M.O.W.C.A.

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 [↩]

Hungary . . .

October, 1956

Are we really any different from them? We have it, they didn’t. I think they valued it more than we do.

A salute to those who fought in the Hungarian Revolution of 1956

After all, they died for it.

“If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.” — Winston Churchill

. . . and what is our excuse now?

Mind you, I like winning just as much as the next guy. However, victory has its own pitfalls, especially when it comes in the midst of a larger battle and yet larger war. It is these pitfalls that are the problem. Now, not to be negative or just for sheer meanness sake do I state this. Neither do I want to deprive anyone of the sweetness of winning, especially since the battle was uphill all the way. BUT, there are some things to be very aware of, and they ought to temper any victory gained:

1. It is the tendency of man to think that Victory means an end of fighting and struggle. IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IN ANY SHAPE, FORM OR FASHION.

2. It is the tendency of man to believe that a defeated enemy is an enemy that will give up fighting for their cause.  IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IN ANY SHAPE, FORM OR FASHION.

3. It is the tendency of man to believe that victory means carefree celebration.  IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IN ANY SHAPE, FORM OR FASHION.

4. It is the tendency of man to believe that victory secures peace for himself and his children.  IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IN ANY SHAPE, FORM OR FASHION.

Why? Because your enemy is no different from you. Against all odds you fight, and if it is generational, you pass it to your children to fight just as you did, until victory is secured. But that means your enemy is now in the position you were in. Do you somehow believe that they are any different from you? Just because you fought and reversed the roles, does that mean they will stop fighting to reverse the roles yet again?

No, whatever drove you, also drives them. Moreover, they will take advantage of the “letdown” that happens after victory to gather their remaining strength and take their next course of action.

Sadly, far to many victors sow the seeds of their eventual defeat in the events following their victory.

We ought to be wiser than that . . .

The following are the applicable portion of the Docket Report and attendant files. There are two PDF files. I will comment tomorrow.

We would do well to consider the import and full meaning behind the surprised statement of Julius Caesar in Shakespeare’s play mere moments before his death. There is an awful lot of meaning packed into those three words. Primarily, the mind focuses on betrayal, but that would be to miss the deeper meaning behind the event itself.

Though it is not known what Julius actually stated before he died, what is known is that the event which occurred a bit over two millennia ago speaks to a truism about power, and where anyone’s actual power on this earth comes from. At one point Julius had at his disposal the resources of the entire Roman Empire. Along with that he could, at his whim, call forth any number of individuals in various positions of power throughout the Empire, and have them do his bidding. It was an envied position, but a rather dangerous one.

It was dangerous because of the mode of Julius’ acquisition of power. It was not legitimate and done by the application of force. Hence, whatever legal protection Julius might have enjoyed, he had destroyed by his own behavior. Nonetheless, for a time, all those under him were willing, for various and sundry reasons, to follow Julius, lending support as he required it. It was a heady position to occupy, much like the positions enjoyed by some in government today. After all, when there is no real accountability, who is to complain about what you do, especially when those subordinate to you do as you require without murmur or question.

But something went wrong in the days, weeks, and months before the demise of Julius. That something was unthinkable to Caesar. After all, he had loyal friends who would follow his orders and let him know if things were amiss. Moreover, there were many others who followed the law as it was popularly understood, and would do nothing against Julius, he being the Emperor and the source of all power — or so it seemed.

However, what began as mere disagreement and disapproval grew and became something far more dangerous to Julius. As so often is the case, those who are unhappy find others who are in a similar state and of like mind, and begin assessing their prospects. And as it is in this world, when one reaches the peak, there is nowhere to go but down. But when one is not yet there, going up is merely a matter of the will and means to do so. Julius, it seems, had only one direction to go. . .

There is a point in which support, and thus power, which is the ability to control individuals and events, is at a maximum for anyone in a position of power. Unfortunately for Julius, that maximum had come — and gone. Unbeknownst to Julius, his power was eroding as the days went by, and the power of those in opposition was ascending. At some point the paths of ascent and descent would cross, and Julius would find himself fighting for his life. It is, after all, very difficult for one man — alone, to rule a hostile and unsupportive empire. At the point the knives came out, the title of Caesar meant very little. When one has nothing to trade with, save a title unrecognized by those about them, one is bereft of anything useful to preserve his life, save the good graces of his enemies. Unfortunately for Julius, those around him cared nothing about the character trait of graciousness — kind of like Julius caring nothing for legalities when he seized power.

It is a deceptive thing, power being what it is. It is elusive, much desired, and cultivated by various means. Some good and honorable, and most not so good and honorable. There is yet another truism at play here. That is, how you get power is how you keep power. In the sad tale of Julius (it is sad, but not a tragedy as some suppose — he earned it) both truisms were either missed or misunderstood. Like so many, Julius thought he was the source of his power, that by force of will, his desire would be carried out by those around him and subordinate to him. He was quite mistaken.

What so many who have attained power have missed is that true power flows from those who give their loyalty and support willingly, freely and without any coercion. True power is arrived at when no form of enticement or inducement is used to gain the support of those around you. Rather, the support is given because they believe what is stated and the one they are entrusting the sweat of their brow and labor of their hands to, does indeed care for them, and truly holds the same affections as they. This in turn supports them and the first cause in their lives, which is most often their kith and kin.

We the People of the United States, in Order to  form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,  provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the  Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish  this Constitution for the United States of America.

I just wonder where its power comes from . . .

The following is an explanation of the frustration I experienced yesterday that led to a rant about a certain principle much ignored by individuals who should know better. Unfortunately, in my dissertation about that principle I ripped an individual who I appreciate very much. It was not intentional. It is just that I got very irritated about this particular principle being missed time and again. By way of explaining why it irks me so to see it ignored, I offer the following letter written back in December of 1995, right before the special election calling for a Constitutional Convention to overhaul the 1874 Arkansas Constitution.

The principle is this: The authority that is created is not greater than the authority that created it, neither can it be. Moreover, the created authority cannot destroy the higher authority that created it without imperiling its own existence.

With that, I apologize to Anthony G. Martin at The Liberty Sphere.

I also leave you with the letter to the Editor of a VERY liberal paper.

The Morning News of Northwest Arkansas
P.O. Box 7
Springdale, AR  72765
6 Dec. 1995

Editor,

What is the supreme authority of this State?  And to whom does it apply?  For it appears our Governor cannot distinguish the proper authority to follow.  Very often it is reported that the Governor, other state agencies, and the Supreme Court are the authorities of this State.  This is a grave error.  This State is a Republic.  This is guaranteed by Article 4, Sect. 4 of the Federal Constitution.  As a Republic and not a Democracy there is a fundamental difference to be observed.  It is thus: In a Democracy the majority rules regardless of the Law.  In a Republic the Law rules regardless of the majority.

The true authority of this State is the Constitution.  The Constitution has vested authority granted it by the people.  It has been shown in the Federalist 46 that the Founding Fathers of this Nation held the people as the superior of both the state and federal governments.  The principles adhered to in creating the  Federal and State Constitutions cannot be separated.  Both governments are agents and trustees of the people and the authority for their existence is the same.  To understand how these constitutions are to be construed, it is essential to know what 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?”

The law, as defined by the founding documents of this nation, is the Federal Constitution.  And in matters pertaining to the States, the state constitutions prevail.  It is the State Constitution and its provisions the Governor must look to for authority.

In accordance with Article II, Sect. 1 and Sect. 29 of the Constitution of the State of Arkansas the people are the initiating authority, the drafting authority, and the ratifying authority of the constitution.  Indeed, this principle is expressed in the Preamble of the Federal Constitution.  It states, “We the people… do ordain and establish this constitution of the United States.”

To this end it is understood government is created by Man to serve Man.  Man was not created and does not exist to serve Government.  Thereby government does not rule man, but exists to protect the rights of all.  Furthermore, God created and rules man.  God created all of us as sovereign individuals with ability to discern the Law, thus form societies and their resultant governments.  This was expressed most clearly in Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, and is recognized in the Preamble of the Arkansas Constitution.

“We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government, for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings and secure the same to ourselves and posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution.”

The Founding Fathers were not merely grateful but acknowledged the Authority of Almighty God by appealing to Him for judgement in the Declaration of Independence, our Nation’s first legal document.

The acceptance of the Authority of Almighty God by the Founding Fathers is evidence they accepted the commandments of God.  This acceptance of God’s Law preceded the founding of this nation.  English history amply displays the struggle to have all individuals subject to the Law, even the King.  The central idea is expressed clearly in Romans, Chap. 13, verse 1, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.  For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.” However, the Founding Fathers did not want the authority of the nation to be vested in a select individual or group of individuals, but in the Law.  Thus holding the Law separate, distinct, and higher than individuals.

By this and other actions they declared three specific things among others:

1.     The Law is external to all of us and exists whether we wish to acknowledge its existence or not.
2.     The Law is given by God and thus is not subject to the whims of the individual.
3.     Those in government are accountable to the Law just as is everyone else.

This gives rise to two questions central to the Dec. 12th election:

1.     How is it that Governor Tucker has taken it upon himself to initiate a new constitution?
2.     What authority does he cite as properly granting him this power?

It should be clear that a vote AGAINST the Constitutional Convention is in order on Tuesday, Dec. 12th.

The story about Obama’s executive order will not go away, so writes Anthony G. Martin in his Examiner column. In the column he references several other blogs and a couple of MSM articles where note of the EO has been taken, which is a good thing that they have finally noticed the Executive Order and its potential effect.

However, there is a persistent thread that runs through this whole story which irks to no end. It irritates me for one simple reason: It’s wrong. Yep, WRONG! Just plain wrong — in spades it’s wrong.

The part that is wrong is this:

“Put simply, this means the Constitution is no longer the supreme law of the land in America. Thanks to Executive Order 12425 , which Obama signed Dec. 16 without explaining why, the supreme law of the land is now arguably whatever Interpol says it is, most likely as directed by the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands, in conjunction with the United Nations.”

Excuse me while I go to my neighbor’s barn and begin shoveling . . .

Is it really to the point in this nation that even the supposedly educated conservatives cannot put simple concepts together and come to a reasonable, sensible conclusion? To what do I speak? This line:

“Put simply, this means the Constitution is no longer the supreme law of the land in America. Thanks to Executive Order 12425,”

BS — pure and simple. Why? Excuse me while I treat some as simple-minded children, but they have earned it. Please consider the following:

ARTICLE II
SECTION 1. Clause 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Fair enough? The office of the President of the United States DOES NOT EXIST OUTSIDE THE FRAMEWORK OF THE CONSTITUTION! Got it?

Dang, I hope so!

Logically it follows that all powers he exercises CAN ONLY BE EXERCISED WITHIN THAT FRAMEWORK OF THE CREATION AND EXISTENCE OF THE OFFICE CREATED BY SAID CONSTITUTION!

Do you get that? I sure hope so!

Now, would we suppose it logical or reasonable that the President, whose office only exists because the Constitution created it and can issue Executive Orders only within the capacity of that office, to bring into existence an order that effectively nullifies the very authority that created his office in the first place?

If he did, would it not render him a pretender to the office? Would it not also abolish his very reason for existence?

Read carefully: If the President acts to nullify the very authority that created his office, does he not render himself without office, and without authority? Just where does the Office of President get its authority in the first place?

From Mars?

Are the people of this nation so freaking STUPID as to believe that ONE MAN, with the stroke of a pen, can render the Constitution NULL AND VOID — especially when his whole authority flows from the Constitution in the first place?

Get this: If the morons in government render the Federal Constitution NULL AND VOID, they do not have a reason for existing in their jobs — BECAUSE THE WHOLE REASON FOR THEIR POSITIONS FLOWS FROM THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF!

Talk about cutting your own throat . . .

The whole reason they try to PRETEND what they are doing is Constitutional is because they know that without that pretense they are operating without reason for existence. Hence, they are pretenders and an illegal operation, subject to be removed from power at the slightest whim. In fact, they could be, and should be considered enemies of the United States.

So it is that they need the cover of the Federal Constitution, and will do nothing that would openly show the document to not be in force and effect.

It really does make me wonder just who is on what side, and if all that “education” is really just a cover for the total loss of common sense in America.

I am reminded of Obadiah:

How are the things of Esau searched out! how are his hidden things sought up! All the men of thy confederacy have brought thee even to the border: the men that were at peace with thee have deceived thee, and prevailed against thee; they that eat thy bread have laid a wound under thee: there is none understanding in him. Shall I not in that day, saith the LORD, even destroy the wise men out of Edom, and understanding out of the mount of Esau? (Obadiah 6-8)

Just substitute “America” everywhere the names “Edom” and “Esau” appear — it fits.

BTW, the EO is unconstitutional — but it doesn’t overthrow the Constitution itself. No, all that has to happen is to call a spade a spade and hold the “Enlightened One’s” feet to the fire and make him rescind the EO.¹

One last point: It should be noted (and Mama Liberty especially take note) that the only way the Federal Constitution can be nullified and overthrown is if the American people and the several states REFUSE TO ENFORCE IT!

1. He needs to rescind a whole bunch of other things too, but I am not going to address those here. [↩]

It has come to the attention of a few that the Volokh Conspiracy posted an article stating that it is time for the unorganized militia to reappear, titled The Unorganized Militia Once Again is Needed. Some are of the opinion that the Obama administration would oppose that.

Actually, every administration for the last 100 years would have likely opposed the resurgence of the unorganized militia. Certainly we can say both Bushes and Clinton opposed it. Please remember that Wayne Fincher was prosecuted under Bush Jr. The Federal Government’s attitude toward the unorganized militia is perfectly exemplified in the following excerpt from the in-camera hearing during the trial of Wayne Fincher. The questioner is Chris Plumlee, assistant attorney to Wendy Johnson, Assistant US District Attorney for the Western District of Arkansas. Wayne is the respondent.

I think the government’s attitude toward the unorganized militia is loud and clear:

Q.    And so what state agency is it that you answer to?
A.    The governor or the legislative body.
Q.    Okay.
A.    And if the sheriff would have an emergency, he might or he might not choose to call us into service.
Q.    How many times have you been called up by the governor of the state of Arkansas?
A.    None.
Q.    Who in the militia is designated to be contacted by the governor in time of a call-up?
A.    Well, the commander, Paul Smith, would be.
Q.    Okay, so I presume — what’s the name of the person at the  governor’s office who has your telephone numbers and Mr. Smith’s telephone numbers so they can call you up if they need you?
A.    I’m not sure, but all they’d have to do is call the sheriff of Washington County, and that’s their duty to, not mine.
Q.    Well, you’ve sent them a lot of documents notifying –
A.    Yes.
Q.    – them what you believe the law is and your declarations and stuff.  I mean, I don’t see your phone number on here any-where.  I mean, how is the governor supposed to contact you in the time of a crisis?
A.    Believe me, the governor has the ability to contact us if he so desires.
Q.    Okay, and the first declaration you sent to the governor, which I think is Defendant’s 1-A, was sent in 1998, correct?
A.    I believe that’s correct.
Q.    So between 1994, the foundation of the militia, and 1998, how was the governor supposed to call you up at that time?
A.    Like I say, if the governor so chooses, he can — he can put out a public broadcast that all militia appear at a certain place, and that’s within his authority, and that’s his respon-sibility.  And I don’t have to stand and wave a flag waiting for the governor to call me.  It’s his duty to take care of this thing on behalf of the state.
Q.    Okay, so would you concede to me that you’re not — you’re not run by the State of Arkansas, you’re run by each other in the militia of Washington County?
A.    No, sir.  We’ve read all the laws that we could find pertinent to the militia and we obeyed those laws.
Q.    But, again, you’re not operated or sanctioned by the State of Arkansas; is that correct?
A.    That’s not correct, sir.
Q.    Okay.  By the governor’s office?
A.    By Article 11.  Whether the governor likes it or not, Article 11 declares the people in a certain range are in the militia, and it also calls for volunteer companies, the infantry, calvary, and artillery.  If the governor — if the legislative body is in session, then the legislative body would call in in however they choose, and that’s their option and their duty.
Q.    And, again, has anyone in the militia had contact with their legislators about providing your telephone numbers and things of that nature so they can contact you in the event they need to call you up?
A.    I’ve read in some of the codes that if they want to contact, they’d probably put out broadcasts, and the people are expected to go to that.
Q.    Would it be like a radio broadcast or television?
A.    Well, it would be — it would depend on what the situation was.  They might put it in the newspaper.  If it was an emergency, they might just broadcast a certain class of men.  They might not want a thirty to forty-five.  They might say all men between — it’s their option.
Q.    Well, I mean, wouldn’t you be pretty disappointed if you put all this effort into the militia and you don’t get called up?
A.    It’s not about whether I’m pleased or disappointed, sir.  It’s about a long-term project to protect this state.  Whenever the state of Arkansas joined in with the United States, it agreed that it would not keep a standing army, and it was guaranteed by the federal government that this republic would be unmolested in having its militia.

Need I say more?

Take a long look at the following video. (h/t Tyranny Unleashed) Watch and listen carefully — run through it two or three times. Please realize what is being stated here . . .

At this point I trust you have come to realize that when they deliberately break their own rules, and then brazenly lie and say that they didn’t, that they DO NOT care about the Federal Constitution, your rights, your liberties, your life . . . AT ALL.

Now, combine that with what Harry Reid, the guy who instigated all the rule-breaking, thinks the American people will think about what he “accomplished:”

On the floor before the vote, Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “We’re going to hear an earful, but it’s going to be an earful of wonderment and happiness that people waited for for a long time.”¹

In the times before us, others have spoken to this turn of events . . .

§, 16. THE state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man’s life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other’s power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the common law of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.

§, 17. And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a foundation of all the rest; as he that, in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.² (emphasis mine)

§. 221. There is therefore, secondly, another way whereby governments are dissolved, and that is, when the legislative, or the prince, either of them, act contrary to their trust. First, The legislative acts against the trust reposed in them, when they endeavour to invade the property of the subject, and to make themselves, or any part of the community, masters, or arbitrary disposers of the lives, liberties, or fortunes of the people.

§. 222. The reason why men enter into society, is the preservation of their property; and the end why they chuse and authorize a legislative, is, that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the members of the society, to limit the power, and moderate the dominion, of every part and member of the society: for since it can never be supposed to be the will of the society, that the legislative should have a power to destroy that which every one designs to secure, by entering into society, and for which the people submitted themselves to legislators of their own making; whenever the legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence. Whensoever therefore the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society; and either by ambition, fear, folly or corruption, endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people; by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who. have a right to resume their original liberty, and, by the establishment of a new legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society.³ (emphasis mine)

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.⁴ (emphasis mine)

It is high time the American people changed the way they think . . . about how, when, and with what they will vote.

1. http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1209/Dems_not_worried_about_postvote_backlash_at_home.html?showall [↩]
2. John Locke, The Second Treatise of Government, Of the State of War [↩]
3. John Locke, The Second Treatise of Government, Of the Dissolution of Government. [↩]
4. The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776 [↩]