Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1746869879-scaled

The Second Amendment and soldiers in the street

Trump unsurprisingly got some things wrong when he invoked the right to bear arms in his speech threatening to send the military to quell protests around the country.

Analysis | Global Crises

President Trump, supported by Sen. Tom Cotton, has raised a major controversy by suggesting that active duty troops be used to impose order in the streets of American cities. The Trump administration made moves toward implementing that suggestion, including dispatching part of the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division to locations just outside Washington, DC.

The response in opposition by former senior military officers — with former defense secretary James Mattis’s statement being the most eloquent — has been heartfelt and appropriate.

As part of Trump’s guns-and-toughness posturing, the president has conflated the notion of Army troops confronting American citizens in American cities with another favorite part of that posturing, which is the “gun rights” issue invoking the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Trump made that conflation explicit in the Rose Garden speech that he delivered shortly before his attorney general ordered the use of stun grenades and tear gas to clear a path to Trump’s photo op at a church.

In the speech, Trump stated, “I am mobilizing all available federal resources — civilian and military — to stop the rioting and looting, to end the destruction and arson, and to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans, including your Second Amendment rights.”

Trump’s further rhetoric on this assortment of issues has been contradictory. He has shown no fondness for public order when egging on protestors who have resisted the authority of governors while threatening violence and brandishing assault rifles in state capitol buildings. Moreover, invoking the Second Amendment in the same breath as threatening to put active duty military into the streets involves another contradiction, as a matter of law and history.

The Second Amendment is about well-regulated militias. It says so right in the first line of the amendment itself (“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”). For over two centuries the courts did not regard it as limiting the power of states and localities to enact laws regulating individual ownership of firearms.

Then in 2008, lobbying spearheaded by the National Rifle Association finally got five Supreme Court justices in Heller v. District of Columbia to abandon any semblance of original intent and construe the Second Amendment as a basis for striking down gun control laws that have nothing to do with militias, let alone well-regulated ones.

When the Bill of Rights, of which the Second Amendment is a part, was written, militias were in good odor among Americans of all political persuasions. Militias, after all, deserved much of the credit for standing up to the British Redcoats during the American Revolution.

After independence, militias became an important part of two over-arching political issues. One was the issue of how much power the new federal government would have relative to the authority of the states. Enactment of the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, was a concession by the federalists to the anti-federalists who considered it vital to restrict the powers of the federal government and keep it out of the business of the states, including the business of preserving local order.

This subject was closely related to the second big and relevant issue, which was a general antipathy to standing armies. As much as militias were in good odor among Americans of that day, a full-time military under the control of a central government was in bad odor.  (After the almost complete demobilization of the Continental Army at the end of the Revolution, this attitude was reflected in U.S. policy until increased tensions in the 1790s, first with Britain and then with France, led to restoration of a small standing military.)

The strong pro-militia statement the Second Amendment makes was a statement against any federal army butting into the states’ business. The “right to bear arms” was made universal out of a fear that the federal government might butt into the states’ business not only through the deployment of a federal army but also by limiting the size of a state’s militia. Baron von Steuben, the Prussian officer who became George Washington’s inspector general during the Revolution, had suggested just such a limitation.

In short, the Second Amendment embodies opposition to the very use of federal troops that Donald Trump and Tom Cotton are talking about. The authors and early champions of the amendment would be appalled to hear it invoked by those arguing that a federal army should be used to corral and coerce American citizens in the streets of American cities.

Useful context is provided by the Third Amendment, which protects citizens against having to quarter soldiers in their homes. The Third Amendment, like the Second, is a statement against standing armies getting involved in the local lives of Americans.

Today no one is talking about restoring that kind of military housing arrangement, and the Third Amendment is perhaps the least-cited portion of the entire Constitution. But reading it — as well as that first line of the Second Amendment — would aid understanding of the underlying issues.


Military policemen form a line in front of White house. Many protesters gathered around in front of White House in Washington DC on 5/30/2020. (Photo: bgrocker / Shutterstock.com)
Analysis | Global Crises
Alex Karp
Top image credit: Alex Karp, the Hill & Valley Forum via screen grab/youtube.com/@TheHillandValleyForum

Tech bros go to Washington: Coders want in on the kill chain

Military Industrial Complex

Silicon Valley’s elite traded hoodies for Hill passes last week and planted their flag in Washington.

During a nearly 12-hour marathon Hill and Valley Forum in the Capitol Building, star-studded venture capitalists, defense technologists, and allied policymakers congratulated themselves on the promising start to the military application of artificial intelligence and autonomous weapons in the era of Trump 2.

keep readingShow less
Hezbollah
Top photo credit: Flags of Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon (Shutterstock/crop media)
Flags of Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon (Shutterstock/crop media)

Hezbollah to US: It's not in your interest to support Israeli attacks

Middle East

The Secretary-General of the Lebanese Hezbollah movement, Sheikh Naim Qassem, recently asserted that continued instability in Lebanon does not serve U.S. interests.

Qassem made the remarks following an Israeli airstrike on Beirut’s southern suburbs which Israel claimed had targeted a Hezbollah weapons depot.

keep readingShow less
ukraine military
UKRAINE MARCH 22, 2023: Ukrainian military practice assault tactics at the training ground before counteroffensive operation during Russo-Ukrainian War (Shutterstock/Dymtro Larin)
Ukraine War at 3: The victory we demanded and the attrition we got

Ukraine’s battlefield position is deteriorating fast

Europe

The election of U.S. President Donald Trump changed U.S. policy toward Ukraine from “as long as it takes” to seeking a negotiated peace settlement. These negotiations will be driven by the battlefield reality. The side holding the biggest advantage gets to dictate the terms. This gets more complicated if there is no ceasefire during the negotiations and the battlefield remains dynamic. Belligerents may conduct offensive operations while negotiations are progressing to improve their bargaining position. Historically in many conflicts, peace negotiations lasted years, even as the war raged on, such as during the Korean and Vietnam wars. Thus, the balance of power, measured in resources, losses and quality of strategic leadership are critical to the outcome of negotiations.

For Western powers, this carries serious consequences. They have staked their reputation on this conflict and with it, the fate of the rules-based world order. The Global South and the multipolar world order is waiting in the wings to take over. Failure to achieve victory has the potential to fatally undermine that order and remove the West from global leadership, which it has enjoyed for the last several centuries.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.