Bob Marshall, wannabe 2012 Senate candidate, is proposing a bill that would ban homosexuals from serving in the National Guard. How does he plan on doing this? He claims that the United States Constitution ensues that the states are responsible for disciplining the “militia” (the National Guard).
Except for, you know, that provision that states the exact opposite:
Congress shall have power [...] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. (United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 and 16).
What is the “discipline prescribed by Congress”? That would be the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), containing, or not containing, the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ provision.
And what did the founders have to say about this? Well, let’s turn to the Federalist Papers:
One Government can collect and avail itself of the talents and experience of the ablest men, in whatever part of the Union they may be found. It can move on uniform principles of policy. It can harmonize, assimilate, and protect the several parts and members, and extend the benefit of its foresight and precautions to each. In the formation of treaties it will regard the interest of the whole, and the particular interests of the parts as connected with that of the whole. It can apply the resources and power of the whole to the defence of any particular part, and that more easily and expeditiously than State Governments, or separate confederacies can possibly do, for want of concert and unity of system. It can place the militia under one plan of discipline, and, by putting their officers in a proper line of subordination to the Chief Magistrate, will, as it were, consolidate them into one corps, and thereby render them more efficient than if divided into thirteen or into three or four distinct independent bodies.
[...]
But whatever may be our situation, whether firmly united under one national Government, or split into a number of confederacies, certain it is, that foreign nations will know and view it exactly as it is; and they will act towards us accordingly. If they see that our national Government is efficient and well administered — our trade prudently regulated — our militia properly organized and disciplined — our resources and finances discreetly managed — our credit re-established — our people free, contented, and united, they will be much more disposed to cultivate our friendship than provoke our resentment. If, on the other hand, they find us either destitute of an effectual Government, (each State doing right or wrong, as to its rulers may seem convenient,) or split into three or four independent and probably discordant republics or confederacies, one inclining to Britain, another to France, and a third to Spain, and perhaps played off against each other by the three, what a poor, pitiful figure will America make in their eyes! How liable would she become not only to their contempt, but to their outrage; and how soon would dear-bought experience proclaim that when a people or family so divide, it never fails to be against themselves. (John Jay, Federalist No. 4.)
It requires no skill in the science of war to discern, that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defence. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field, with mutual intelligence and concert — an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army: and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions, which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the National authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the Convention proposes to empower the Union “to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.” [emphasis in italics in original] (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 29.)
That being said, Congress, under the UCMJ, has left it up to the states on how National Guard troops will be disciplined when not under federal active duty (UCMJ, Title 32), but that is a purely statutory arrangement, and Congress would be more than in its right to change. Furthermore, Virginia fully incorporates the provisions of the UCMJ to apply to National Guard troops (Va. Code § 44-40).
Maybe Bob Marshall should dust off his copy of the United States Constitution and Federalist Papers and take a turn rereading them, that’s if he has ever bothered reading them in the first place.
Maybe he can take time off from gay-bashing and do that.
Cross-posted at “I’m Surrounded By Idiots”.
Filed under: Bob Marshall
Well, Mr. Watson, that was very impressive. I admire your ability to command such vast research of such depth and with such nimbleness.
However, I can only discern that your intentions are of strong support for gays in the military, even in direct combat units. So I wonder where was all this reportage for the 232 years when gays were actually banned from military service from George Washington himself on up until the Clinton Administration’s imposition of “don’t ask, don’t tell?” I believe that was under the direction and approval of Congress as well, was it not?
Militias, both state and private, served in every conflict from the Revolution through the War between the States. Many of them didn’t get paid as regularly as they would have liked. My suspicions are that they didn’t give a damn what Congress thought, either. They felt they were in the service of their states.
The passages from the Federalist papers you cited provide an excellent description of how the Congress would play its role, and how the states would play theirs. I believe Marshall’s proposal falls adequately within those boundaries.
In either case, however, the intent of those passages was equally to assure good order and discipline along with the ability to perform its duties as much as it was concerned with “who did it.” It is obvious the Founders were concerned with how the potential adversaries of the world would view our military’s “readiness” as well. Would you please explain to us all how the Founders believed that homosexuals serving openly in our military at that time would have commanded such respect and awe from Britain and France as to keep them safely at bay? Where did they make that case? I failed to find that explanation in these particular passages. Perhaps you could provide those for us with equal nimbleness.
As far as your indiscreet show of disdain for Mr. Marshall, we must all now wonder if your true objection is not more with the messenger than with his message. I certainly do.
Mike Prunty
The American Freedom Project
Yorktown, Virginia
Last I checked, the military answered to civilian authorities who were responsible for command and control, unless there was a military coup in the last month or so I didn’t notice.
If you’re so fond of the things that the founders supported, does that mean that the country shouldn’t have a standing army? After all, the founding fathers considered a standing army to be a huge threat to people’s freedoms.
My indiscreet disdain of Marshall comes from his rampant homophobia. I supported his run for Senate in 2008 but I am sure as heck aren’t going to be supporting his run in 2012.
I usually agree with you but not on this one. Bob Marshall who is responsible for the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act is the greatest defender of the Constitution I know. I applaud him for taking a stand against allowing homosexuals to serve in military organizations. I am a veteran and can understand how demorializing it would be if I were still on active service. Bob Marshall is a great defender of freedom and will make an outstanding senator.
Yeah, he’s a great defender of a document that he’s never read apparently.
You know that gays currently serve in the military, right? And have been doing so for centuries?
The vast majority of the American public supports the repeal of DADT. The vast majority of military personnel support the repeal of DADT. They don’t care whether the person that is risking his or her life beside them is gay or not.
Marshall is just flat wrong here. The governor has already cut him off at the knees on this by saying that he intends to comply with the law.
I am a big Bob Marshall fan, but this was his most ill conceived idea ever. Let it go – this argument is over for good.
Bob is a bit of an eccentric………….wait til the final decision by the SC…….Bob and Cooch want either to start the Civil War again and/or get their names in the paper!!! Great research on the Constitution!!
[...] Virginia Virtucon, Timothy Watson offers the observation that Bob Marshall knows absolutely nothing about the United States Constitution. What is funny is that at the end of his post, Watson contradicts himself. That being said, [...]
I would like someone to show me evidence that being a homosexual makes a soldier less capable of performing their duties in the field.
Personally, as long as their sexual conduct (gay or straight) does not interfere with their individual or their military unit’s ability to carry out their duties as demanded by their commanding officers, I do not see where there is a problem.
As long as the man or woman next to you has your back and can carry out their duties, that’s all that should matter.
Let us not forget there are lingering questions about the “interests” of Revolutionary War hero Baron von Steuben. The only difference today is we’re bringing into the light what has been present in the shadows in the military for centuries.
It is time to slap down this ignorant use of the word “homophobia.” Neither Bob Marshall, nor I, nor any other “normal intelligent person” I know or have ever met, has ever demonstrated “phobia” in the presence of a homosexual. Disgust or non-acceptance based on religious beliefs or traditional values for a perverted, counter productive behavior and a psycho-sociological pathology perhaps, but not phobia, which means “fear.”
The only true phobia, that is … fear … and perhaps flat out bigotry … demonstrated through this exchange is that directed towards Judeo-Christian ethics and values by some of those misguided enough to believe they are somehow more enlightened than the rest of us. And also, frankly, too lacking in the courage of their convictions…or perhaps simply lacking convictions altogether, to stand up to the senseless demands of leftist political correctness.
I don’t recall whether or not Mr. Watson previously made known his possession of a Ph.D in constitutional law, but I can easily cite two recent examples of Marshall’s constitutional savvy.
The first was just a few years ago in the aftermath of one of the biggest tax increases in Virginia history … by Republicans, no less. Delegate Bob Marshall, along with then Delegate Dick Black, filed suit as plaintiffs against the state over this law, HB-3202 (transportation funding bill with “abuser fees” and unelected regional taxing authorities). The case went to the State Supreme Court, was argued by constitutional attorney Patrick McSweeney, and won with a “7-0″ decision on constitutional grounds … not too shabby if you ask me.
Now I hate to rub this latest one in your face, but I know you guys are all aware of the federal healthcare issue, that is, “Obamacare.” Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli just won a law suit in federal court striking down the new federal healthcare law as … you guessed it … unconstitutional. The entire legal standing for Cuccinelli’s case was provided by a state law passed last year in the General Assembly forbidding the imposition of an individual mandate to buy health insurance. This was the “Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act” … authored by … you guessed it … Delegate Bob Marshall. Did you all conveniently overlook that?
I carry and read a copy of the Constitution all the time. So does Bob Marshall, who has a personal library of over 2000 books on U.S. history and the Constitution. He has in fact read them, by the way.
I know Bob Marshall. Bob Marshall is a friend of mine. The only thing you’re right about thus far is that you are indeed no Bob Marshall.
Your most minor phobia should be that others, including Marshall, may happen to disagree with your particular interpretation of the Constitution in particular matters such as this.
Your greatest nightmare, however “phobic”, would appear to be that he reads the Bible every night before retiring for bed. So he is adequately versed there as well. I hope this doesn’t cause you sleepless nights of terror.
Mr. Prunty,
I’ve really wanted to stay out of this debate here on VV. Close friends know my thoughts on the issue, but I suppose I have a few responses to your diatribe while playing Devil’s Advocate. Also, I want to make sure it’s clear that Marshall is only tenuously making a Constitutional argument, but rather more of a social argument.
You say: “It is time to slap down this ignorant use of the word “homophobia.” Neither Bob Marshall, nor I, nor any other “normal intelligent person” I know or have ever met, has ever demonstrated “phobia” in the presence of a homosexual. Disgust or non-acceptance based on religious beliefs or traditional values for a perverted, counter productive behavior and a psycho-sociological pathology perhaps, but not phobia, which means “fear.””
Okay, phobia may not be the correct word. Besides, being afraid of gays would be kind of a gay emotion, right? Not speaking for Tim, but I think the sentiment he may be searching for is “bigot”.
I don’t see your point about people attacking “Judeo-Christian” ethics as making much sense. Being a Christian myself, I know plenty of denominations that do not agree with Marshall’s apparent stance on homosexuality. Also, if you’re going to use a religious justification purely, why should the military take that into consideration? And, no, “because we’re a christian nation” does not suffice as an answer for me. Also, your initial point reminds me of the quote “Talking tough is easy when it’s other people’s evil and you’re judging what they do or don’t believe. It seems to me you’d have to have a hole in your own to point a finger at someone else’s sheet.”
Who cares if Tim has a Ph.D? (J.D.) in Constitutional Law? You seem to be asking because if Tim did not have one, he should not be speaking on the issue. Does Delegate Marshall have a law degree? Or do you disregard a similar challenge because he has a 2,000 book library (which might be the least relevant point you made in your entire comment)? Also, if Tim and Marshall disagree with their reading of the Constitution, doesn’t that at least point in the direction of this not being a cut an dry issue?
And yes, kudos on the 3202 issue from 2008. I recall getting into an exchange of words with then AG McDonnell on the same issue. I was just a second year in college AND lacked a 2,000 book library, does that make me any better than Marshall? I guess what I’m pointing to is that he wasn’t the ONLY person saying that was bad policy and was un-Constitutional.
On a happier note: I’m glad to hear that you carry and read a copy of the Constitution. In seriousness, more people need to do that. Does it ever concern you that authors like Madison received large amounts of their influence from pagans? Also, if you’re interested in the concept of freedom associated largely with the American concept, check out the philosopher Quentin Skinner.
To close, I don’t think anyone here is afraid that Bob Marshall reads his Bible before bed. But for you to allude to the fact that Marshall’s Bible skills strike fear in us all is just the kind of narcissistic dribble I would expect to hear. I, along with a vast majority of Americans, don’t give too many thoughts to the Church of Rome, so “:phobia” is a very poor choice of word.
I appreciate the support Ashton, but in some cases it is homo*phobia*. People like Bryan Fischer who that think soldiers are going to be molested in their sleep? I would call them homophobic.
People that think they will catch gay or something through a blood transfusion like Bob Marshall? Yeah, I’m going to call them homophobic.
Mr. Prunty, did I claim to have a PhD in constitutional law? Is that a requirement before speaking on the plain text of the constitution and the Federalist Papers? Do you have a PhD in constitutional law? Does Bob Marshall? Out of curiosity, how many colleges or universities offer a PhD program *purely* in constitutional law?
On HB3202, how does someone suing the government, along with eight other individual plaintiffs as well as the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, make someone an expert on constitutional law? I am guessing that Wesley G. Russell, Jr., the attorney for the “Marshall plaintiffs”, had nothing to do with their argument and victory in court? What about John R. Roberts, the County Attorney for Loudoun County?
And it’s purely Bob Marshall’s doing that a single federal judge found ObamaCare unconstitutional? Ken Cuccinelli and his people at the Attorney General’s Office had nothing to do with that, right?
In addition, if you read the judge’s ruling on the motion to dismiss you can see that he spends a lot more time taking about other issues regarding standing than just the “Virginia Health Care Freedom Act”. In fact, the judge refers to the Attorney General’s use of the “Virginia Health Care Freedom Act” as an “alternative[]” argument compared to the main argument that Obamacare exceeds Congress’s enumerated powers
I carry a copy of the Constitution with me most of the time too. It’s in the appendix of my copy of Black’s Law Dictionary (3rd pocket ed.). But, apparently, you didn’t, or don’t, bother reading the parts of the Constitution that illustrate Marshall’s argument, as well as yours, to be wrong in this case.
Mike – You are the greatest example of phobic!! People in my family – loved ones – are gay….disgust? i dont think so…..the Mike Prunty’s and Bob Marshall’s provoke sadness in me at their ignorance!!! Yepo Bob screwed us out of new highway money….does he lift a finger to find any $??? not a chance….Bob is kinda a friend of mine too…..but he is a total ignoramous on so many constitutional/moral/legal issues..one only need look at Gov McDonnell’s comment about Bob’s proposal!!! on another subject, to all on here, Feliz Navidad, Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas and may God Bless us all in 2011 with enlightnement, understanding and appreciattion for those who are different from us………
And Merry Christmas to you Mike!!! You and Bob are both blind to so many realities……suffice it to say that Bob McDonnell told Bob Marshall what to do with “his”constitution!!!…and may Bob Marshall find us some road money in 2011!!!
Mike, I can see that since Marshall is someone you know and claim is a friend of yours, you are apt to defend him as you agree with his view. However, riddle me this…
Why is it when someone believes in Christian tolerance of someone’s sexual habits, that are really between them and God, someone fires back with a comment like yours that states “Your greatest nightmare, however “phobic”, would appear that [Marshall] reads the Bible every night before retiring for bed.” You know, if Christianity was so easy to conform to one view, we wouldn’t have so many different denominations of the same religion, now would we? So we should accept Bob Marshall’s view on what is right and wrong in the world, because he is so adequately versed as he rivals the Pope in lack of fallibility?
There are many things about Bob Marshall that I like, including both the abuser fee and Obamacare actions he took. However, his stance on gays in general is where he and I diverge. Though I am not a Bob Marshall Christian, I believe that God smiles upon me no less for my beliefs.
Phil…God said love the sinner, but nonetheless hate the sin.
Ken…you are putting a lot of stock, for some reason, in what McDonnell thinks. Good luck with that … you may need it.
I, on the other hand, think for myself. I support Marshall because he has the common sense and good judgement to agree with me.
Keep talking guys. I appreciate your continuing to bear out my arguments.
This will be my last response to this nonsense. So Merry Christmas back attcha!!
And Merry Christmas to you again Mike…..my new Pastor, btw, has the universal message that we must respect others’ views when they believe they are doing the Lord’s work. And while you and Bob evidently think you fit in there somewhere even though God created gay people, I wll save my challenges for another day. And Phil, excellent comment on a very complicated subject. I pray for more tolerance in the New Year…..
Mr. Riley, two of my messages from this afternoon never got on here……if they are in the queue, then please publish. If not, well Merry Christmas and thanks for making all this come together!!!
I’ll go looking for them, Ken.
“universal message that we must respect others’ views when they believe they are doing the Lord’s work. ”
Someone needs to read the entire Bible, and stop cherry-picking the parts that they “want” to apply. May I suggest Leviticus?
“And while you and Bob evidently think you fit in there somewhere even though God created gay people”
Again with the bastardization of God’s word by your own petty interpretations. God did not create homosexuals, dude. Go back to Leviticus, again.
The choice is ours….either to bend to our desires…or to fight the desire and conform to God’s image for us. Not attempt to validate it by side-stepping and putting the weight back on God.
Bulletproof Monk, since you’re since a big fan of Leviticus, I trust you don’t eat pork or other unclean animals, right?
Do you think that blasphemers should be stoned to death?
Or are you cherry-picking what portions of Leviticus you agree with?
Here is the Gospel According to Dude Ken: “Yes, God created all people; Satan did not create those with a pre-ordained by-some way of life that differs from others. For example, God created Bulletproof Monk” This is the Gospel of the Lord……you may now sit down Dude Monk!!