Reply #26: Thanks Benchy. BTW: How many is a "handfulk"?

[hansberrym]

Steaming pantloads(just a few, maybe a handfulk) from Silveira:

Reinhardt uses "State militia" 49 times in Silveira but can not find that phrase even once in any of the the contemporary sources that he cites.

Reinhardt insists "militia" is a reference to a "state military Entity" and not the persons capable of bearing arms. Not only is this a direct contradiction with US v. Miller, but Reinhardt is unable to keep up the ruse:

(From Silveira)
"On the one hand, the Constitution granted Congress the power to prescribe methods of organizing, arming and disciplining the state militias. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 15.

On the other, the states expressly retained the power to appoint militia officers and provide the militiamen with their training, in accordance with Congressional dictates, if any.
(end quote from silveira)

Not only does Reinhardt insert "state militias" for the word "militia" in that clause of the Constitution cited, but he uses the word "militiamen" in interpreting that same clause. His own interpretation negates his argument that the word "militia" refers to a "state military entity" everywhere in the Constitution. Clearly art. I, § 8, cl. 15 is a reference to training of persons, and not a reference to the militia as an entity, so Reinhardt's key argument is BULLSHIT by his own words.


Reinhardt also feigns ignorance of the meaning and significance of the word "keep" on pages 36,37 but forgets, that he himself used the word to mean possession, as did the Miller Court, when he discussed the Miller decision on page 13.


Silveira indeed "shows" what a steaming pantload the "Collective rights" theory really is.