Active Entries
- 1: Surge Pricing for Grocery Stores is a Disaster Only Psychopath MBAs Could Love
- 2: Antarctica Day 7: Swimming In the Antaractic Seas
- 3: Restarted my yoga classes, and I discovered I'm a total wreck
- 4: Antarctica: Getting To the Boat and the Disaster That Awaited
- 5: The Enshittification of All That Lives
- 6: How the green energy discourse resembles queer theory
- 7: Tori's Sake & Grill (restaurant, review)
- 8: I'm Not Always Sure I Trust My ADHD Diagonosis
- 9: You can't call it "Moral Injury" when your "morals" are monstrous
- 10: Ebay vs Newmark: You're all just cogs. Accept it. There is no joy in it, but you have no choice.
Style Credit
- Base style: ColorSide by
- Theme: NNWM 2010 Fresh by
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
no subject
Date: 2010-03-24 06:18 pm (UTC)According to "Jos. Gales, Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the US (1834)", Congress seriously debated the legality of the militia acts requiring that persons pay for their arms themselves. They proposed, but did not pass, an amendment that would have had the government pay for the arms instead.
The matter appears to have been re-raised several times over the next 70 years and was finally changed in 1903.
So I'd say that it was far from clear that what Washington did was legal.