From: Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 08:43:48 +0800
To: cypherpunks@ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: Re: Inside the Cypherpunks Cult (fwd)
Message-ID: <199708240042.TAA27285@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



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      |
   |____________________________________________________________________|