. The men that actually knew what the 2nd amendment actually said, IN IT'S ENTIRETY, just happened to be the primary architects of the constitution itself. The rest of the delegates and the population at large simply did not read the fine print and read what they wanted too from a legal perspective. 
They did not read the fine print.
I did, and it was anticipated by the framers that someone would. 

https://medium.com/militia-stand-dow...t-58d51f2d42e4

The history that has been used to "try and discern" a very confusing sentence comes only from the delegates that had not clue as to what the 2nd amendment said. These were from the "pro-gun" control side of the gun debate that was never perceived to even exist.
What I have discovered was that there was a gun debate but it had to be hidden. I cite articles from the "gun-control" side of the debate, from the Federalist's to some extent who had no designs on being tyrants but rather protect the society which has come to be known as "We the People". 

This is how this history was hidden from every level of intelligence and education for over two hundred years. 

https://founders.archives.gov/docume.../01-36-02-0093

While I most certainly fall within that wide ranging spectrum there is one rather important distinction.
I found the key.

----------


## Pericles

The study of history with a well crafted syllabus gives perspective, so that an idea or new information can be place in its proper context.

A brief outline of how we came to have the second Amendment:

The anti federalists objected to language in Article I, Section 8 pertaining to the militia as if Congress could arm the militia, an implied power to disarm the militia was supposed and Congress might only arm some of the militia, as mentioned in anti federalist 29, the amount of control by the federal government operated to the detriment of the states. One commenter -  "this looks too much like Baron von Steuben's militia, by which a standing army was meant and intended." What was Baron von Steubens militia? His plan was to form units staffed by younger men before they had married and established careers to have more capable military force available that a haphazard collection of citizens. 

Federalist 46 was a reaction to the charge that this select militia armed, and paid by Congress was capable of enforcing federal tyranny over a state. The Federalist response, was that the militia of every able bodied citizen, would easily over power any standing army or select militia.

Thus we have the Second Amendment  the assurance that the entire able bodied population was the militia and could not be disarmed. This is confirmed by the Militia Act of 1792 and Supreme Court case Houston v Moore. The amti - federalist view of the militia is the militia enshrined in the Constitution.

The Militia Act of 1792 requires at a minimum, every able bodied citizen age 18 to 45 to be enrolled in a militia and equip himself accordingly. In fact the last two sections, go even further  recognizing privately organized militias as part of the armed citizenry available for service:

And whereas sundry corps of artillery, cavalry and infantry now exist in several of the said states, which by the laws, customs, or usages thereof, have not been incorporated with, or subject to the general regulation of the militia.
*XI. Be it enacted*, That such corps retain their accustomed privileges subject, nevertheless, to all other duties required by this Act, in like manner with the other militias.

In Houston v Moore, the Supreme Court recognized that the militia as an institution pre dates the Constitution, and is not dependent on the Constitution for its existence. The Constitution only permits the manner in which the militia may be used and supported by government.

The Regular Army found the militia system very inefficient. Observers were particularly impressed with the German victory in the Franco-Prussian War and how the German Army mobilized its reserves. The Regulars pushed for the adoption of the German system, and finally achieved this goal in 1903 with the creation of the National Guard.

*A good over view with more detail (but now dated):* 

http://www.constitution.org/mil/cmt/...zenSoldier.htm

Someone who relies on Google to learn about a subject is already admitting that a search algorithm is going to guide his course of study and is subject to having a significant portion omitted, or placed out of context. Thus, he may think he has discovered something profound, but in reality appears the fool to the person with expertise in the subject matter.

----------


## TommyJeff

> "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;"


Is this a question?

----------


## unknown

> Is this a question?


I was initially confused by this as it made it seem as though the militia was under the control of the federal govt.

----------


## Geoff

The 2nd amendment has zero to do with Militias. The right to keep and bear Arms never existed. Its a right of the people to reality based gun control. Use English and your guide and you will see that is exactly what it says. Use emotion as a source of logic and you will never see what is right in front of your face. 
https://medium.com/militia-stand-dow...t-58d51f2d42e4

----------


## Pericles

> The 2nd amendment has zero to do with Militias.


That statement alone, independent of the rest of your rubbish, disqualifies you from having anything useful to contribute to a conversation on this subject.

----------


## unknown

> The 2nd amendment has zero to do with Militias. The right to keep and bear Arms never existed. Its a right of the people to reality based gun control. Use English and your guide and you will see that is exactly what it says. Use emotion as a source of logic and you will never see what is right in front of your face. 
> https://medium.com/militia-stand-dow...t-58d51f2d42e4


What is this secret hidden meaning garbage?

They were pretty explicit in their writings and during the state ratifying conventions.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> FWIW:
> 
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
> 
> U.S. Code › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 12 › § 246
> 
> (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> 
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> ...


Congress is charged with arming the militia, since they have defined all of us as part of it then they should be providing us with arms.

----------

