Florida’s Gov. Ron DeSantis to form “a well-regulated militia”
Someone at CNN has his britches all in a bunch. Chris Cillizza, the failing network’s editor-at-large, is upset at Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis for proposing that his state re-establish a civilian-military force.
“It’s a thumb in the eye of the federal government. Republican base voters hate the idea of all power emanating from Washington – especially when Democrats control all levers of power there.”
Columnist Jamelle Bouie at the New York Times expressed his befuddlement in a tweet,
“I can never figure out how much of this is serious and how much is DeSantis just trying to get a headline to use to trigger the libs.”
And DeSantis did just that. Triggered MSNBC analyst Fernand Amandi’s tweet described the move as…
“What wannabe totalitarian, fascist, authoritarian dictators do.”
DeSantis’s proposal isn’t all that unique. In fact, 22 US states already have such civilian militias, including “progressive” New York State.
It’s a variation on the American principle of separation of powers… but with sharp teeth,
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”
So wrote James Madison, the father of the US Constitution, in Federalist #46.
The gist of his argument is that militias provide our sovereign states a modicum of security against the unfriendly encroachments of an outside, centralized power. It was written as an encouragement for suspicious state legislatures to accept the establishment of a federal government by ratifying the US Constitution.
After all, Britain’s attempt to confiscate the arsenals of its quarrelsome American colonies was the last straw leading to the American Revolution.
“Stand your ground,” said militia Captain John Parker at Lexington Green in 1775, “don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have war, let it begin here.”
And never forget that the lofty principles outlined in Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence would have been nothing more than a curious footnote in the catalog of human history. That is, if not for the unnamed soul who fired, as Ralph Waldo Emmerson called it, “the shot heard ‘round the world.”
We saw a microcosmic display of this power in the recently concluded Kyle Rittenhouse saga.
A jury found it perfectly reasonable for young Rittenhouse to use deadly force against irrational, anarchic, and violent forces to preserve the most precious and tangible example of his liberty – his life.
And he did so with his rifle.
So, what’s at the bottom of the dyspeptic left’s kanipshin (Yiddish) fits? Primarily the notion that free people (individually or in the common cause) can legitimately use deadly force to preserve their freedom against outside, authoritarian forces.
Kyle Rittenhouse didn’t need Washington or corporate media’s permission to defend himself. And, for that matter, neither does Gov. Ron DeSantis in defense of the sovereign state of Florida.
About the Author:
Originally from Los Angeles, Steven M. Lopez has been in the news business for more than thirty years. He made his way around the country: Arizona, the Bay Area, and now resides in South Florida. Steven is a political staff writer for Communities Digital News and an incredibly talented artist, a cigar and bourbon aficionado.
Follow Steve on:
Follow CommDigiNews at