Like others have said defensive wars. But I also don't take issues with a countries that have a brief compulsory service system in times of peace as a means of ensuring a large pool of qualified fighters without a large standing army.
But the point is that policy decisions aren't to be made by courts or agencies. They are to be made by an elected legislature, informed by the Congregational Research Services. To ensure the separation of powers.
Then the Executive agencies are to be tasked with enforce of the law. And if conflict should arise in the understanding of the law the judiciary is to interpret the law. And while judges are not experts in everything they are the experts in statutory interpretation.
My perspective having known about Chevron before Friday is that while this is a big development for admin law people seem to be overstating the impact it will likely have. Agencies like the EPA, FDA, etc can still make rules as before now courts just have to judge arguments on interpretation impartially, like they did before the SCOTUS made the doctrine in the 80s aiding Reagan. The SCOTUS hasn't even applied it since 2016.
The Supreme Court even today has over twice the approval rating as Congress (that's not saying much). Overthrowing one branch of government seems like a novel idea. There is a process for removing justices but it's never been done before. Only one justice has been impeached, Samuel Chase, and he wasn't even removed from the bench.
Yes. When I said men I was referring to males. Gentlemen if that clarifies it further. Though there are a few accounts of women (females/ladies) who were camp followers contributing in extenuating circumstances in combat roles.
and what was the color of their skin?
Depended on the person. It was majority Caucasian men, who also made up the majority of the free male population. But as alluded to in the previous comment of mine, Freemen like Mr. Salem joined the fray. Native Americans also fought in some cases on the side of the Patriots, though they mostly sided with the British due to their strong ties to the Iroquois Confederacy.
Justice Story had a better take with consideration of the historical roots of the recognition of the right:
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
There's other types of emergencies that were very pressing at the time. Namely attacks from the Iroquois Confederacy and the Crown of England (once the War of 1812 broke), just to limit it to the early republic period.
This 1619 type revisionism not only portrays the period in an inaccurate shade but diminishes the accomplishments of men, like Peter Salem, and ignores facts agreed upon universally by academia like that at the time of founding miltias were composed of ordinary men.
The choice to have a gun at all actually increases your risk of being victim of a violent crime, and that's just the odds for you. Having a gun in your house at all greatly increases the risk that you or someone in your home will die accidentally, or by suicide. Those odds are greater than those of any violent lunatic breaking into your home and murdering anyone in it.
Aside from poking fun at the notion a violent home invasion is something to contrast with violent crime, there's a serious problem here. In the study of criminal justice (and many social sciences) it is nearly impossible in most cases to separate correlation and causation. This is due to the difficulties in setting control groups and the many possible factors that may influence these events.
A person cognisant that they are at increased risk of violent crime might feel inclined to acquire a firearm. This doesn't necessarily mean the purchase caused the victimization. That is like saying doing chemotherapy increases your risk of dying of cancer. And someone experiencing suicidal ideation might purchase a firearm to commit the act. Putting this notion once again on its head.
Tldr: Don't do this unless you have a business that requires a steam account for tax purposes. It doesn't need to be successful but it does need to be real.
Trusts are probably a better option for this sort of thing than a LLC.
I recently found the American Revolution Podcast by Michael Troy which goes intro insane details about the war. 300+ ~25 minute episodes going into detail on every aspect leading up to and during the war, with a dash of dry humor.
In practical (non legal) terms possibly if it was an actual private party and not a licensed dealer.
Alien is definitely a unique way of putting it. I guess it makes sense in that they are "alien to the nation". But If I were to ever be forced to move to a different country I'd probably go by ex-pat.
Although I'd say we have more of a culture (increasingly so) of acknowledging immigrants as Americans first. Probably due to the whole melting pot thing. My view of it is anyone who immigrate to the US is an American. But if I moved to another country, like Japan, I don't think they'd consider me Japanese.
Also that reminds me alien ≠ immigrant. Aliens would be people in the country either temporarily or illegally. Someone who got a green card by marrying an American wouldn't be an alien for example. If you do the whole immigration thing you're just an American not an alien.
