M.O.W.C.A.

There is a reason why we are losing our liberty in this nation: The willful ignorance of its people.

I would like to say it is confined to the Left and the youth, but I cannot honestly so state. Rather, I find that ignorance also on the Right at every age, social status, and profession. A prime example of this is the deliberate ignoring of history and the lessons of history. It is so very bad it is sickening.

Take the case of so-called “fourth generation” warfare, which is nothing more than guerrilla warfare adapted to modern technology. Now, how can I say that? How about reading numerous volumes specifically written about guerrilla warfare and its history, along with every article I can find — which covers the last 27 years of my life. I have been reading and studying military affairs (weapons, weapons systems, tactics, strategy and history) since about 8 or 9 years old (I am older than 45, so its been a while that I have been doing this). I have decided preference for guerrilla warfare, as difficult as it is to prosecute. So-called “fourth generation” warfare is guerrilla warfare, nothing more. However, leave it to the U.S. military to justify itself and call it something new so they can cover up failing to be prepared for guerrilla warfare.

As a lesson of history, you do not have to be a soldier to recognize what guerrilla warfare is, and is not. All you have to do is be willing to read and heed — something Americans don’t seem to do very well (if at all) these days.

Now, why am I not pleased, and why is this called “Pearls Before Swine . . .”?

Because I finally received a response to the previous post “Incongruence” that was nothing short of willful ignorance. There is no excuse for any American citizen to be ignorant of the foundations of this nation’s form of government. The books and documents are simply far too easy to access and (horror of horrors) READ!

To quote the response from Paladin:

“Thanks for trying but I still stand by my original position that from the beginning the founders intended and the States understood they were bound by the restrictions outlined in the Constitution and BoRs.
“The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States” and “This Constitution, and …, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding” and “… the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; …”
Like you said, you don’t have to be a lawyer to understand the plain language of the Constitution.  I will not argue that corrupt courts/judges and legislatures both nationally and in most of the States have perverted and twisted the interpretations of this hallowed document.  I personally think they should be hung for violating both their duty as specified in the Constitution and their oaths to “support, uphold and defend’ the Constitution “as the supreme law of the land.”
I have no confidence or trust in any level or branch of government.  I’m not normally an anarchist but I’d prefer anarchy over what we have today at the federal, state and local levels.
We need to clean house and start over with freedom loving Americans from the heartland who will faithfully uphold, support and defend the U.S. Constitution and actually honor their Oaths of Office!”

“Thanks for trying . . .”? Perhaps then I shouldn’t have since Paladin’s mind was already made up, and any explanation of the foundations and principles of our Constitution was wasted effort. I am reminded of a discussion I had with Wayne Fincher several years ago concerning returning the government of this country back to its proper constitutional role. Wayne couldn’t seem to get the fact that modern Americans, by and large, do not exercise the same self-control and self-governance as the Americans of the 1700s. The Americans of those days were not ignorant country louts that just wanted to be free. Rather, they were well studied in the Classics, most knew history very well, with virtually all the Founders knowing at least one foreign language. Being largely home-schooled and believing the Bible did not make them ignorant, unlearned, or lacking understanding in any way. Rather, it provided a far better education and “rounding” of the individual than the government schools of modern America.

“So Wayne, what would happen if we won the country back tomorrow? Just suppose we did and removed all those laws and government agencies that infringe on our liberties, but are in place to control individuals who will not control themselves, just what do you think will happen?”

After all, during one radio show, we had a caller who complained that DHS had taken some children out of a home, and as the militia, what would we do about it? Now, I despise DHS, having had a couple of run-ins with them. But in questioning the caller, it turned out that both parents in the home would not control themselves and would not take care of their children. Both parents were involved in drug use.

You know, when you abdicate your personal responsibilities, expect someone else to take them over — and then run your life for you. In this case (as so often is) the government took over the personal responsibilities of the parents.

Somebody has to take care of the children, because children cannot take care of themselves. I responded to the caller, and told them that very thing. Need I say they were not happy? If you abdicate your personal responsibilities (which MANY Americans have), expect to lose them — expect the government to step in at every opportunity and seize more responsibility. If you cede your responsibilities to the government — you are the fool. Kindly do not complain when the government does something with your life you do not like.

As for Paladin’s preference for anarchy to our current situation — it is a preference that is telling of the ignorance.

I think Paladin, you have misunderstood some very fundamental things. First, you have never lived in a state of anarchy (unless you hail from certain parts of Africa). Neither could have you read much history of what happens when there is no law, no government. If you did, you certainly did not retain any lessons from such reading. Perhaps you should read John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government and also study what happened in the Scottish lowlands for 700 years. That area was contested ground and had virtually no government during that entire time. It was the very definition of anarchy — and life was utter misery. Only an absolute fool prefers anarchy over what we have today. What we have today is a FAR cry from life in Soviet Russia (or Red China, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc.). It is not even as bad as Russia is today. Perhaps Paladin, you ought to read more Solzhenitsyn . . .

Why should I go on . . .?

Why waste the effort?

From a comment left yesterday by “Paladin.”

“If the US Constitution was not intended to apply against the states, why do the States have to “ratify” it?  If they aren’t bound by it, what’s the purpose of ratification?

How do you explain that something designated as “the supreme law of the Land” is not a restriction on State governments.

What do the following excerpts from Article VI mean then?

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; ….”

Inquiring mind of freedom would like to know.”

I would be curious Paladin, to know where you obtain the language “to apply against the states.” That is strange construction to apply to the Federal Constitution. Nonetheless, an answer is in order since you either seek to discredit what I wrote or truly do not understand the legal principles that are the foundation of the constitutional system. In either case, understanding is lacking and that needs to be rectified.

Without citation, the following is a brief explanation as to what constitutions are, and how they are supposed to work.

Constitutions are formed out of the “social compact” theory of government. (Well, since it is in actual practice, it is really no longer theory.)

The social compact doctrine is built on the principles of covenant relationship, in which members of society covenant together to create an entity (the government) that is able to perform tasks that are impossible for the individuals themselves, in their single capacity, to perform. (Ref. John Locke, Second Treatise of Government)

However, there is a point in which physical boundaries, societal commonality, and other similar factors limit the effectiveness of individuals to covenant together. Hence, we find the rise of the state government.

The governments of the several states, themselves being created by the people and composed of individuals, yet acting as single entities, replicated the social compact doctrine on a larger scale to create a federal government that is defined by the covenant they (the several states) agreed to.

It is this agreeing to the covenant, or compact, which is the Federal Constitution, that is the process we call ratification. This ratification brings into existence a legal instrument that is binding upon the parties agreeing to the instrument, and upon the entity created by the instrument. However, how the states and the Federal government are bound is not the same.

There is a fundamental difference in how the creators of the instrument are bound, versus how the creation of that instrument is bound. We should note the instances in which the Founders referenced that powers were “delegated” to the Federal Government by the several States through the mechanism of the Federal Constitution.

It is not reasonable to assert that once power is delegated, it can also, at once and the same time, be retained by the one delegating the power. Hence, certain powers are given up by the several states and delegated to the Federal Government, so that the Federal Government may perform functions that are far to difficult for the several states individually to perform. If we use here the illustration of power of attorney, we can well understand the confusion that would reign by someone granting power of attorney to another, and then retaining that same power of attorney and acting upon it whensoever one felt compelled to do so. It certainly would not work if I grant another power of attorney to sell my automobile, and then, after power of attorney is granted, I turn around and attempt to sell my car myself. Of what use was that instrument of power of attorney in the first place? Why did I execute it, if I intended to undercut it at the first opportunity?

It is an absurdity to delegate powers, and then assert that you retain the powers you just agreed to delegate to another. Hence, the process of ratification is extremely important to the several states. After all, what powers and functions should they grant to another? What powers and functions are appropriate for a Federal  Government? What is too much power and what is too little power?

By the above discussion, we should be able to understand that the instrument that brought about the Federal Government (the U.S. Constitution) must contain some provisions that declare it superior to the laws of all parties agreeing thereto. After all, they agreed to give up certain powers and retain others, and the retained powers cannot conflict with the delegated powers. To insure there is no conflict, some instrument must be declared superior to others, else again confusion will reign, and all effort is wasted.

Here, we should note a significance: If a state chooses not to be party to the compact called the Federal Constitution, then that state is not bound by the few provisions in the Constitution that address what States may not do, but that state is also not granted protection under the Constitution either.

The long and short of it is that states must ratify the Federal Constitution else the covenant is not agreed to, and thus null and void. Moreover, in delegating certain powers, it is essential that all parties to that covenant agree to not exercise themselves in the powers delegated, and when laws are passed pursuant to the exercise of those delegated powers by the created entity (the Federal Government), that they are bound by those laws.

There is yet one additional aspect to consider before leaving off this brief discussion: the issue of continuance in being a party to sustaining that legal instrument designated the U.S. Constitution. It is a principle in law that when power of attorney is executed, the provisions set down in the document determine the duration of that power of attorney. Generally, powers of attorney are for the attaining of a set object, or for a set duration. Hence those powers of attorney cannot be arbitrarily revoked unless the one granted such power engages in misconduct to the point of rendering themselves unfit to retain the power of attorney before the object of the power of attorney is accomplished. However, when a power of attorney does not define a set object or duration, but is granted solely at the discretion of the grantor for purposes beneficial to the grantor, then the grantor of that power of attorney is free to revoke the power of attorney whenever it becomes a liability and not a benefit.

Hence, the several states are parties to the instrument designated the U.S. Constitution, for the creation of a federal government to accomplish ends beneficent to them both individually and collectively. However, since no power was delegated in the instrument to compel any party to maintain continuance as a party to that instrument, then whensoever that instrument becomes more a liability than a benefit to any party to the instrument, that party is free to withdraw from the instrument without penalty of law, since there is no law created whereby they may be compelled to maintain an interest in the instrument (the Constitution). However, in so doing, they also divest themselves of the benefits of that instrument at the moment they withdraw from the instrument.

It should be noted (as discussed previously) that no part or parcel of the Federal Government is free to go beyond the strict bounds of the instrument that created and governs it.

Thus we have the basic reasons set forth as to why the states must ratify the instrument which is the U.S. Constitution and why they are bound by certain limited provisions in the instrument — and, how the Federal Government is far more bound by the Constitution than any of the several states. The Federal Government is nowhere free to leave the bounds of the Constitution, being a creation of it. But the states are free to divest themselves of their interest in the instrument whensoever it becomes more a liability than a benefit.

Within the last day or so my attention has been drawn (or directed, if you will) to the Montana Shooting Sports Association’s website dedicated to the Firearms Freedom Act. Now, it is not to say I did not know about this, as I did. Rather, now that virtually all legal remedy for Wayne Fincher being exhausted with no satisfactory resolution for Wayne, there is little else to do but turn attention to the greater core issues at stake in virtually all Second Amendment cases. It is not that those issues were not touched on in Wayne’s case. They were. But then the Court’s hand was drawn back as if it touched a red hot stove. Even at the level of the Supreme Court, there was and is an allergy to really looking at the true intent of the Founders when it comes to firearms.

Perhaps the Firearms Freedom Act will change that. But I doubt it.

The reason I doubt it is because the courts have traditionally not employed the English language in a way that anyone else versed in English understands. The higher you go in the Federal courts, the worse the problem gets, and the more allergic they are to addressing the fundamentals of grammar and usage as applied to the Constitution and all laws promulgated subsequently.

They are particularly allergic to standard English grammar and usage when it comes to the Second and Tenth Amendments, much preferring to deal with arcane, largely irrelevant, side issue without addressing the fundamental error that has existed since (at least) the Civil War, and certainly since the National Firearms Act of 1934.

If we will remember, the National Firearms Act, all subsequent gun control acts and all court decisions upholding those acts, operate under the auspices of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which gives rise to an interesting question. But first, reading the dictionary is in order:

a·mend·ment  (-mndmnt)
n.
1. The act of changing for the better; improvement: “Society may sometimes show signs of repentance and amendment” (George G. Coulton).
2. A correction or alteration, as in a manuscript.
3.    a. The process of formally altering or adding to a document or record.
b. A statement of such an alteration or addition: The 19th Amendment to the Constitution gave women the right to vote.
4. A material, such as organic matter or sand, mixed into soil to improve growing conditions.¹

Hence, we are given to understand, that in English grammar and usage, an amendment always amends or changes the text it applies to. Thus, when the Founders added the first ten amendments to the Federal Constitution and made an explanatory statement:

PREAMBLE
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

They did so with the intent that all should know the ground and purpose of amending a brand new document. It was not that the document was defective. Neither was it that they wished to go beyond the scope of the document. Rather, the amendments were added to prevent misconstruction and abuse of power by those subject to the document i.e. the Federal Government.

Before continuing, we would do well to understand one fundamental fact:

The Federal Constitution is not applicable to the private citizen who does not fulfill any role in the Federal Government.

We should be able to perceive this by the fact that the Federal Constitution authorizes and creates offices, and defines their duties and subsequent powers for carrying out those duties. There is a brief section in the Constitution that insures that the several states do not usurp certain powers belonging to the Federal Government. In that regard, the Federal Constitution thus applies to the citizen who fulfills duties in a state government. However, it goes no further than this in applying to any citizen, or any other person for that matter.

So it is that the Federal Constitution is the law for the operation of a Federal Government, and is not applicable to individual citizens operating in a purely private capacity. The Federal Constitution applies to the President,  and officers of Executive branch, Senators and Congressmen, and officers of the Legislative branch, the judges of the Supreme Court and all officers of the Judicial branch, down to the janitor in the Federal magistrate court. It is applicable to the officers of the governments of the several states in an injunctive capacity only, but no further.

Hence, this document called the Federal Constitution, is a document that is not merely a guide, but law, and law for the operation of a government on the Federal level. Thus, to prevent misconstruction and abuse of power of that law by those whom the law applies to, the Founders amended that law with ten fundamental amendments designed to operate as a check and arresting mechanism. Moreover, those ten amendments do not specifically address certain sections of the Federal Constitution, but are general and broad, thus applying to the whole of the document. If we examine the whole of the Federal Constitution, and then examine the whole of the Bill of Rights we will find that no amendment applies to any specific portion of the Constitution. When this is the case, the accepted rule of interpretation and construction is broad, applying to the whole of the body of the document in question.

Perhaps then we should be moved to ask:

What is our rule for interpretation and construction of the document itself?

To answer that, it would be essential to look at the documents written in support of the Federal Constitution, and the arguments offered in favor of its ratification. From such documents we find a clear rule for determining how we should interpret this document and thus construct laws arising out of it. For our understanding, three examples of the understanding of the Founders are accurately representative of their views of, and intentions for the then new document.

James Madison, in the Federalist No. 45:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.  Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

Alexander Hamilton explained in the Federalist 84:

“I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.  For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?”

And from the Debates in North Carolina:

Mr. Iredell
With regard to a bill of rights, this is a notion originating in England, where no written constitution is to be found, and the authority of their government is derived from the most remote antiquity. The Magna Charta itself is no constitution, but a solemn instrument ascertaining certain rights of individuals, by the legislature for the time being; and every article of which the legislature may at any  time alter. This and a bill of rights also, the invention of later  times, were occasioned by great usurpations of the crown, contrary, as  was conceived, to the principles of their government, about which there was a variety of opinions. But neither that instrument, nor any other instrument, ever attempted to abridge the authority of Parliament, which is supposed to be without any limitations whatever. Had their constitution been fixed and certain, a bill of rights would have been useless, for the constitution would have shown plainly the  extent of that authority which they were disputing about. Of what use, therefore, can a bill of rights be in this Constitution, where the people expressly declare how much power they do give, and consequently retain all they do not? It is a declaration of particular powers by the Debates to their representatives, for particular purposes. It may be considered as a great power of attorney, under which no power can be exercised but what is expressly given. Did any man ever hear, before,  that at the end of a power of attorney it was said that the attorney should not exercise more power than was there given him? Suppose, for instance, a man had lands in the counties of Anson and Caswell, and he should give another a power of attorney to sell his lands in Anson, would the other have any authority to sell the lands in Caswell? — or could he, without absurdity, say, “’Tis true you have not expressly authorized me to sell the lands in Caswell; but as you had lands there, and did not say I should not, I thought I might as well sell those lands as the other.” A bill of rights, as I conceive, would the case, not only be incongruous, but dangerous. No man, let his ingenuity be what it will, could enumerate all the individual rights not relinquished by this Constitution. Suppose, therefore, an enumeration of a great many, but an omission of some, and that, long after all traces of our present disputes were at an end, any of the omitted rights should be invaded, and the invasion be complained of; what would be the plausible answer of the government to such a complaint? Would they not naturally say, “We live at a great distance from the time when this Constitution was established. We can judge of it much better by the ideas of it entertained at the time, than by any ideas of our own. The bill of rights, passed at that time, showed that the people did not think every power retained which was not given, else this bill of rights was not only useless, but absurd. But we are not at liberty to charge an absurdity upon our ancestors, who have given such strong proofs of their good sense, as well as their attachment to liberty. So long as the rights enumerated in the bill of rights remain unviolated, you have no reason to complain. This is not one of them.” Thus a bill of rights – might operate as a snare rather than a protection. If we had formed a general legislature, with undefined powers, a bill of rights would not only have been proper, but necessary; and it would have then operated as an exception to the legislative authority in such particulars. It has this effect in respect to some of the American constitutions, where the powers of the legislature are general. But where they are powers of a particular nature, and expressly defined, as in the case of the Constitution before us, I think, for reasons I have given, a bill of rights is not only unnecessary, but would be absurd and dangerous.²

We should note the consistency of thought in the citations pertaining to the ability of the Federal Government as created by the Federal Constitution, to exercise power and the extent of that exercise of power — that it is extremely limited, and limited by the text of the Constitution to those things which are expressly defined in the body of the document. To quote Mr. Iredell again:

It may be considered as a great power of attorney, under which no power can be exercised but what is expressly given. Did any man ever hear, before,  that at the end of a power of attorney it was said that the attorney should not exercise more power than was there given him? Suppose, for instance, a man had lands in the counties of Anson and Caswell, and he should give another a power of attorney to sell his lands in Anson, would the other have any authority to sell the lands in Caswell? — or could he, without absurdity, say, “’Tis true you have not expressly authorized me to sell the lands in Caswell; but as you had lands there, and did not say I should not, I thought I might as well sell those lands as the other.”³

In response to his argument, we find in ratifying the Bill of Rights, these two “catch-all” amendments:

AMENDMENT IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

AMENDMENT X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Could I, without contradiction, make mention of the absurdity of our present state of government? But I digress.

In returning to the previously cited definition of the word “amendment,” the stated intention of the first ten amendments to the Federal Constitution found in the preamble to the same, and the rule for interpretation of the Federal Constitution, let us place them together and consider whether the “Commerce Clause” of the Constitution has any power, or can have any power over arms, or can exercise regulation of the production, distribution, sale, ownership, possession, or bearing of the same.

The commerce clause, found in the body of the Constitution itself, is defined in the following manner:

Article I, section 8: The Congress shall have Power . . .
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

According to the aforementioned, the above clause, with respect to arms, is modified by the following:

AMENDMENT II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

AMENDMENT IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

AMENDMENT X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

According to the rules of interpretation and construction as defined by the Founders, and in accordance with their understanding, the following questions must be raised and contemplated:

1. Where in the commerce clause is it expressly stated that Congress may regulate the manufacture, distribution, sale, possession or bearing of arms within the borders of any of the several states?
2. Where is it expressly stated in the above clause that Congress may regulate in any fashion the manufacture, distribution, sale, possession or bearing of arms by an individual citizen for that citizen’s private purposes?
3. Where is it expressly stated in the commerce clause that Congress has the power to regulate any private citizen’s transport of personal arms from one state to another for private purposes and not for the purposes of commerce?

Knowing what is plainly and clearly delineated in the aforestated, can anyone, without absurdity, find for Congress or any other branch of the Federal government, the ability, the power to regulate arms as they have so done?

I think not.

Of course, if one is “willfully ignorant” what would we expect but absurdity?

How very convenient.

1. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. [↩]
2. The Origin of the Second Amendment, pp. 491-493, David E. Young, Golden Oak Books, 1991, citing Debates, IV, pp. 137-138, 140-141, 148-149. [↩]
3. Ibid [↩]