3 ms·
The Natty Guard = "well regulated malitia" argument is not compelling at all to me. If it was, the fact the guard can be nationalized and that states don't app
by Rebelgecko 4y ago
The Natty Guard = "well regulated malitia" argument is not compelling at all to me. If it was, the fact the guard can be nationalized and that states don't appoint officers unilaterally would be in strict contravention of how the constitution says the militias should be run.
On top of that, the Bill of Rights is focused on rights of the people and states. IIRC there's nothing in it about protecting the "rights" of the federal government. Why would it need to explicitly give itself the right to arm its own standing army?
- softcactus 4y agoYes the guard was nationalized in 1903 and runs counter to the idea of state militias. The Civil War was the end of the discussion about states needing a physical deterrent to keep the federal government out of their business.