DICK ACT of 1902... CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN)

[Manan]

DICK ACT of 1902

[FONT=verdana,geneva] It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.[/FONT]​

[FONT=verdana,geneva]The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,geneva]The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,geneva]The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,geneva]The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,geneva]The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,geneva]These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,geneva]Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States."[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,geneva]The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,geneva]During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,geneva]The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,geneva]The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,geneva]Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,geneva]Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: [/FONT]

[FONT=verdana,geneva]"The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it."[/FONT]
​

[FONT=verdana,geneva]"This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,geneva]Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power."[/FONT]
​

[FONT=verdana,geneva]The Honorable William Gordon[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,geneva]Congressional Record, House, Page 640 - 1917[/FONT]

 

[Wreaver]

This is an interesting article in disagreement.

http://www.americanclarion.com/1627...f-1902-bills-of-attainder-ex-post-facto-laws/

 

[Thunder219]

 

[MickeyBlueEyes]

Thanks for this, I facebooked it!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

We've been over this. Don't fall for this and it weakens our arguments and makes us look unreasonable.

Of Arms and the Law: Dick Act mythmaking

If it sounds too good to be true . . . .

 

[Manan]

Has the Dict Act been repealed?

 

[Jarhead77]

Again with the Dick act? Why can't we simply be satisfied with the 2nd? Hold on to it. Defend it. There is nothing more needed to back it up, period.

 

[Manan]

We've been over this. Don't fall for this and it weakens our arguments and makes us look unreasonable.

Of Arms and the Law: Dick Act mythmaking

If it sounds too good to be true . . . .

Kirk, I did a search thru our forums on this and came up with nothing. If this is old news around here pardon my post / questioning.

Just trying to figure out how if it has NOT been repealed, how can current laws procedures so flagrantly violate this law?

 

[sgtonory]

Kirk, I did a search thru our forums on this and came up with nothing. If this is old news around here pardon my post / questioning.

Just trying to figure out how if it has NOT been repealed, how can current laws procedures so flagrantly violate this law?

We are run by a small group of criminals called the "government". Once people see we hold the power and stop obeying and paying for there enslavement the better off we will be. Time for self government. No rulers no slaves!

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Again with the Dick act?

Hilarious option for "out of context quote" contest.

 

[AndersonIN]

Again with the Dick act?

That's what she said!!!!

 

[Enkrypter]

We are run by a small group of criminals called the "government". Once people see we hold the power and stop obeying and paying for there enslavement the better off we will be. Time for self government. No rulers no slaves!

The foundation, or lack thereof, of our society would crumble in it's current state. You're proposing anarchy. Anarchy is not freedom. The whole bit about life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness goes out the window when anarchy is in full effect.

You'll spend the rest of your life behind barred windows trying to protect your family from the hordes of Obama care junkies trying to steal your Nikes and flat-screen. This will be the Zombie Apocalypse. The slather around their mouths will be fueled by their lust for free crap.

 

[CarmelHP]

Has the Dict Act been repealed?

It was modified by the National Defense Act of 1916, National Defense Act of 1920 and National Guard Mobilization Act of 1933. Many of these objections were also addressed in the Selective Draft Law Cases, Arver v. United States, 245 U.S. 366 (1918). There is no bill of attainder or ex post facto problem in repealing a statute like this, that's just silly.

 

[HoughMade]

Well, as has been mentioned elsewhere, Indiana law, both the Indiana Constitution (Article 12, sec. 1) and Indiana Code (10-16-6-1) states that all persons over 18 (with few exceptions) are part of the Indiana Militia.

....and this helps the gun-rights cause how?

...oh yeah as to the claim that the Dick Act cannot be repealed, ^^^ is right, but more generally speaking, there is no law Congress can pass that it cannot repeal. The idea that Congress that cannot be repeal a statute, to use the terminology the legal community uses- is just plain nuts.