This is false. You have shown only fallacies.


It's a little more complicated than that. What I'm saying is this:

"The fundamental constitutional institution for "homeland security" is not even the Army or Navy. America's Founding Fathers profoundly distrusted standing armed forces under the control of any government as potential enemies of liberty, not least of all because of their own experiences with the British Army's attempts to suppress freedom in the Colonies and independent States. So, in the Constitution, the Founders refused to adopt any preexisting army or navy, or to create new ones, as permanent establishments for the United States.

True, the Constitution delegates to Congress the powers "[t]o raise and support Armies" and "[t]o provide and maintain a Navy". Article I, Section 8, Clauses 12 and 13. And with such powers comes a duty to exercise them, when necessary and proper. Compare United States v. Marigold, 50 U.S. (9 Howard) 560, 567 (1850), with Article I, Section 8, Clause 18. Otherwise, though, Congress need never "raise and support", and need not continuously "provide and maintain", an army or a navy. Furthermore, the Constitution requires that, even when Congress does "raise" an army, "no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years". Article I, Section 8, Clause 12. This enables the House of Representatives--the House of Congress electorally closest to the people and (in political theory, at least) most chary of their lives, liberties, and property--to prevent an army from continuing in existence when it serves no purpose that justifies its expense, or when it threatens Americans' freedoms.

In addition, the Constitution provides that "[n]o State shall, without the Consent of Congress, * * * keep Troops, or Ships of War, in time of Peace". Article I, Section 10, Clause 3. So, nowhere in the federal system does the supreme law of the land treat an army or navy as an inevitable, indispensable, permanent, or perpetual institution.

Where, then, should Americans look for constitutional "homeland security"? The Second Amendment to the Constitution provides the first giant steps towards the answer:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

By definition, "the security of a free State" is "homeland security" (the "homeland" being, not simply a geographical area, but a special political conception rooted in freedom). The Amendment describes "[a] well regulated Militia" as "necessary" (not simply useful) for such "security". And the Amendment singles out "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" as so important to the existence of such a "Militia" that "the right * * * shall not be infringed". Therefore, the fundamental constitutional institution of "homeland security" must be "[a] well regulated Militia" based upon "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms".

Perhaps more importantly, the body of the Constitution itself is not silent on this matter, either. To be sure, the Constitution does not create any "well regulated Militia". It delegates no power to Congress to "raise and support" (as with an army), to "provide and maintain" (as with a navy), or in any other words to fashion from whole cloth any "well regulated Militia". And it does not even define what constitutes such a Militia. That is because it did not have to: In the late 1700s, every adult American knew that "well regulated Militia" had existed in the Colonies and independent States from the mid-1600s, and were established in every State of the Union even as the Constitution was being drafted and ratified. For that reason, the Constitution simply acknowledged "the Militia of the several States" as already in existence, adopted and incorporated them according to the historical legal principles by which they had long and even then operated, and thereby perpetuated them in that form. See Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16; and Article II, Section 2, Clause 1.

Rest of Article Here