The originalist reson for the district was no standing army and the congress whanting to have its own Militia that it can call up to protect the federal buldings should pepole rise up
UPDATE: Judge Perry issued an opinion explaining why she blocked the Texas National Guard deployment in Chicago.
She begins with Alexander Hamilton’s rejection of a “preposterous” idea that the Constitution lets a President deploy a State’s militia to a different State for political retribution. 🧵
Judge Perry spends four pages going over the history of the debates around the Constitution as to the proper relationship of the President to a state militia, especially after overthrowing the British, who had maintained standing armies in the colonies against their wishes.
When Putin talks to a Russians he consistently says that they invade Ukraine to destroy the state and nation and correct the path of history. NATO and similar framings are just for the useful foreigners.
Pu spells out Ru's imperialist motivations for the war. He calls the conquest a long-held dream and historical destiny.
He beclowns those who insist NATO expansion caused the war. Let's see if anyone from the Mearsheimer fan club admits the claim has been falsified. www.kremlin.ru/events/presi...
Also this is one of the resons why the founding fathers dident want an standing army. Because its expensive and if you cant pay they are no better then mercenary's. That's the point of the Militia system. The Militia pays armed tax in the form of service if they are called up.
In 2022 it got psychotic. I was arguing about Ukraine with someone I had been on reasonably good terms with before; I sent her an article from a Ukrainian professor in the US, and no joke she dismissed it because she couldn't tell 'if he had any Nazi connections' or 'who his parents were'
What's been very revealing to me about most of these pieces is that the reaction (at best) usually amounts to dismissal of the writer in question, often on fairly reprehensible grounds
"If Ukraine accepts a “deal” that includes occupation and further annexation of land, it will not end this war and lead to lasting peace. Such a deal will simply pause Russian aggression until Putin has time to regroup and come back for more Ukrainian land.”
![OPINION AND ORDER
Since this country was founded, Americans have disagreed about the appropriate division
of power between the federal government and the fifty states that make up our Union. This
tension is a natural result of the system of federalism adopted by our Founders. And yet, not even
the Founding Father most ardently in favor of a strong federal government believed that one
state's militia could be sent to another state for the purposes of political retribution, calling such
a suggestion "inflammatory," and stating "it is impossible to believe that [a President] would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs." But Plaintiffs contend that such
an event has come to pass, and argue that National Guard troops from both Illinois and Texas
have been deployed to Illinois because the President of the United States wants to punish state elected officials whose policies are different from his own.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:2vtbmhmrwzbqcfv4we4uxzzt/bafkreiefrnejknswedhhz5os4kxytyubcriulytg64k2ims446uxsscsla@jpeg)
![come within the idea of an insurrection." Id. at 410. To this, Madison replied that "there might be
riots, to oppose the execution of the laws, which the civil power might not be sufficient to quell."
Id. (emphasis added). Patrick Henry pressed the issue, charging that granting power of "calling
the militia to enforce every execution indiscriminately" would be "unprecedented," and a
"genius of despotism." Id. at 412. To this, Madison noted the "great deal of difference between
calling forth the militia, when a combination is formed to prevent the execution of the laws, and
the sheriff or constable carrying with him a body of militia to execute them in the first instance;
which is a construction not warranted by the [Militia] clause." Id. at 415.
Confronted with such concerns, even federalist proponent Alexander Hamilton rejected
the notion that the militia could enforce domestic law, opining that given "the supposition of a
want of power to require the aid of the POSSE COMITATUS is entirely destitute of colour, it
will follow, that the conclusion which has been drawn from it, in its application to the authority of the federal government over the militia is as uncandid as it is illogical." The Federalist No. 29,
at 188 (Alexander Hamilton) (Jacob Ernest Cooke, ed., 1961). To Hamilton, then, it was nothing
more than an "exaggerated and improbable suggestion]" that the federal government would
command one state's militia to march offensively into the territories of another, given how
assuredly such conduct would invite "detestation" and "universal hatred" by the people of the
would-be usurper. Id. at 186-87.
On September 17, 1787, the U.S. Constitution was ratified. Many of the concerns debated
by the Founders reflect in its contours. Regarding the militia, the Founders chose to vest
Congress-not the President—with constitutional power "to provide for calling forth the Militia
to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions," U.S. Const. a…](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:2vtbmhmrwzbqcfv4we4uxzzt/bafkreidxudeqidfeqok6ljzacxgtkdhisbhrfxl43krhavjuo7mrvkboui@jpeg)
