The Democrats refused to support the Simpson-Mazzoli Act aka Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 unless there was an amnesty amendment added to the bill. Reagan spent over a year trying to get enough Republican votes in Congress to go along with the Democrats promise that it would be a one time amnesty never to be repeated again. If you read the IRCA you see it's an enforcement bill. But the only part of the IRCA that was enforced was the amnesty. BTW: Six more amnesties were snuck through Congress during the 1990's.
A governor can muster the militia any time s/he wants, and the militia must obey and be well regulated under the government. If it refuses and rises up, the Governor can call out the NG of that state and request the Governor for federal troops.
are you new here? why are we wasting our tax money on alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror? we have a Second Amendment.
Because the people would not bother with lengthy trials for the accused that simply make politicians richer and look more impressive to the public. Trials would be short, those found guilty would be executed in very short order. There is simply no money to be had by the state from such an endeavor.
We have a Commerce Clause not a general warfare clause. And, the rich get richer anyway. Why is equal protection of the law for the Poor, so difficult? Our Moon Race was simpler because we had the former Soviets to compete with, not our own false pride.
The race to the moon was simpler because it pertained to the basic matter of traveling from fixed point A to fixed point B. Matters pertaining to the poor are more difficult because it requires dealing with basic human nature, and humanity itself, which is always chaotic and prone to complication. But then what can truly be expected otherwise when the human species is ultimately bent on destroying itself at all costs?
Platitudes? Economics already provides the answers. The social horror of it is, the Poor may benefit in modern times. The legal and physical infrastructure has existed since the Nineteen Thirties.
So? Other than playing games, what are you proposing? Turn a bunch of George Zimmermans loose? That armed individuals replace those in law enforcement? Propose something. It’s obvious you think you are being clever, but you aren’t. First you are expecting people to buy into your erroneous narrative on the meaning of the 2A, and second, then, for people to buy into a generalized, non sense, non proposal, empty suggestion based on that narrative. Just fluff to post smoke. If you have something of substance to offer be plain and quit the obtuse attempts at being clever; offer a plan, show you’ve thought of a plan and framework for discussion worth consideration. Else, continue eroding your non existent credibility.
If a militia called itself together, the Governor would then issue an order to report to the AG of the state NG. Once the irregular militia was ordered to report, then it becomes subject to the law of the State. If it refuses or rises up, the NG has the firepower and the will to suppress it.
in right wing fantasy, you are Always right. This is a State's sovereign right secured by our Second Amendment:
dems know republican will block it and republican know dems will try... neither wants real change as this is a good fight for both sides
nor is a public safety net, it;s a societal right, we all benefit, like one could say we all benefit from the military
We are losing around a corps of unorganized militia due to a lack of wellness of regulation and Organization of the Militia; per year.
The unregulated militia if called up by the governor will have to submit to the state's laws governing 'well regulated'.
Capitalists cannot make a profit without for-profit prisons. It is a social dilemma. Service in a State militia should count toward restitution.
ok; if i have to substantiate my arguments, so do you; any recourse to fallacy is failure. are you ready?