My parents had an antique mantle clock, wound with a spring, and kept under a glass dome to protect it from dust and air currents. It worked very well, and on the base of the clock, it said "REGULATED".
I've always known that the word "regulated" meant "properly functioning".
It does follow that the purpose of the commerce clause was to manage and regulate the commerce between the states that was incorporated within the Constitution, not random stuff that the Constitution does not address. CF the 9th and 10th amendments reserving those things not addressed by the Constitution to the People or the States.
At the time the Constitution was written, there were, broadly speaking, two types of forces. The regulars and the militia. The regulars, being professionals, were generally well trained. Militia, being at best part timers, were generally not so well trained. Thus, a “well regulated militia”, is a force that may not be quite as well trained as regulars, but are trained enough to a competent, capable force. I.e., like the regulars.
I think you are impressing a modern vision of the military onto the 18th century, and not really appropriately. You get the basics, but lose the vision of what the militia in English and American culture actually are.
Eric, you are incorrect. I gather from your comment that you are unaware of the general organization of 18th and 19th century forces. AGAIN, broadly speaking, they consisted of REGULAR forces and militia.
Washington’s Continental Army consisted of both regulars and of militia. It took a few years to create a reasonably competent regular force, but Von Steuban and his Blue Book did succeed. Certainly the British had regular forces. Indeed, they also had professional mercenaries.
Though a bit later (1814), Gen Riall’s alleged comment at the Battle of Chippawa speaks pretty clearly to the existence and importance of regular forces.
In 1789, when the Constitution was enacted, the men who drafted it, though wary of standing armies, were all well aware of the necessity to maintain some level of regular forces.
You said I was “impressing a modern vision of the military onto the 18th century…etc”. I was not.
I understand the mythology of militia forces… the Minuteman etc… that has become part of the American ethos, but its mostly just that, a myth. When and where we fought battles with purely elements of militia, things usually came out pretty poorly.
The Continental Army began as a hodge podge of undisciplined and generally ineffective militia, but it built a core of regulars, without which, the revolutionary war would likely have been lost.
The drafters of the Constitution were well aware of that. They realized that the militia must be “well regulated”. Meaning the militia, in order to provide any possibility of victory, must have a measure of skill and discipline similar to that of regular forces. Hence the use of the term “well regulated” to stipulate a need for a reasonably well trained militia.
My parents had an antique mantle clock, wound with a spring, and kept under a glass dome to protect it from dust and air currents. It worked very well, and on the base of the clock, it said "REGULATED".
I've always known that the word "regulated" meant "properly functioning".
it’s only in very recent modern culture that regulated has come to mean applying government rules to the function of people, processes, and things.
It follows that this meaning was mirrored in the commerce clause, to regulate commerce among the several States, not mandate shower heads.
It does follow that the purpose of the commerce clause was to manage and regulate the commerce between the states that was incorporated within the Constitution, not random stuff that the Constitution does not address. CF the 9th and 10th amendments reserving those things not addressed by the Constitution to the People or the States.
At the time the Constitution was written, there were, broadly speaking, two types of forces. The regulars and the militia. The regulars, being professionals, were generally well trained. Militia, being at best part timers, were generally not so well trained. Thus, a “well regulated militia”, is a force that may not be quite as well trained as regulars, but are trained enough to a competent, capable force. I.e., like the regulars.
I think you are impressing a modern vision of the military onto the 18th century, and not really appropriately. You get the basics, but lose the vision of what the militia in English and American culture actually are.
Eric, you are incorrect. I gather from your comment that you are unaware of the general organization of 18th and 19th century forces. AGAIN, broadly speaking, they consisted of REGULAR forces and militia.
Washington’s Continental Army consisted of both regulars and of militia. It took a few years to create a reasonably competent regular force, but Von Steuban and his Blue Book did succeed. Certainly the British had regular forces. Indeed, they also had professional mercenaries.
Though a bit later (1814), Gen Riall’s alleged comment at the Battle of Chippawa speaks pretty clearly to the existence and importance of regular forces.
In 1789, when the Constitution was enacted, the men who drafted it, though wary of standing armies, were all well aware of the necessity to maintain some level of regular forces.
I have to be honest, I have no idea what argument you are making nor what you think I am incorrect about.
You said I was “impressing a modern vision of the military onto the 18th century…etc”. I was not.
I understand the mythology of militia forces… the Minuteman etc… that has become part of the American ethos, but its mostly just that, a myth. When and where we fought battles with purely elements of militia, things usually came out pretty poorly.
The Continental Army began as a hodge podge of undisciplined and generally ineffective militia, but it built a core of regulars, without which, the revolutionary war would likely have been lost.
The drafters of the Constitution were well aware of that. They realized that the militia must be “well regulated”. Meaning the militia, in order to provide any possibility of victory, must have a measure of skill and discipline similar to that of regular forces. Hence the use of the term “well regulated” to stipulate a need for a reasonably well trained militia.