From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing military?
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 18:05:29 GMT

In article <84732@bcsaic.boeing.com>
rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:

>In article PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes
>>In article <84097@bcsaic.boeing.com>
>>rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:
>>>I'm not such a "big proponent" of reinterpreting the Constitution as you thin.
>>>What I've said is that the courts do not (and should not) apply "original intnt"
>>>as the sole (or even necessarily major) criterion of interpretation.
>>
>>     If we ignore the "original intent" then any interpretation of the
>>Constitution must be based on the opinion of whatever judge on current
>>political/social situations.  The is no possible way, given this, for
>>the Constitution *not* to undergo continuous re-interpretation.
>
>In point of fact, I have said that original intent should be taken into account
>What I am against is the attempt to use it as the *sole* basis of interpretatio
>and, in some cases, the *major* basis of interpretation.

     You mean we use original intent (or understanding, which some people
seem to prefer) except where we don't?  What is the difference, then?  You
still have no real basis for intepretation beyond what a particular judge
thought on a particular day.

>This, in fact, is how
>the Court operates today and will operate in the future, whether populated with
>liberals or conservatives.                                                     tion

     Primarily because "original intent" does not allow them to expand their
powers in the way they would like.  The Constitution, as written, would not
allow the economic and social engineering we see today.  It isn't a matter
of "modern undertsanding" but of expansion of power.

> Nobody in their right mind would *want* the Constit
>to be interpreted literally as the original framers seem to have understood it.
     The I suppose I must humbly beg your pardon as a raving lunatic.

>That would cause utter chaos in our system of laws.                            d

     You seem to have a very simplistic either/or attitude about the whole
thing.  We've gotten ourselves into a great mess, and I don't advocate we
simply slive off 90% of the government in one stroke.  That would cause
chaos.  But that doesn't mean that because it's a difficult direction to
go in we should simply shrug our shoulders and continue to ignore the law.
     Our system of laws have little, if any regard to the Constitution.  The
only method by which they could be considered Constitutional is totally
disregarding reality.

> Among other things, it wou
>remove control of foreign policy from the President and put it back in the Senae's
>control.

     I am not totally sure this would be a bad thing, but that wouldn't
totally be the case.  The President still would retain a great deal of power
in foreign relations, more than he has in domestic laws.
     And considering the actions of several Presidents, I don't see how this
would be that much of a disaster.

>The Constitution, like it or not, has undergone considerable revision

>in interpretation and will do so in the future.                                s

     So, this is a reason to give up?  I should just slink off an accept
"reality," not matter how much I feel it is wrong?  Thank you, no.

>You have only to look at what
>happening with Roe v. Wade to understand this point.

     I do not argue that interpretation, usually wrongly, has happened.
I argue that it is not the right or proper way to do it.  Just because
something happens does not make it right, and does not mean I can't oppose
it.

>>     I believe you are correct that it is illegal in most areas to train
>>para-military forces.  How you equate organizing and training to vigilanteism
>>is beyond me.  Being organized and trained does not mean a group is going
>>to suddenly start taking the law into its own hands.
>
>I don't equate "organizing and training" per se with vigilantism.

     But that's what you wrote.

>I do fear
>that a self-organized military force, answerable to no civil authority, is a
>danger to everyone.

     Of course they would be answerable to a civil authority.  That *law*.
Nobody has suggested they shouldn't be answerable to the law.  You seem to
object to the idea that this civil authority can't show up and tell them where
and how they can train, what sort of lines they can march in, etc.

> It creates the potential for vigilantism and competes
>with established authority.

     As is often mentioned in this group, potential should not be enough.
Just because I have the potential to do something shouldn't allow the
government to treat me as if I had done it.
     The same goes for competing with established authority.  These trained
"milita" would have that potential.  Hewever, there is a difference between
potential and action.

>It smacks of the so-called "druzhinniki" that the
>Soviets used to encourage--civilian "volunteers" who went after public drunks
>and other "hooligans".

     How have you made the leap from private training to government encouraged
vigilantism?  And in order to do it, I notice, you bring in that civil
authority you mention above.

>Of course, they broke some noses that didn't belong to
>to hooligans, but, hey, they were just volunteers helping to keep public order.
     Nobody ever suggested that the militias keep public order under
ordinary circumstances.  The militia has always been considered to be
a instrument for extraordinary circumstances where other peace-time
methods have failed.
     Just consider the situations in Los Angeles and Florida.  The practical
problem with considering the second amendment to only cover the government
choosing when and where to arm the militia is that under those conditutions
the government had great problem *getting* to the area.  Communications
are nearly destroyed, making it *impossible* to call up the militia to arm
them, which effectively removes the citizenry from the militia, which was
the whole point.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,misc.legal