HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » jody » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Hometown: AL & CA & GA
Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 26,624

Journal Archives

Easier to include them in a state's unorganized militia because state and federal law already exists

for that. See State Guard Association of the United States (SGAUS) which is the more organized part of the unorganized militia.

That would also help Congress finally fulfill its obligation under Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16.

"{The Congress shall have Power} To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
{The Congress shall have Power} 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;"

The Militia is already defined by law as
(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.

In one state the militia includes all people17-64 years of age.

2A is about an individual's RKBA for self defense. Congress has all the authority it needs for the

militia in Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16.

SCOTUS acknowledged in Heller both opinion and dissent that individuals have a natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

The main difference was the opinion said that right was in the Second Amendment and the dissent disagreed but recognized the right in the extract below.

The dissent by recognizing the right but asserting it was not an enumerated right protected by the Second Amendment meant the right was an unenumerated right protected by the Ninth Amendment.

The parallels between the Second Amendment and these state declarations, and the Second Amendment ’s omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense, is especially striking in light of the fact that the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont did expresslyprotect such civilian uses at the time. Article XIII of Pennsylvania’s 1776 Declaration of Rights announced that “the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state,” 1 Schwartz 266 (emphasis added); §43 of the Declaration assured that “the inhabitants of this state shall have the liberty to fowl and hunt in seasonable times on the lands they hold, and on all other lands therein not inclosed,” id., at 274. And Article XV of the 1777 Vermont Declaration of Rights guaranteed “[t]hat the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.” Id., at 324 (emphasis added). The contrast between those two declarations and the Second Amendment reinforces the clear statement of purpose announced in the Amendment’s preamble. It confirms that the Framers’ single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee “to keep and bear arms” was on military uses of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias.

Perhaps you need to read the Heller decision. I'm not impressed by your PhD.


Right To Work, poverty, and health

In responding to other OP about Right to Work I obtained data for poverty and health at the state level from two sources:


America's Health Ranking report

I grouped the data into Non Right to Work states and Right to Work states and calculated the following:


15.78 per 1,000 poverty rate in states without a right-to-work law
15.80 per 1,000 poverty rate in states with a right-to-work law
58% of those in poverty live in states without a right-to-work law.
42% of those in poverty live in states with a right-to-work law.

0.30 value for non right to work states average
-0.23 value for right to work states average

Hope someone will check my numbers.

I understand. "The Research SUPPLEMENTAL POVERTY MEASURE: 2011"

Table 4. People in Poverty by State Using 3-Year Averages Over 20091, 20101, and 2011—Con reports 48,423 people below the poverty level. http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p60-244.pdf

58% of those in poverty live in states without a right-to-work law.

42% of those in poverty live in states with a right-to-work law.

There are many things that could affect our economy. I'm not sure how much right to work laws contribute.

Very depressing for AL Latest figures show CA with 37+ million people has a 23.5% SPM 3-year average

page 12, table "People in Poverty by State Using 3-Year Averages Over 20091, 20101, and 2011" at http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p60-244.pdf

Alabama, 5 million people, has a rate of 14.5% for the same period.

Excluding TX, the other 7 states have 32 million people.

Apparently few have read the Sedition Act so I post it below.


Known as the "Sedition Act", this act is the last of the four that make up the Alien and Sedition Acts.

July 14, 1798.
Chap. LXXIV.—An Act in addition to the act, entitled "An act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States."

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, Penalty on unlawful combinations to oppose the measures of government, &c.
Ante, p. 112.That if any persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States, which are or shall be directed by proper authority, or to impede the operation of any law of the United States, or to intimidate or prevent any person holding a place or office in or under the government of the United States, from undertaking, performing or executing his trust or duty; And with such intent counselling &c. insurrections, riots, &c.and if any person or persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise or attempt to procure any insurrection, riot, unlawful assembly, or combination, whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advice, or attempt shall have the proposed effect or not, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and on conviction, before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof; shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, and by imprisonment during a term not less than six months nor exceeding five years; and further, at the discretion of the court may be holden to find sureties for his good behaviour in such sum, and for such time, as the said court may direct.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, Penalty on libelling the government That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted and declared, Truth of the matter may be given in evidence.
The jury shall determine the law and the fact, under the court's direction.
Limitation. That if any person shall be prosecuted under this act, for the writing or publishing any libel aforesaid, it shall be lawful for the defendant, upon the trial of the cause, to give in evidence in his defence, the truth of the matter contained in the publication charged as a libel. And the jury who shall try the cause, shall have a right to determine the law and the fact, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That this act shall continue and be in force until the third day of March, one thousand eight hundred and one, and no longer: Provided, that the expiration of the act shall not prevent or defeat a prosecution and punishment of any offence against the law, during the time it shall be in force.

Approved, July 14, 1798.

"Entitlement" quid pro quo – from the state & to the state

I read all the threads for the past year with the word "entitlement" and they seemed to deal exclusively with “entitlements” to the individual from the state.

The issue is not one sided however and the state has certain "entitlements" from individuals who claim "entitlements" from the state, a what for what or Quid pro quo arrangement.

Please post your understanding of what the state is entitled to from the individual.

Wrong! RKBA is one of our unalienable/inalienable rights and as SCOTUS said

SCOTUS in D.C. v. Heller

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “{t}his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed. {page 19}

Government can infringe upon all unalienable/inalienable rights but never to the point of banning that right.

Jefferson & Madison’s 1798 efforts to nullify unconstitutional laws still alive!

Washington, Colorado Allow Recreational Use of Marijuana

Nov. 7 (Bloomberg) -- Washington and Colorado voters legalized recreational use of marijuana, making them the first U.S. states to decriminalize the practice.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Support for marijuana’s recreational use built on measures that allow it for medical purposes in one-third of U.S. states. Previous attempts to legalize pot through ballot measures failed in California, Alaska, Oregon, Colorado and Nevada since 1972, according to the Denver-based National Conference of State Legislatures.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

“Regardless of state laws to the contrary, there is no such thing as ‘medical’ marijuana under federal law,” according to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder released a letter a month before California voters considered a ballot measure to legalize recreational use of marijuana in 2010, saying the Justice Department would “vigorously” enforce federal law. The initiative failed.

Additional background material at Wikipedia links:

Nullification (U.S. Constitution)

Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »