nice

I'll answer this post by saying that I don't disagree with anything you've said except perhaps your desire to make everything a constitutional issue. The constitution has been killed by civil war. The division of powers was destroyed when the president became a military dictator and stomped out those who thought that divison of powers was their right.

these days congress doesn't even read a full bill in session much less the full three constituionally required times ... that brings into question any laws passed under such regime. Let me simply end with a Jefferson quote that I think might fit here:

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

maybe ... it's time.

I realize that asking you to read all of Vieira's articles on NewsWithViews might be considered too big a request; so, I give you my sense of them or point to website(s) which give(s) an explanation.
If I recall correctly WVCY had Larry Pratt on as a guest shortly after I went off on Mat Staver on national radio (Not my most Vulcan moment!) for failing my expectations of his scholarship. Pratt referred to the context or the understanding back then. Likely he agrees with Vieira. I have not read Pratt's book on the Militia to be sure.
Why is a Militia needed? The Framers (as do I) held to the belief that Man is basically evil, not inherently good or neutral. So, the challenge is to come up with a form of government which will restrain that evil. Concentrated power often proves too much of a temptation; so, they sought to divide power and to have one concentration of power work against other concentrations of power. The Founding Fathers did not trust a Standing Military. I think that is the reason that an Army needed to be funded every two years. Also, I read that they were very reluctant to confer the title of admiral on anyone.
The Founding Fathers rested their expectation of keeping any sort of good government on the virtue of the People in general. If the People are to be the rulers then they must themselves have the Power of the Sword. The Militia is how that was done in the Original Thirteen Colonies/States.
See Clayton Cramer's website as well as the one I mention below.
Vieira looks at the context and states that the Founders assumed the permanence of the Militia. (I suspect that is why they did not spell it out better for us, their Dullard Posterity.) So, the Constitution itself proclaims that the Militia is necessary (or needed if you want a plainer word) without making it mace-in-the-face blunt that each State in the Union is required forever to maintain its own Militia (so long as the Constitution is not amended to remove that requirement).
Now that you have already put up with me too long would you rather read me or someone more scholarly? I could continue to try to put others' essays into my own words. The website ReclaimingTheConstitution gives some explanation. I shall be happy to point you to others and/or to keep explaining.

http://reclaimingtheconstitution.org/index.html

the thing wrong with the law is the men who write and enforce it. The only true law is that of God.

To play devil's advocate for a moment: "what is necessary is required" Why is a militia necessary? we have a standing military body sworn to protect the country.

I have read a fair number of Vieira's articles. His reasoning seems to be that what is necessary is required. Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel also said that States were not required by the Constitution to maintain a Militia. Someone is wrong. Juris Doctors are supposed to be right about the law.

there is no constitutional requirement. Each state has a right to implement, instruct, and utilize its own militia but there is NO REQUIREMENT.

I personally think that state militias are great but we are in the minority

He posted my check back to me September 3 if I have the date right. I did not find it in the mail. On the other hand I heard him say in a speech on Vimeo that his book would be coming out on Compact Disc. Too bad not enough folks ordered his book!

I realize that it is too late to try to help get it printed. I think that I should have posted that quotation with the original post. I added it belatedly. I sent a check which has not been returned. I take that to mean that the printing is on but not finished to his satisfaction yet. Getting the check back would have been bad news.
for reading my blog and for the comment.

Too late for anyone to prepay to try to get the reprint done as the deadline was almost 3 months ago. ;-)