Comments on: Today’s Transcripts http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/todays-transcripts-43/ The Supreme Court of the United States blog Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:56:34 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Charles A. Pierce http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/todays-transcripts-43/comment-page-1/#comment-15300 Charles A. Pierce Thu, 20 Mar 2008 23:55:03 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/todays-transcripts-43/#comment-15300 Many States have what is called the unorganized guard also called the State Guard. They are funded by the States, do not carry weapons but have some training. The Article1, Section 8, Clause 16 was to determine who pay for the equipment, weapons and training of the National Guard. Many States have what is called the unorganized guard also called the State Guard. They are funded by the States, do not carry weapons but have some training. The Article1, Section 8, Clause 16 was to determine who pay for the equipment, weapons and training of the National Guard.

]]> By: Aaron Kulkis http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/todays-transcripts-43/comment-page-1/#comment-15244 Aaron Kulkis Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:04:53 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/todays-transcripts-43/#comment-15244 There's no dig there. During Ww2, with most of the National Guard mobilized, Michigan fielded the Michigan State Troops, where were not subject to mobilization by the Federal government. But the MST actually came into being as a result of the Franco-Prussian war. How did they do this? Probably by NOT making the MST subject to the organization, arming, regulation and discipline of Congress(*) Many other states formed "state troops" which took over the state-level mission of the departed National Guard (local disaster, civil disturbance, etc.), so Dellinger's comment is not reasonably construed as a dig at Bush if you know the history of similar organizations. Some states still have these organizations to this very day. (*) Article 1, Section 8, clause 16 -- "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, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" There’s no dig there. During Ww2, with most of the National Guard mobilized, Michigan fielded the Michigan State Troops, where were not subject to mobilization by the Federal government. But the MST actually came into being as a result of the Franco-Prussian war.

How did they do this? Probably by NOT making the MST subject to the organization, arming, regulation and discipline of Congress(*)

Many other states formed “state troops” which took over the state-level mission of the departed National Guard (local disaster, civil disturbance, etc.), so Dellinger’s comment is not reasonably construed as a dig at Bush if you know the history of similar organizations. Some states still have these organizations to this very day.

(*) Article 1, Section 8, clause 16 — “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, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

]]> By: Richard Timmons http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/todays-transcripts-43/comment-page-1/#comment-15181 Richard Timmons Tue, 18 Mar 2008 19:07:22 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/todays-transcripts-43/#comment-15181 A subtle dig at the Bush administration in the transcript.... "MR. DELLINGER: I don't dispute, Mr. Chief Justice, that the Second Amendment is positive law that a litigant can invoke in court if a State were to decide after recent events that it couldn't rely upon the Federal Government in natural disasters and wanted to have a State-only militia ... I believe it's the LOCAL governments confiscating guns after a natural disaster that we should be concerned about, and which I think is at the heart of this case. A subtle dig at the Bush administration in the transcript….

“MR. DELLINGER: I don’t dispute, Mr. Chief Justice, that the Second Amendment is positive law that a litigant can invoke in court if a State were to decide after recent events that it couldn’t rely upon the Federal Government in natural disasters and wanted to have a State-only militia …

I believe it’s the LOCAL governments confiscating guns after a natural disaster that we should be concerned about, and which I think is at the heart of this case.

]]>