Navy Reserve COVID Vaccinations by October

[sevenhelmet]

I agree, the legislative branch has and continues to abdicate their duties with respect to fundamental checks and balances. My opinion is problem is at least twofold, in that:
1.) Parties have too much power. The general trend is toward what's good for the party instead of what's good for the country.
2.) Time is a finite resource. Our government spends a lot of time regulating, or attempting to regulate, things that aren't within its core-competency, e.g. so much time and effort surrounding things like abortion and sexuality. Why? See #1 on this list. Splitting people ideologically is what wins and loses elections. All of this comes at the expense of things government is actually positioned to effectively manage- such as defense, infrastructure, and education. The thought could be that government can "do it all", but the more "wedge" issues government attempts to control, the less efficiency and control is has over anything. Do we really want to live in a country where the government fixes all our problems and defines what's moral/amoral for us?

Lots of ideological discussions to unpack here. But I think a lot of this has to do with the ever-marching creep of bureaucracy and a common feeling that "the government" will come to our rescue on all things, socializing everyone's failures, while successes can be privatized to one's content (provided the "requisite tax" is paid, of course).

 

[Flash]

If you read the writings from the day, or the amendment itself, it is crystal clear the intent was for their to be no standing army, that the common defense was to be provided by a well-trained militia of the people. Standing armies were considered the greatest danger to liberty.

The irony of that is the militia usually did quite poorly on the battlefield during the Revolution and soon afterwards, one only need to look at the Battle of Camden to see how reliable they were and how that was taken planned for in the subsequent Battle of Cowpens, with the war won in the end by the professional Continental and French armies with a big assist from the French Navy.

 

[taxi1]

1.) Parties have too much power.

Boy, did the framers miss the boat on prepping us for that one...

The irony of that is the militia usually did quite poorly on the battlefield

...and that one.

They could have used Yogi Berra at the Constitution writing party..."It's hard to make predictions, especially about the future."

 

[wink]

And how would a convention of men dedicated to freedom and limited government handle the threat of political parties having too much power? Outlaw all but their favorite parties of the day? Limit the number of them? Mandate a certain number of parties as a minimum? Like I said. We can't look to the Constitution to solve all our problems. That is the problem. Just accept that the Constitution is silent on a world of things and we are expected to work through them using the democratic process.

True the Militia had a spotty record. But they had some major successes too. When the Constitution was written every man knew the record of the Militia yet they still rejected a standing Army for military amateur's. They had their reasons. One was we were reasonably isolated and in those days an Army could be recruited and trained when needed. That certainly changed, and the Constitution allows for that. But another primary reason, as has been mentioned, was fear of a government with an Army. While that seems an unlikely threat today, the Constitution was meant for the ages. If we don't trash the Constitution completely some time in the distant future fear of a government abusing it's citizens may be a real threat. People are people. Could happen. That is when you need a Constitution that is not a document amendable by the whims of 9 lawyers who can not see the future.

 

[taxi1]

And how would a convention of men dedicated to freedom and limited government handle the threat of political parties having too much power? Outlaw all but their favorite parties of the day? Limit the number of them? Mandate a certain number of parties as a minimum? Like I said. We can't look to the Constitution to solve all our problems.

The point is, they purposely split the government into three branches to balance each other out and force compromise. That got undermined by the party system. Zero doubt that if they could have seen that future, they'd have done some things differently.

For example, we know now that plurality voting like we have leads to two party systems. A third party just spoils 2nd place. Ralph Nader and Ross Perot. They'd have gotten it right from the beginning.

 

[sevenhelmet]

The point is, they purposely split the government into three branches to balance each other out and force compromise. That got undermined by the party system. Zero doubt that if they could have seen that future, they'd have done some things differently.

For example, we know now that plurality voting like we have leads to two party systems. A third party just spoils 2nd place. Ralph Nader and Ross Perot. They'd have gotten it right from the beginning.

Washington did see that future, (sec 1.3) and I'm willing to bet he wasn't alone.

 

[taxi1]

Washington did see that future, (sec 1.3) and I'm willing to bet he wasn't alone.

It changes your perspective when you think of the political parties as being a bit subversive to the framer's intent. The parties serve the parties, and work to end-around the Constitution's balance of power structure. Legally and within the Constitutional processes, but intent matters.

 

[Flash]

True the Militia had a spotty record. But they had some major successes too.

None that really had a meaningful impact on the war, or subsequent ones for that matter. The more you learn about the traditional militia in US history the less impressive they are, often causing more problems than they were worth.

 

[wink]

None that really had a meaningful impact on the war, or subsequent ones for that matter. The more you learn about the traditional militia in US history the less impressive they are, often causing more problems than they were worth.

And yet the men who witnessed the performance of the militia first hand just a few years later gave the militia a constitutional role.

 

[sevenhelmet]

And yet the men who witnessed the performance of the militia first hand just a few years later gave the militia a constitutional role.

The original idea was to have no standing army. But ya gotta have a way to raise an army if the need arises.

 

[Flash]

And yet the men who witnessed the performance of the militia first hand just a few years later gave the militia a constitutional role.

The main author of the Constitution never saw combat.

The original idea was to have no standing army. But ya gotta have a way to raise an army if the need arises.

That lasted all of 3 years, until the formation of the Legion of the United States in 1792 after the defeat of LTC Harmar's largely militia force in 1790 and the subsequent defeat of ill-trained short-term levies and militia at the Battle of Wabash in 1791, both at the hands of the Native Americans. It was only after that a professional army was created and fully trained that victory was won in 1794 at the Battle of Fallen Timbers. The new US government wisely retained their standing army this time and renamed the Legion the Army of the United States in 1796.

 

[wink]

The main author of the Constitution never saw combat.

And so? It was debated by all and signed by all. All of whom were aware of militia performance, some may have even commanded them. Others in the Continental Army observed it. They had their reasons. OBE? Yes. But it still speaks to tje real distrust a powerfully armed government had for those men.

 

[Flash]

And so? It was debated by all and signed by all. All of whom were aware of militia performance, some may have even commanded them. Others in the Continental Army observed it. They had their reasons. OBE? Yes. But it still speaks to tje real distrust a powerfully armed government had for those men.

Yet the simple fact remains that the militia were very poor performers on the battlefield and didn't come anywhere close to living up to the modern mythology that surrounds them, from Cowpens to Bladensburg. While the Founders got plenty right they got plenty of stuff wrong too and the reliance in the Constitution on the militia was one of them, proven very quickly to be misguided and rectified in a mere 3 years and remaining 'fixed' for the 230 years since.

Why continue to belabor this point? Because there are plenty of morons out there today who claim the mantle of 'militia' when the historical reality is they had very little real military impact not only in the Revolution but also subsequent conflicts unless they were integrated as part of the larger national military. These points about the militia were hammered home to me repeatedly by professors who themselves were part of a 'militia', uniforms and all.

 

[taxi1]

While the Founders got plenty right they got plenty of stuff wrong too and the reliance in the Constitution on the militia was one of them

It's central to the ideas behind a lot of what is in the Constitution, and directly plays a central role in the Constitution, yet we've left the ideas so far behind.

Kind of like the prohibition on "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner..."

Does that apply to sailors? Darn.

 

[wink]

Why continue to belabor this point? Because there are plenty of morons out there today who claim the mantle of 'militia' when the historical reality is they had very little real military impact not only in the Revolution...

I hardly think anyone in a contemporary home grown militia actually rests their raison d'etre on the effectiveness of the Revolutionary era militias. It doesn't matter how effective on the battlefield the Revolutionary militias were unless you are a history major writing a paper or historical inaccuracies spin you up.

When it does get to interpreting the Constitution, one wouldn't look to Article 1 Sec 8 with a mind on the Militia's battlefield effectiveness. but rather why the delegates felt compelled to hitch their horse to the ideal of the militia.