Forwarded message:

Subject: Re: Inside the Cypherpunks Cult (fwd) From: Firebeard <stend+cypherpunks@sten.tivoli.com> Date: 23 Aug 1997 19:23:07 -0500

It is? It seems to me that military force is military force, regardless of what uniforms it's dressed in.

It isn't the uniform, its the paycheck and who gives the orders that determines the difference. Militia's get their money and their orders from the states and are loaned to the federal government. The relevant sections from the Constitution: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; [Note that there is NO proviso for paying for the militia's] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; [This seems to imply that it is not the Army who is charged with protecting the soil of America from foreign invaders] 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 and Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; [Hey, I just realized that the above section forces the federal government to provide militia's with weapons, 'arming'] A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Your chances of being shot in Texas, like the kid in the valley, are much lower with the NJNG than the US Army, mainly because there ain't no way they are going to get into this state without a fight with the TxNG. I seriously doubt that the kid would be dead today if he had encountered Texas residents on boarder patrol.

But they were not explicitly denied it, either.

Yes, they are. Read the 10th. Unless explicity given a duty the federal government is prohibited from expanding their powers.

Agreed. Has anyone ever attempted to sue the US Army as being unconstitutional, given the prohibition of a standing army?

The prohibition is not on a standing army but rather on monetary and contractual committments that extend past the Constitutionaly imposed 2 year limit. There is *NO* explicit prohibition on a standing army, simply that their activities can't be funded for more than 2 years at a time. As far as I have been able to determine nobody has ever brought such a case. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Participation requires more than just bitching! | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage@ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|