Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
Subscribe: Google Podcasts | Email | RSS
Mandeville, LA – “Incorporationistas, listen up. This also would be very important in a federal system. We would be advising each other in each of our states against having a standing army. We would do so because, number one, we would be modest and humble in our foreign policy. Number two, the first line of defense and the first order of business in defense would be to do what?” Check out today’s transcript & Clip of The Day for the rest….
FOLKS, a message from Mike – The Clip of The Day videos, Project 76 features, Church Doctrine videos and everything else on this site are supported by YOU. We have over 70, of my personally designed, written, produced and directed products for sale in the Founders Tradin’ Post, 24/7, here. You can also support our efforts with a Founders Pass membership granting total access to years of My work for just .17 cents per day. Not convinced? Take the tour! Thanks for 17 years of mike church.com! – Mike
HERE’S YOUR FREE AUDIO PREVIEW OF THIS CLIP OF THE DAY – TO HEAR THE ENTIRE EPISODE JOIN FOUNDERS PASS NOW
[private |FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76|FP-Founding Brother|FP-Founding Father|FP-Lifetime]
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
Mike: Incorporationistas, listen up. This also would be very important in a federal system. We would be advising each other in each of our states against having a standing army. We would do so because, number one, we would be modest and humble in our foreign policy. Number two, the first line of defense and the first order of business in defense would be to do what? It would be to protect Texas from invasion, North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, California, whatever states may be imperiled because they’re in close proximity to either A, an ocean, or B, an international border. This is what the Militia Clause in the Constitution was supposed to do. [mocking] “We can’t have militias. It’s 2014.” Why not? Just because you don’t like the sound of the word doesn’t mean you can’t have one. What’s the actual hang-up here? The actual hang-up here is finding enough citizen soldiers.
Then there is the entire hang-up that the Second Amendment to the Constitution has been so perverted by you gun rights advocates out there. I understand the need for self-defense, and I agree with you on self-defense. However, you have turned the beauty of the federalist view of the Second Amendment, which is that you will bear arms, for the defense of your state from foreign aggression, or from an unruly invader that just may happen to be another government…
[private |FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76|FP-Founding Brother|FP-Founding Father|FP-Lifetime]
You have turned that into a never-ending expansion of an individual freedom that you claim is guaranteed to every living soul from here to the ice world of Hoth and back under the Second Amendment. As has been shown conclusively time and time and time and time again, Second Amendment applies specifically to the militia, and only in the manner in which Congress can control the militia. If you don’t understand this, then you can’t understand the Second Amendment.
We first have to understand — by the way, I made a whole documentary about this. Again, it sits on shelves languishing in there. It only costs nine bucks, for heaven’s sake. Hell, for you incorporationistas that remain unconvinced, I’ll give you one just to get rid of them. It’s called The Spirit of ’76: The Story Continues. My daughter Maddy and I worked for about two months on this project. It tells the entire story of what I’m about to tell you yet again, for those of you that remain unconvinced. Why is this important? Well, it’s important because we don’t know what a federalist is and we don’t know what federalism is. If you really want to govern yourself and you really want to get Washington off your back, then you’re going to have to become a federalist. You can’t become a federalist if you don’t know what one is. You can’t sit there with your pocket Constitution in your back pocket boasting and bragging that you’re a constitutionalist and the liberal next to you isn’t when you’re not a constitutionalist. You’re a clichéd, created by talk radio mafia blowhard no-nothing propagandist constitutionalist. You know what that makes you? Not a constitutionalist.
I’m getting a little excited about these things because the history of it is so clear. If little old me can find it, why can’t everybody find it? You know why? Because I make it my business to find it. I don’t want to operate in falsity. I wish to operate in the sphere of truth. As our Lord taught us, the truth shall set you free. This is important. In order to understand the clauses in Article I, Section 8 that deal with the militia and thus deal with the right, RTKBA (right to keep and bear arms), you have to understand what the framers intended for the militia to do, and how and when it would be answerable to Congress. Or was it always answerable to Congress? Or is it able to just say: We’re in a militia. We don’t have to pay any attention to you. We can find this out.
If we go to the Virginia Ratifying Convention — this is in Spirit of ’76: The Story Continues, a single CD. Heck, you can download it. There’s a digital download available in the Founders Tradin’ Post at MikeChurch.com. A conversation between John Marshall and William Grayson:
John Marshall asked if gentlemen were serious when they asserted that, if the state governments had power to interfere with the militia, it was by implication. If they were, he asked the committee whether the least attention would not show that they were mistaken. [Mike: Listen to this. This is vitally important. If you don’t learn anything for the rest of the millennia, learn this as a constitutionalist. If you don’t learn anything else, learn this. The truth shall set you free.] The state governments did not derive their powers from the general government; but each government derived its powers from the people, and each was to act according to the powers given it. Would any gentleman deny this? He demanded if powers not given were retained by implication. Could any man say so? Could any man say that this power was not retained by the states, as they had not given it away? For, says he, does not a power remain till it is given away? The state legislatures had power to command and govern their militia before, and have it still, undeniably, unless there be something in this Constitution that takes it away.
For Continental purposes Congress may call forth the militia,–as to suppress insurrections and repel invasions. But the power given to the states by the people is not taken away; for the Constitution does not say so. In the Confederation Congress had this power; but the state legislatures had it also. The power of legislating given them within the ten miles square is exclusive of the states, because it is expressed to be exclusive. The truth is, that when power is given to the general legislature, if it was in the state legislature before, both shall exercise it; unless there be an incompatibility in the exercise by one to that by the other, or negative words precluding the state governments from it. But there are no negative words here. It rests, therefore, with the states. To me it appears, then, unquestionable that the state governments can call forth the militia, in case the Constitution should be adopted, in the same manner as they could have done before its adoption. Gentlemen have said that the states cannot defend themselves without an application to Congress, because Congress can interpose! Does not every man feel a refutation of the argument in his own breast? I will show that there could not be a combination, between those who formed the Constitution, to take away this power. All the restraints intended to be laid on the state governments (besides where an exclusive power is expressly given to Congress) are contained in the 10th section of the 1st article. This power is not included in the restrictions in that section. But what excludes every possibility of doubt, is the [Volume 4, Page 565] last part of it–that “no state shall engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.” When invaded, they can engage in war, as also when in imminent danger. This clearly proves that the states can use the militia when they find it necessary. The worthy member last up objects to the Continental government’s possessing the power of disciplining the militia, because, though all its branches be derived from the people, he says they will form an aristocratic government, unsafe and unfit to be trusted.
Mike: Of course, that’s exactly what happened, but that doesn’t mean that it’s correct. Colonel William Grayson then arose and answered John Marshall “that he only said it was so constructed as to form a great aristocratic body.” John Marshall, future Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, replied in the Virginia Ratifying Convention:
. . . that he was not certain whether he understood him; but he thought he had said so. He conceived that, as the government was drawn from the people, the feelings and interests of the people would be attended to, and that we should be safe in granting them power to regulate the militia. When the government is drawn from the people, continued Mr. Marshall, and depending on the people for its continuance, oppressive measures will not be attempted, as they will certainly draw on their authors the resentment of those on whom they depend. On this government, thus depending on ourselves for its existence, I will rest my safety, notwithstanding the danger depicted by the honorable gentleman. I cannot help being surprised that the worthy member thought this power so dangerous. What government is able to protect you in time of war? Will any state depend on its own exertions? The consequence of such dependence, and withholding this power from Congress, will be, that state will fall after state, and be a sacrifice to the want of power in the general government.
Mike: He’s talking about when there’s a war and then the militia has been called into the service of the United States. What have we learned here? There’s more on this. I will publish this entire body of work here. There’s another good part here:
The enemy, possessing the water, can quickly go from one state to another. No state will spare to another its militia, which it conceives necessary for itself. It requires a superintending power, in order to call forth the resources of all to protect all. If this be not done, each state will fall a sacrifice. This system merits the highest applause in this respect. The honorable gentleman said that a general regulation may be made to inflict punishments. Does he imagine that a militia law is to be ingrafted on the scheme of government, so as to render it incapable of being changed? The idea of the worthy member supposes that men renounce their own interests. This would produce general inconveniences throughout the Union, and would be equally opposed by all the states. . . .
He then concluded by observing, that the power of governing the militia was not vested in the states by implication, because, being possessed of it antecedent to the adoption of the government, and not being divested of it by any grant or restriction in the Constitution, they must necessarily be as fully possessed of it as ever they had been. And it could not be said that the states derived any powers from that system, but retained them, though not acknowledged in any part of it.
Mike: That was the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 1788. Let me summarize this, what you just heard. The militia power was reserved to the states. They granted a power to Congress to call forth the militia in case there was an invasion or an insurrection or a rebellion, and if the states had applied to Congress that they needed the help of a nearby militia. At every stage of this we keep hearing the states, the states, the states. Marshall said four times, if you were paying attention, that no militia power was surrendered to the general government. This then is the sum total of the militia power that Congress has. It can only use it exclusively — it specified when it can use it — for rebellion, insurrection, or war. That’s temporary. Who has to declare war? Congress. Who has to declare an insurrection? The states. Who has to declare a rebellion? The states. By a 1:2 margin, the states, again, retain the power. So only a seriously committed cynic so drunk with propaganda could possibly NOT conclude that the Second Amendment, that was authored by the same men that were just bitching about the militia being taken over by Congress, had to have been specifically aimed at Congress to ensure that Congress would keep its word. End of story. Why we ever have to have this conversation again…
[/private] …as long as we all shall live is beyond me. I cannot understand it. The record and the history is so crystal clear. It is the clearest water that ever came from the crystal springs of Poland, Maine. Yet men refuse, they won’t adhere. That would then make you a counter-constitutionalist. Surrender your [r]epublican creds because you’re not a [r]epublican any longer.
The most important part about this is why. What was the reason why they argued about this for days and days and days? What was it that they feared? They did not fear that Aunt Petunia was not going to be able to get a derringer and be able to shoot Bugsy Malone when he broke in her house. That’s not what they feared. They feared the government forming a standing army and coming after them. They feared being invaded by France or Spain or Germany or England and not being able to defend themselves immediately, as an army would do. Your right to defend yourself was granted to you by God. The Second Amendment grants you the right to defend yourself against hostile governments. No one in any of these conventions ever mentioned personal self-defense because it was a given. It was not transferred to the new general government. The states had already acknowledged this.
Everyone that was alive in North America acknowledged the right of self-defense, except for idiots, imbeciles, and the insane. Oh, but there are tens of billions to be made every year from the Second Amendment. Again, are you a pursuant of the truth or do you just want to be right? Are you a pursuant of the framer and the Constitution’s truth or do you just really want to own and stroke that gun and brag and boast about it?
End Mike Church Show Transcript