86
CONSTITUTION OF THE U. STATES.
[BOOK III.
martial law.
[1] If congress did not choose to arm, organize, or discipline the militia, there would be an inherent right in the states to do it.
[2] All, that the constitution intended, was, to give a power to congress to ensure uniformity, and thereby efficiency. But, if congress refused, or neglected to perform the duty, the states had a perfect concurrent right, and might act upon it to the utmost extent of sovereignty.
[3] As little pretence was there to say, that congress possessed the exclusive power to suppress insurrections and repel invasions. Their power was merely competent to reach these objects; but did not, and could not, in regard to the militia, supersede the ordinary rights of the states. It was, indeed, made a duty of congress to provide for such cases; but this did not exclude the co-operation of the states.
[4] The idea of congress inflicting severe and ignominious punishments upon the militia in times of peace was absurd.
[5] It presupposed, that the representatives had an interest, and would intentionally take measures to oppress them, and alienate their affections. The appointment of the officers of the militia was exclusively in the states; and how could it be presumed, that such men would ever consent to the destruction of the rights or privileges of their fellow-citizens.
[6] The power to discipline and
- ↑ 2 Elliot's Debates, 299, 311.
- ↑ 2 Elliot's Debates, 298, 294, 312, 313, 314, 326, 327, 439; 1 Tuck. Black, Comm. App. 272, 273; Rawle on the Constitution, ch. 9, p. 111, 112; Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat. R. 1,21, 45, 48 to 52.
- ↑ Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat. R. 1, 16, 17, 21, 22, 24, 32, 51, 52, 56; 3 Sergeant & Rawle, 169.
- ↑ 2 Elliot's Debates, 312, 313, 316, 317, 318, 368; Rawle on the Constitution, ch. 9, p. 111.
- ↑ 2 Elliot's Debates, 304, 309.
- ↑ 2 Elliot's Debates, 368; Rawle on the Constitution, ch. 9, p. 112.
