Article IV, §4, U.S. Constitution, requires The United States to protect each of the States against Invasion. It says:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion... [emphasis added]
In Federalist No. 43 (3rd para under 6.), James Madison says of this provision:
A protection against invasion is due from every society to the parts composing it...
Article I, §8, clause 15 grants to Congress the power to provide for calling forth the Militia to [among other things] "repel Invasions".
But the federal government has persistently refused to call forth the Militia to protect the States on our Southern Border from Invasion!
So! What are States to do when their Lands are invaded, their citizens murdered and kidnapped, and our young corrupted by drug-trafficking invaders? And State budgets implode from unconstitutional federal mandates that we subsidize the invaders! Are the States to sit with folded hands and be destroyed because the federal government refuses to perform its constitutional duty? No! We are Americans! If the federal government refuses to perform its constitutional duty to call out the Militia to protect the States against Invasion, then the States must perform that Duty.
Article 1, §8, clause 16 grants to Congress the power 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. This clause reserves to the States the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
What is the "Militia"? Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) tells us:
The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.
So! One of the functions of the Militia - that body of weekend warriors trained by the States and whose officers are chosen by the States, is to defend the States against Invasions. As we have seen, Congress is authorized to provide for calling the Militia into service to repel invasions. But what if the federal government refuses to act?
Alexander Hamilton provides the answer in Federalist No. 29. Hamilton shows that one of the purposes of the Militia is to protect the citizens of the States from threats to their liberties posed by the federal government (7th & 12th paras); and that the States' reservation of power to appoint the Officers secures to them an influence over the Militia greater than that of the federal government (9th para). On the use of the Militia to repel Invasions, Hamilton says (13th para):
...it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy...
True, it was contemplated that the "United States" would be the entity which protects the States against Invasion (Art. IV, §4). But when the federal government has demonstrated its determination that the States ARE TO BE OVERRUN BY INVADERS, then the States are within their Sovereign Rights to employ the Militia to defend The People from those into whose hands the federal government has demonstrated its determination to deliver them.
In Federalist No. 46 (7th & 8th paras), James Madison speaks of conflicts between the federal government and the States, caused by encroachments of the former. He does not counsel subservience by the States. He does not counsel submitting the issue to a federal judge! Instead, Madison describes various forms of non-violent Resistance properly employed by the States, alone or in unison with other States:
...and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.
In Madison's magnificent 9th para, he speaks of a federal government so consumed with madness that it sends its regular army against the States:
...Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate [State] governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition [of the federal government], more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of... [italics added]
Madison would be disappointed that we permitted this current state of affairs to arise:
...Let us rather no longer insult them [the American People] with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.
But we must start from where we are. We can restore our constitutional republic. We can rein in a lawless federal government which usurps powers even while refusing to perform its basic constitutional duty of protecting the States from Invasion.
The Federalist Papers were written to explain the proposed Constitution and to induce The People to ratify it. Madison is the "Father of The Constitution". These are the highest authority on the meaning of our Constitution. Clearly, the States may use their Militia to defend their borders, and States may assist one another in this endeavor. And We the People must throw out of office the federal representatives and officials who refuse to perform their constitutionally mandated Duty to defend our borders. Madison writes in Federalist No. 44 (17th para) respecting remedies against a lawless federal government:
...and in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers....
When the federal government refuses to obey the Constitution, the States must enforce it. And WE the People must throw the faithless ones out of office. THIS is how we restore our constitutional Republic. PH
Permalink Reply by Brimstone on 
Permalink Reply by Phil on 
Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on J.W. Coleman, read this discussion.
The linked essays.
And post any remaining questions here.
thanks.
Permalink Reply by Mark on J.W. Coleman,
See the 14th paragraph of Federalist No. 43. Here James Madison explains the reasoning for inclusion of this text in the Constitution. Among other reasons, he notes that a federation is not suited for different forms of governments of it's members. Thus, since the existing members (the 13 original states) are Republics with Republican Constitutions, those existing as well as any new state members shall all be Republican forms of government. As Madison points out; how could our federal Constitution operate if some of the member States were Monarchies, some Aristocracies, some Democracies, and the rest Republics? It couldn't. Take for example the appointment of Senators by the State Legislatures. How could that work if some States had no Legislatures commonly found in a Republic? The GUARANTEE is beheld when a State seeks to join the Union. When Hawaii and Alaska were granted Statehood and membership into the union, they had to draft a Constitution which showed that they planned a Republic through their respective Constitutions. Had they submitted a Constitution representing a monarchy, the existing members (through their representatives at the federal level) could have refused the membership.
From Publius Huldah's "Basic Concepts of 'Government'" Essay we see that she has referenced Webster's 1828 Dictionary in citing the definition of 'Republic' as "...a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people.." Additionally a CONSTITUTIONAL Republic is a republic which is LIMITED by the Constitution which created it.
Our Federal Government was created by the Constitution as a Republic. This fact may be affirmed in nearly all of the Federalist Papers. Thus since the Federal government is one of representatives exercising the sovereign power of the people WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE CONSTITUTION, there is no reason for the federal government to guarantee a republican form for itself since they cannot by legislation alter the republican form already built into the Constitution. The CONSTITUTION is the guarantee at the Federal level.
Does that help? Or is further clarification necessary?
Permalink Reply by Mark on J.W.Coleman,
The first phrase of Federalist No 43, Para 14 states:
"In a confederacy founded on republican principles, and composed of republican members, the superintending government ought clearly to possess authority to defend the system against aristocratic or monarchial innovations. The more intimate the nature of such a union may be, the greater interest have the members in the political institutions of each other; and the greater right to insist that the forms of government under which the compact was entered into should be SUBSTANTIALLY maintained." (Caps in original)
Here Madison is Stating that the confederacy (the United States government) is established by the political capacities of the several States. And that to preserve that confederacy, the States have a right to expect the FEDERAL government to maintain newly admitted States to the same measure of government (republican form). Madison recognizes that the States, as members of the proposed confederacy have a peculiar interest in the forms of government of the other members, and that in order that the confederacy "...be SUBSTANTIALLY maintained." , the republican form must be synonymous throughout.
I suspect that the 2nd part of your question; "does this apply to the Federal government?" is most properly your concern. The reason for the confusion does not originate from the Constitution, but rather the government's departure from it. That is; while the document establishes a Constitutional Republic, the officials (all three branches) erroneously behave as though it is not. It is the usurpation of power by the government which is outside the boundaries of the Constitution, rather than the founding document itself. In fact, the Executive (zero) behaves as though it is a monarchy or at least an Aristocracy. Congress behaves as if a democracy, and the courts find positions in both realms.
The whole purpose of this study group is to show, nay to PROVE, that the government has limits, that all Acts beyond those limits are mere usurpation and deserve to be treated as such, and that the People- not the government, determine the extents of federal authority. That the Constitution- Not the sniveling masses, nor the special interests is the manifestation of the will of the people; that the federal government was NOT a party to the convention which established it and had no say (and still doesn't) in the extent of it's power. Finally, that there are political remedies woven into the political fabric of the Constitution that we must exercise if we are to preserve the principles which the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence embody.
And this is why we must first equip ourselves with the truth, and in doing so, be able to distinguish true candidates; worthy of office, from those who only pay lip service to the Constitution or misconstrue it altogether.
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
