Wyoming State Reps introduce 'doomsday' bill

[midnight rambler]

http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/wyoming-house-advances-doomsday-bill/article_af6e1b2b-0ca4-553f-85e9-92c0f58c00bd.html

And one party the reporter queried is in big time denial.


University of Wyoming political science professor Jim King said the potential for a complete unraveling of the U.S. government and economy is “astronomically remote” in the foreseeable future.

[Shami-Amourae]

Of course. Universities are where all the Communists go.

[solid]

Wow, God bless Wyoming. What a great state, makes me want to move there. I'd join their standing army if there was something to protect, such as a state that actually believes in freedom (such as Wyoming). This story gives me hope.

[osoab]

Wyoming would need to implement its own military draft, raise a standing army, and acquire strike aircraft and an aircraft carrier.Why would Wyoming need an aircraft carrier?

edit upon further reading... I don't think this bill has the same muster as the headline.


The task force would include state lawmakers, the director of the Wyoming Department of Homeland Security, the Wyoming attorney general and the Wyoming National Guard’s adjutant general, among others.

The bill must pass two more House votes before it would head to the Senate for consideration. The original bill appropriated $32,000 for the task force, though the Joint Appropriations Committee slashed that number in half earlier this week.


Also seems like the same dickheads in charge will be running the new show. Yippee! ::)

[monty]

There are no provisions in the Constitution for a State to raise a standing army. However the States are mandated by the Constitution ot maintain the "Militia of the Several States": Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15



To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

The Second Amendment:

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.


The Militia Act predates the Constitution. All the Colonies had a Militia Act.


What better "Homeland Security" than a State Militia" composed of "every able bodied man and woman between 16 and 60 years of age"!

With the dickheads in charge it aint gonna happen. :(

[madfranks]

There are no provisions in the Constitution for a State to raise a standing army.

Are there provisions in the Constitution prohibiting such? I don't know for sure, but I'm pretty sure the answer is no.

[monty]

Are there provisions in the Constitution prohibiting such? I don't know for sure, but I'm pretty sure the answer is no.

The tenth amendment says no because the organic Constitution reserves the power to raise armies and maintain the Navy to the general government. Therfore the answer to your question YES the 10th amendment prohibits the States from raising standing armies.


Amendment X


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


From: http://www.barefootsworld.net/constit2.html


To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term that two Years;

To raise and support armies is a power implied from the grant of the one "to declare war." But to leave no question as to what department of the government would do it, the power was expressly conferred upon Congress; for otherwise the President as Commander in Chief85 might assume to raise armies after Congress had made the declaration of war. The President cannot raise an army, nor can Congress maintain one by appropriation for a longer term than two years. England, which suffered much from Kings and Parliaments that raised armies, resorted from 1689 (the year of the Bill of Rights) to 1879 to the device of the Mutiny Act. That Act, passed each year, began by reciting that the Bill of Rights made illegal a standing army except by consent of Parliament, and then it expressed the opinion that certain forces would be necessary for the coming year and accordingly made an appropriation of money. In addition it made regulations separate from the civil law for the discipline of the forces and for the prevention and punishment of mutiny. In 1879 a revision of the Mutiny Act was called the Army Discipline and Regulation Act, which also was passed each year. It is now called the Army (Annual) Act.

By raising ship money through a system of taxation of his own, instead of asking Parliament for an appropriation, Charles I was able to construct and man a powerful navy. But in the Civil War which followed his course he was defeated by the Parliamentary party and then beheaded.

While the new Constitution was undergoing the ordeal of ratification by State conventions, Alexander Hamilton said in "The Federalist":

"The legislature of the United States will be obliged by this provision, once at least every two years, to deliberate upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot; to come to a new resolution on the point; to declare their sense of the matter by a formal vote in the face of their constituents. They are not at liberty to vest in the Executive Department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence."

As the President cannot raise an army, and as Congress can maintain one for only two years (the length of a term of Congress), the possibility of collusion between them is very remote. Anything indicating collusion would be dealt with by the voters, who can retire every member of the House of Representatives and one third of the Senate every two years and put in those who would respect the popular will. In the Constitutional Convention there was much opposition to a standing army; but it was felt that that danger would be averted by placing the support of it in Congress, and then restricting the power of Congress to make appropriations.

The Articles of Confederation were weak as to raising and supporting armies. First, while "the United States in Congress assembled" had the "sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war" (Art. IX), it was declared in the same article (Sec. 6) that the government "shall never engage in war . . . unless nine States assent to the same." Second, "all charges of war . . . shall be defrayed out of a common treasury" (Art. VIII) to "be supplied by the several States." There was an almost total lack of the concerted powers which are necessary to that swift and decisive action often required in National emergencies.

The Constitution corrected those faults. Thus in 1917 Congress by resolution announced that because of the acts of Germany a state of war existed with that nation; and then without any reference to the States, it passed in rapid succession acts laying on all the people (not of the States, but of the Nation) many kinds of emergency taxes, laws providing for the issuing of liberty bonds, for the conscription of men for the army and the navy, for the building of ships, for the making of munitions, and for all the other purposes of war. During World War I many of the States enacted laws in aid of the National endeavor.

The army of Europe which our fathers feared was developed through centuries of plunder by adventurous or predatory rulers, one of the inducements to hireling service in the rank and file being a share of the pillage. But the armies which have been raised in the United States have been of entirely different origin and training. They have come from homes, from generations of home-keeping and right respecting people, and they have been anxious to return home. Within a few months after the Grand Review of the Union armies in Washington after the Civil War, over a million veterans, fully equipped, had dissolved, as it were, and disappeared in the civilian life whence they came. And after World War I 4,800,000 men, of whom 2,084,000 had gone to France and 1,300,000 had seen active service, hurried gladly to their homes and left off even the military titles which they had won. However, it is well to have written in the Constitution the limitations regarding an army.

To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

A militia was provided for in Articles of Confederation (Art. VI, sec.4), each State being required to keep up a body of disciplined men "sufficiently armed and accoutered." The State was forbidden to keep "any body of Forces" in time of peace, unless Congress should deem it necessary as a garrison.

Under our Constitution each State maintains a militia, some of the States having bodies of the highest class in discipline and equipment. By act of Congress the methods of training are uniform, so that when bodies from different States are brought together they work as one.

The Nation may call out the militia of the State for three purposes only; (1) to execute the laws of the Union (the Constitution, the Acts of Congress, and the treaties); (2) to suppress insurrections (the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of law); and (3) to repel invasions, that is, the entrance of an enemy for war. Congress has authorized the President to make those calls.

It is noticeable that the militia is not in the power of the President, and that the authority of Congress over it is limited to three purposes. Here, again, both the President and the Congress are prevented from achieving an armed dictatorship.

To provide for organizing, arming, 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 the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Under this clause Congress has from the beginning provided for the training and maintenance of the militia. The National Defense Act of 1916 revised and extended preceding legislation. There are a National Guard, a Naval and an Unorganized Militia. For the purpose of maintaining appropriate organizations and to assist in instruction and training the President is authorized to assign the National Guard of the State to divisions, brigades, and other tactical units and to detail officers from either the National Guard or the regular Army to command such units.

The watchfulness of the people over State authority and their fear of the encroachment of National power are exhibited again in the provision that the militia must be officered by appointees of the State. Of such a military body the State would have no fear. Besides, officials of the State would be better informed as to who would be competent as officers. It was once a threatening question whether militia in the service of the United States could be commanded by any but militia officers and the President; but any officer under the commander in chief (the President) outranking the militia officer may command.

The Articles of Confederation provided (Art. IX, sec.4) that the Nation should appoint "all officers of the land forces in the service of the United States, excepting regimental officers." The clause in our Constitution was probably intended to restate that idea.

Hamilton said that the powers granted in this clause are naturally incident to the "common defense" of the Nation.

[Hatha Sunahara]

Is there some irony here? If the government collapses because it is a failure, why would you want to engage in any 'continuity of government'? Why not just let it collapse and die. And replace it with nothing. If the government fails, it doesn't mean chaos. We govern ourselves mostly. We still have common law. I am sure that there are still honest men who know how to administer common law fairly. The collapse of the government should provide an opportunity to correct the reasons for the collapse. A government planning for what happens after its collapse seem the epitome of arrogance and hubris. Even the Soviet Union, as evil as it was, didn't do anything so outrageous. Do corporations write a last will and testament before they go bankrupt? We seem to have empires of power at all levels who cannot imagine how the world will continue beyond their deaths. Do they think they can reach out of their graves and run things? Is this our modern analog to Hitler's 'Thousand Year Reich'?

This is just more evidence that our elected officials and all the bureaucrats who work for them are mentally defective. What in hell does Wyoming need an army or an aircraft carrier for? Who's going to attack them? Will they need to spend all their money on police to bring all the chaos under control? Why not assume that the world will be a more orderly place where people will be treated more fairly, and they will get to keep more of the value of their labor.

If the government dies, good riddance I say. If all the big corporations who depend on the government for their monopolies die with them, all the better. The world will continue on its own, and will be a much better place. They don't protect us anyway. What they are really good at is scaring us. We don't need rulers. We need to rule ourselves--voluntarily, and honestly. Not by force. Or make-believe.


Hatha

[monty]

Is there some irony here? If the government collapses because it is a failure, why would you want to engage in any 'continuity of government'?

This is just more evidence that our elected officials and all the bureaucrats who work for them are mentally defective.

If the government dies, good riddance I say. If all the big corporations who depend on the government for their monopolies die with them, all the better. The world will continue on its own, and will be a much better place. They don't protect us anyway. What they are really good at is scaring us. We don't need rulers. We need to rule ourselves--voluntarily, and honestly. Not by force. Or make-believe.

Hatha

For society to continue, we needs a sound monetary system. That monetary system needs protection to survive.

If Wyoming or any other State for that matter revitalized the State Militia composed of all able bodied persons between 16 and 60 along with a sound money system like freegold or something similar with an electronic system life would go on. The local economy would boom. The technology for an electronic gold exists. Gold would be the store of value, floating against any currency. Such a monetary system could operate in parallel with the fiat system. The competition created by a monetary system put in place by the State(s) would eventually cause the Federal Reserve to wither and die. There would be no chaos. The Milita, composed of the local citizens would be the stabilizing factor. It could be called up to put down any insurrections or outside invasions. Common Law would be the order of the day. No politician or bureaucrat liberal or conservative is going allow those things to happen.

If any one of the fifty States would get such a system in place you would soon see the other States getting on board. Even if the Federal Gov't. was to collapse and the corporations die with it, which needs to happen, the States with a sound money policy and a revitalized Militia would continue on with a sound economy and protection from tyranny.

[Hatha Sunahara]

If you're worried about rebuilding a collapsed Federal or State government and maintaining order, you'll do better to join into a community of people around you for mutual aid and protection. Whatever replaces the 'order' we have today--that is based on an enormous pyramid scheme with few people at the top will start at the bottom. It is senseless to rebuild a pyramid from the top down. Humanity has grown its political and economic organizations from the bottom up. We have always organized first at the community level--where we know the people around us. From that the monster pyramids of power called government and corporations have usurped the community perogatives by imposing their own order dictated by somebody's need for power--not by the community's needs for order or safety. What will collapse is the artificial power structures. The communities that make up the world will survive really well, even prosper without this layer of corrupt unproductive concentrations of power that lord over them.


Hatha

[monty]

If there is a collapse of Federal or State governments things will, out of necessity, be rebuilt from the bottom up. The pyramids will collapse. Using sound money after a collapse of government will prevent politicians from rebuilding the pyramids simply because they cannot inflate the money supply. What you are saying is true.

I believe if a sound money policy were put in place today government would be forced to shrink because they would be forced to live within their means. In the real world this probably won't happen unless there is a complete collapse.