Militia “Legally” Defined

The following definitions for “militia” are taken from Ballantine’s Law Dictionary (3rd edition), Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (6th edition), Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd edition), and Webster’s Dictionary (1828):




A body of armed citizens trained to military duty, who may be called out in certain cases, but may not be kept in service, like standing armies, in time of peace [36 Am J1st Mil § 42; see active militia; National Guard; state militia].



  1. The military force of the nation, consisting of citizens called forth to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasion.

  2. The Constitution of the United States provides on this subject as follows: Art. 1, s. 8, 14. Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.

  3. 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.

  4. Under the clauses of the Constitution, the following points have been decided: If congress had chosen, they might by law, have considered a militia man, called into the service of the United States, as being, from the time of such call, constructively in that service, though not actually so, although he should not appear at the place of rendezvous. But they have not so considered him, in the acts of Congress, till after his appearance at the place of rendezvous; previous to that, a fine was to be paid for the delinquency in not obeying the call, which fine as deemed as equivalent for his services, and an atonement for disobedience.

  5. The militia belong to the states respectively, and are subject, both in their civil and military capacities, to the jurisdiction and laws of the state, except so far as these laws are controlled by acts of Congress, constitutionally made.

  6. It is presumable the Framers of the Constitution contemplated a full exercise of all the powers of organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia; nevertheless, if Congress had declined to exercise them, it was competent to the state governments respectively to do it. But Congress has executed these powers as fully as was thought right, and covered the whole ground of their legislation by different laws, notwithstanding important provisions may have been omitted, or those enacted might be beneficially altered or enlarged.

  7. After this, the states cannot enact or enforce laws on the same subject. For although their laws may not be directly repugnant to those of Congress, yet Congress, having exercised their will upon the subject, the states cannot legislate upon it. If the law of the latter be the same, it is inoperative; if they differ, they must in the nature of things, oppose each other, so far as they differ.

  8. Thus if an act of Congress imposes a fine, and a state law fine and imprisonment for the same offence, though the latter is not repugnant, inasmuch as it agrees with the act of the Congress, os far as the latter goes, and add another punishment, yet the wills of the two legislating powers in relation to the subject are different, and cannot subsist harmoniously together.

  9. The same legislating power may impose cumulative punishments; but not different legislating powers.

  10. Therefore, where the state governments have, by the Constitution, a concurrent power with the national government, the former cannot legislate on any subject on which Congress has acted, although the two laws are not in terms contradictory and repugnant to teach other.

  11. Where Congress prescribed the punishment to be inflicted on a militia man, detached and called forth, but refusing to march, and also provided that courts martial for the trial of such delinquents, to be composed of militia officers only, should be held and conducted in the manner pointed out by the rules and articles of war, and a state had passed a law enacting the penalties on such delinquents which the act of Congress prescribed, and directing lists of the delinquents to be furnished to the comptroller of the United States and marshal, that further proceeding might take place according to the act of Congress, and providing for their trial by state courts martial, such state courts martial have jurisdiction. Congress might have vested exclusive jurisdiction in courts martial to be held according to their laws, but not having doen so expressly, their jurisdiction is not exclusive.

  12. Although Congress have exercised the whole power of calling out the militia, yet they are not national militia, till employed in actual service; and they are not employed in actual service, till they arrive at the place of rendezvous [5 Wheat. 1; Vide 1 Kent’s Com. 262; 3 Story, Const. 1194 to 1210].

  13. The acts of the national legislature which regulate the militia are the following, namely: Act of May 8, 1792; 1 Story, L. U. S. 252; Act of February 28, 1795, 1 Story, L. U. S. 390; Act of March 2, 1803, 2 Story, L. U. S. 888; Act of April 10 1806, Story, L. U. S. 1005; Act of April 20, 1816; 3 Story, L. U. S. 1573; Act of May 12 1820, 3 Story, L. U. S. 1786 Act of March 2, 1821, 3 Story; L. U. S. 1811.



The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies, as distinguished from regular troops or a standing army [see Ex parte McCants, 39 Ala. 112; Worth v. Craven County, 118 N. C. 112, 24 S. E. 778; Brown v. Newark, 29 N. J. Law, 238].



MIL’TIA, noun [Latin from miles, a soldier; Gr. war, to fight, combat, contention. The primary sense of fighting is to strive, struggle, drive, or to strike, to beat; English. moil, Latin. molior; Hebrew. to labor or toil].

The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.

Quote of the Week – Statist “Peaceful” Parenting

“If you are a parent, carer, health professional or educator, I have designed this book to help you tune in to the emotional needs of children in your care, in order to support their developing emotional intelligence. However, I would also invite you to use this book to gain insights into the origins of your own unique emotional makeup, and thus illuminate your own path of healing and growth (Parts IV, V, and VI are particularly geared towards the latter purpose). It is my hope that this book will also be used as a resource for policy makers whose decisions chart the course of families’ lives and social destiny.

“I do have some concerns about how the information contained in this book and others like it might be used. There is a risk that the kind of knowledge we have gained about the links between child rearing and society will result in the politicising of children. The idea of manipulating children for the purpose of creating little ‘pacifists’ bothers me a great deal. Whenever we impose our own purpose on children, our plans tend to backfire…[s]o, the purpose of this book is not to list what we ‘should’ do for children. This book is my way of arguing that all of us are parents to society’s children, and that societies must, as a matter of top priority, support parents so that they can fulfill their nurturing potential.

“This book should not be thought of as child-rearing manual. While making some suggestions, this book does not tell parents how to be parents. It tells parents and health professionals what science and clinical experience have taught us about what babies and children need for optimal emotional development. Parents are free to adapt their own abilities and resourcefulness to meeting these needs to the best of their ability and based on the support available.”


– Robin Grille

Parenting for a Peaceful World

Invasion “Legally” Defined

The following definitions for “invasion” are taken from Ballantine’s Law Dictionary (3rd edition), Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (6th edition), Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd edition), and Webster’s Dictionary (1828):



An intrusion upon the property or rights of another. The entry of a hostile military force. The hostile entry of a public enemy [Aetna Ins. Co. v. Boon (US) 5 Otto 117, 24 L Ed 395].



  1. The entry of a country by a public enemy, making war.

  2. The Constitution of the United States, art. 1, s. 8, gives power to Congress “to provide for calling the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions” [vide INSURRECTION].


An encroachment upon the rights of another; the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder [Webster; see Aetna Ins. Co. v. Boon, 95 U. S. 129, 24 L. Ed. 395].



INVA’SION, n. s as z [L. invasio, from invado; see INVADE].

  1. A hostile entrance into the possessions of another; particularly, the entrance of a hostile army into a country for the purpose of conquest or plunder, or the attack of a military force. The north of England and south of Scotland were for centuries subject to invasion, each from the other. The invasion of England by William the Norman, was in 1066.
  2. An attack on the rights of another; infringement or violation.
  3. Attack of a disease; as the invasion of the plague, in Egypt.

Writ “Legally” Defined

The following definitions for “writ” are taken from Ballantine’s Law Dictionary (3rd edition), Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (6th edition), Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd edition), and Webster’s Dictionary (1828):




A process [42 Am J1st Proc § 2]. A process authorizing or commanding the arrest of a person or the seizure of property, sometimes the seizure of property specifically described in the writ, at other times the seizure of any property of the defendant, not exempt from seizure, sufficient to satisfy the amount of a judgment against the defendant [Caples v State, 3 Okla Crim 72, 104 P 493]; see alias writ; prerogative writ; supervisory writ; teste.



WRIT, practice.

  1. A mandatory precept issued by the authority, and in the name of the sovereign or the state, for the purpose of compelling the defendant to do something therein mentioned.

  2. It is issued by the court or other competent jurisdiction, and is returnable to the same. It is to be under seal and tested by the proper officer, and is directed to the sheriff, or other officer lawfully authorized to execute the same. Writs are divided into:

      1. Original.

      2. Of mesne process.

      3. Of execution

  3. There are several kinds of writs [Vide 3 Bl. Com. 273; 1 Tidd, Pr. 93; Gould on Pl. c. 2, s. 1].



A precept in writing, couched in the form of a letter, running in the name of the king, president, or state, issuing from a court of justice, and sealed with its seal, addressed to a sheriff or other officer of the law, or directly to the person whose action the court desires to command, either as the commencement of a suit or other proceeding or as incidental to its progress, and requiring the performance of a specified act, or giving authority and commission to have it done.

For the names and description of various particular writs, see the following titles.

In old English law, an instrument in the form of a letter; a letter or letters of attorney. This is a very ancient sense of the word.

In the old books, “writ” is used as equivalent to “action;” hence writs are sometimes divided into real, personal, and mixed.

In Scotch law, a writing; an instrument in writing, as a deed, bond, contract, etc. [2 Forb. Inst. pt.2 pp. 175 – 179].

  • Alias writ: a second writ issued in the same cause, where a former writ of the same kind has been issued without effect.

  • Close writ: in English law, a name given to certain letters of the sovereign, sealed with his great seal and directed to particular persons and for particular purposes, which, not being proper for public inspection, were closed up and sealed on the outside; also, a writ directed to the sheriff instead of to the lord [2 Bl. Comm. 346, 3 Reave, Eng. Law, 45].

  • Concurrent writs: duplicate originals, or several writs running at the same time for the same purpose, for service on or arrest of a person, when it is not known where he is to be found; or for service on several persons, as when there are several defendants to an action [Mozley & Whitely].

  • Judicial writs: in English practice, such writs as issue under the private seal of the courts, and not under the great seal of England, and are tested or witnessed, not in the king’s name, but in the name of the chief judge of the court out of which they issue. The word “judicial” is used in contradistinction to “original;” original writs being such an issue out of chancery under the great seal, and are witnessed in the king’s name [see 3 Bl. Comm. 282. Pullman’s Palace-Car Co. v. Washburn (C. C.), 66 Fed. 792].

  • Junior writ: one which is issued, or comes to the officer’s hands, at a later time than a similar writ, at the suit of another party, or on a different claim, against the same defendant.

  • Original writ: in English practice, an original writ was the process formerly used in use for the commencement of personal actions. It was a mandatory letter from the king, issuing out of chancery, sealed with the great seal, and directed to the sheriff of the county wherein the injury was committed, or was supposed to have been committed, requiring him to command the wrong-doer or accused party either to do justice to the plaintiff or else to appear in court and answer the accusation against him. This writ is now disused, the writ of summons being the process prescribed the uniformity of process act for commencing personal actions; and under the judicature act, 1873, all suits, even in the court of chancery, are to be commenced by such writs of summons [Brown].

  • Patent writ: in old practice, an open writ; one not closed or sealed up.

  • Peremptory writ: an original writ, called from the words of the writ “si te feccrit securum,” and which directed the sheriff to cause the defendant to appear in court without any option given him, provided the plaintiff gave the sheriff security effectually to prosecute his claim. The writ was very occasionally in use and only where nothing was specifically demanded, but only a satisfaction in general; as in the case of writs of trespass on the case, wherein no debt or other specific thing was sued for, but only damages to be assessed by a jury [Brown].

  • Prerogative writ: those issued by the exercise of the extraordinary power of the crown (the court, in modern practice) on proper cause shown; namely, the writs of procedendo, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, habeas corpus, and certiorari.



WRIT, n. [from the word “write”].

  1. That which is written. In this sense, writ is particularly applied to the Scriptures, or books of the Old Testament and New Testament; as holy writ; sacred writ.

  2. In law, precept issued from the proper authority to the sheriff, his deputy or other subordinate officer, commanding him to perform some act, as to summon a defendant into court to answer, and the like.

  • In England, writs are issued from some court under seal. In some of the United States, writs are issued by any single judge or justice of the peace, in the same and by the authority of the senate.

  • In some of the United States, the writ in a civil suit, contains both the summons and the plaintiffs declaration or cause of acton set forth at large, and a writ is either a summons or an attachment.

  • Writs are original or judicial. An original writ, in England, is issued from the high court of chancery. A judicial writ is issued by order of a court upon a special occasion, during the pendency of the suit.

  • Writs are of various kinds; as writs of assize; writs of capias; writs of distringas, etc.

  1. A legal instrument.

WRIT [pret. of write,, is not now used; see Write and Wrote].


The evolution of human liberty necessarily demands a greater understanding and appreciation for Nature. Alongside this fact are the technological developments that have dramatically improved the overall quality of life for millions of people. Once individuals embrace cogent reasoning and the scientific method as indispensable tools in their own lives, then perhaps one day humanity will free itself from the bondage of failed ideas, especially statism.



As an fascinating and easily readable history of physics, the author’s book explains the discoveries of scientists like Georg Riemann, Charles Hinton, Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, James Maxwell, Edward Witten, Srinivasa Ramanujan, and many others. From the Yang-Mills Standard Model to quantum cosmology, the discipline of theoretical physics offers us a unique look into how the universe may (or should) work. Möbius strips, tesseracts, and orbifolds are just a few of the absolutely fascinating concepts presented in this enjoyable book.

Kaku explores what are popularly considered as science fiction topics in the light of contemporary theoretical physics. Black holes, parallel universes, multiple dimensions, and time travel are all addressed in clear, understandable language. Worm holes are mentioned as the basis for faster-than-light travel (or warp drive), since the idea here is not to move the ship through space, but instead, to move space around the ship; if this could ever be successfully demonstrated, then ambitious endeavors like space colonization start becoming quite feasible.

Nature, and mankind’s place within it, is worth the hassle of exploring, for without curiosity, humanity becomes little more than a collection of intelligent bipedal savages. The cosmological, teleological, and ontological proofs of God are uniquely intriguing because they thankfully do not rely on revealed religion (such as the Bible) in order to be either verified or debunked. After briefly detailing each of these proofs, Kaku attempts to debunk them:


“The flaw in the cosmological proof, for example, is that the conservation of mass and energy is sufficient to explain motion without appealing to a First Mover. For example, gas molecules may bounce against the walls of a container without requiring anyone or anything to get them moving. In principle, these molecules can move forever, requiring no beginning or end. Thus there is no necessity for a First or Last Mover as long as mass and energy are conserved.

“For the teleological proof, the theory of evolution shows that it is possible to create higher and more complex life forms from more primitive ones through natural selection and chance. Ultimately, we can trace the origin of life itself back to the spontaneous formation of protein molecules in the early earth’s oceans without appealing to a higher intelligence. Studies performed by Stanley L. Miller in 1955 have shown that sparks sent through a flask containing methane, ammonia, and other gases found in the early earth’s atmosphere can spontaneously create complex hydrocarbon molecules and eventually amino acids (precursors to protein molecules) and other organic molecules. Thus a First Designer is not necessary to create the essentials for life, which can apparently emerge naturally out of inorganic chemicals if they are given enough time.

“And, finally, Immanuel Kant was the first to isolate the error in the ontological proof after centuries of confusion. Kant pointed out that stating that an object exists does not make it more perfect. For example, this proof can be used to prove the existence of the unicorn. If we define the unicorn to be the most perfect horse imaginable, and if unicorns don’t exist, then it’s possible to imagine a unicorn does not exist. But saying that it exists does not mean that it is more perfect than a unicorn that does not exist. Therefore, unicorns do not necessarily have to exist. And neither does God.”


It seems to me as if Kaku is assuming that the cosmological, teleological, and ontological proofs of God are all based on the God-of-the-gaps perspective, and as such, these proofs are not scientifically valid pieces of evidence for the existence of an incorporeal super-intelligence. Despite what seems to be an attempt at disproving deism, Kaku, unlike Richard Dawkins, is very linguistically kind when referring to notions of God, all the while retaining his ability to engage in freethinking.

Developing societies usually have more complex energy needs that do simple tribes of humans. Kaku distinguishes between these types of civilizations:


“A Type I civilization is one that controls the energy resources of an entire planet. This civilization can control the weather, mine deep in the earth’s crust, and harvest the oceans. This civilization has already completed the exploration of its solar system.

“A Type II civilization is one that controls the power of the sun itself. This does not mean passively harnessing solar energy; this civilization mines the sun. The energy needs of this civilization are so large that it directly consumes the power of the sun to drive its machines. This civilization will begin the colonization of local star systems.

“A Type III civilization is one that controls the power of an entire galaxy. For a power source, it harnesses the power of billions of star systems. It has probably mastered Einstein’s equations and can manipulate space-time at will.”


This is rather interesting, for it shows how humanity can grow if only it has the freedom to do so, without arbitrary or despotic limits upon individuals. But what about us in the here and now? Kaku explains:


“Our civilization, by contrast, can be categorized as a Type 0 civilization, one that is just beginning to tap planetary resources, but does not have the technology and resources to control them. A Type 0 civilization like ours derives its energy from fossil fuels like oil and coal and, in much of the Third World, from raw human labor. Our largest computers cannot even predict the weather, let alone control it. Viewed from this larger perspective, we as a civilization are like a newborn infant.”


Gee, whiz…this would also mean that a Type 0 civilization is an improvement over our hunter-gatherer ancestors (unless they would count as Type 0 as well, in which case we’d be not that much different from them).

What is rather depressing about this book is Kaku’s claim that not only will our Sun extinguish in approximately 5 million years, but that the universe itself will experience entropy death after a googol years (10100); however, it may be possible for a Type III civilization to avoid this by escaping into the 4th dimension. In the meantime, however, what is hopeful to me is the potential for settling the final frontier. Apparently, since the publication of Kaku’s book in 1994, there have been fantastic developments towards realistic space travel, such as the White-Juday warp-field interferometer based on the Alcubierre warp drive. It’s just too bad Kaku didn’t mention anything about terraforming or O’Neill cylinders, which I think are two key developments in the effort to colonize outer space.

Dr. Michio Kaku’s Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey Through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the 10th Dimension is a wonderful look into what is scientifically possible, and really brings me hope that humanity can become better than what it currently has become. Since Kaku’s speciality lies in superstring theory, it makes sense why he constantly discusses both the general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. Interestingly, it also turns out that Kaku was a Vietnam veteran. As he says:


“Infantry training, I discovered, is rigorous; it is designed to toughen the spirit and dull the intellect. Independence of thought is ground out of you. After all, the military does not necessarily want some wit who will question the sergeant’s orders in the middle of a firefight. Understanding this, I decided to bring along some physics papers. I needed something to keep my mind active while peeling potatoes in KP or firing machine guns, so I brought along a copy of the KSV [Kikkawa-Sakita-Virasoro] paper.

“During night infantry training, I had to go past an obstacle course, which meant dodging live machine-gun bullets, froglegging under barbed wire, and crawling through thick brown mud. Because the automatic fire had tracers on them, I could see the beautiful crimson streaks made by thousands of machine-gun bullets sailing a few feet over my head. However, my thoughts kept drifting back to the KSV paper and how their program could be carried out.”


He went on to lament about how many scientists were prematurely snuffed out because of government war, as well reflecting about how his machine gun training forced him to manipulate large blocks of equations mentally (which he later considered to be a blessing in disguise). Overall, this is a truly wonderful book, and can show what could be possible following the restoration of constitutional government.

Quote of the Week – Memes Defined

“The new [primordial] soup is the soup of human culture. We need a name for the new [gene] replicator, a noun that conveys the idea of a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation. ‘Mimeme’ comes from a suitable Greek root, but I want a monosyllable that sounds a bit like ‘gene.’ I hope my classicist friends will forgive me if I abbreviate mimeme to meme. If it is any consolation, it could be alternatively be thought of as being related to ‘memory’, or to the French word méme. It should be pronounced to rhyme with ‘cream.’

“Examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperm or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation. If a scientist hears, or reads about, a good idea, he passes it on to his colleagues and students. He mentions it in his articles and his lectures. If the idea catches on, it be said to propagate itself, spreading from brain to brain. As my colleague N. K. Humphrey neatly summed up an earlier draft of this chapter: ‘…memes should be regarded as living structures, not just metaphorically but technically. When you plant a fertile meme in my mind you literally parasitize my brain, turning it into a vehicle for the meme’s propagation in just the way that a virus may parasitize the genetic mechanism of a host cell. And this isn’t just a way of talking – the meme for, say, “belief in life after death” is actually realized physically, millions of times over, as a structure in the nervous system of individual men the world over.’

“Consider the idea of God. We do not know how it arose in the meme pool. Probably it originated many times by independent ‘mutation.’ In any case, it is very old indeed. How does it replicate itself? By the spoken and written word, aided by great music and great art. Why does it have such high survival value? Remember that ‘survival value’ here does not mean value for a gene in a gene pool, but value for a meme in a meme pool. The question really means: What is it about the idea of a god that gives it its stability and penetrance in the cultural environment? The survival value of the god meme in the meme pool results from its great psychological appeal. It provides a superficially plausible answer to deep and troubling questions about existence. It suggests that injustices in this world may be rectified in the next. The ‘everlasting arms’ hold out a cushion against our own inadequacies which, like a doctor’s placebo, is none the less effective for being imaginary. These are some of the reasons why the idea of God is copied so readily by successive generations of individual brains. God exists, if only in the form of a meme with high survival value, or infective power, in the environment provided by human culture.”

Richard Dawkins

The Selfish Gene

Registration “Legally” Defined

The following definitions for “registration” are taken from Ballantine’s Law Dictionary (3rd edition), Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd edition), and Webster’s Dictionary (1828):




The act of registering. The act of a guest at a hotel in signing his name and giving his address upon engaging accommodations [Anno: 19 ALR 533, s. 53 ALR 988; 29 Am J Rev ed Innk § 17].



Recording; inserting in an official registration; the act of making a list, catalogue, schedule, or register, particularly of an official character, or of making entries therein [In re Supervisors of Election (C.C.) 1 Fed 1].

  • Registration of stock: In the practice of corporations this consists in recording in the official books of the company the name and address of the holder of each certificate of stock with the date of its issue, and, in the case of a transfer of stock, from one holder to another, the names of both parties and such other details as will identify the transaction and preserve a memorial or official record of its essential facts [see Fisher v. Jones, 82 Ala. 117, 3 South. 13].




The act of inserting in a register.