“I have but one lamp”

September 2, 2015 | 2nd Amendment, Constitution, Militia

Albert Einstein noted that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Gun owners around the country struggle with failed policies and strategies. They cling to ideas that can’t be reconciled with the end result. Obviously, if we’ve not placed one bureaucrat, or elected representative behind bars for violating the oath of office, all we’ve done is delay the inevitable. Without the force of law, there is no remedy or relief for us when it is clear that incumbents are re-elected at a percentage greater than 80%.

We continue on this path not because of patriotism, but because doing our duty would interfere with the ignorance, greed, corruption, ambivalence, and false pride that has been ingrained and adopted over the years.

The Second Amendment was not placed in the Bill of Rights in order to guarantee an individual right, but rather to make it almost impossible for the government to take away the ‘Sword’ from the good People of this nation. More importantly, to emphasize the fact that it is only the Militia that has certain clearly defined duties, and by doing so fulfill that, which is “necessary to the security of a free state”.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15&16 are enumerated as clear as can be, but the so-called patriot community wants nothing to do with the expressed duty “To execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions”. In order to do this, every able-bodied man would have to give up a few weekends a year to gain, and maintain the proficiency to act in an emergency.

Why would summer soldiers want to do this when they can live with the illusion that, pleading, protesting, and screaming at those who are supposed to represent us as guardians of our rights do anything but abide their oath of office.

Patrick Henry stated, “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I have no way of judging of the future but by the past”. There is nothing in the past of protesting that has changed things before tens-of-thousands of soldiers died, or hundreds had their lives ruined and not made whole.

What is it that tells you that removing one selected candidate of a party with another will change things? Colorado recalls did nothing.

What is it that tells you that expecting corrupt politicians and judges to abide the law when you yourself will deny it is a viable strategy? Either you understand the concept of our law, or you’re doomed to fail.

No matter what you believe, or strive for, the truth be told by one of the worlds most abominable tyrants, Mao Zedong. Mao stated, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”. So when you say that we must engage the power monopoly on their ground, in their courts, using their procedures and rules, I must ask if you are truly insane? You’ve abdicated the power of the ‘Sword’ to your enemies, and you expect them to adhere to what?

The Founders of this nation were forward thinking enough to provide the methods and the tools for the good People to fight off tyranny. It is as the expression goes “As plain as the nose on your face”.

While the ability to thwart the institution of tyrannical government, for which the Founders had on the ground experience, they understood the need and importance of Militia. It was, after all, those hardy and trained men who kept the British from defeating the Colonists, and it is of course the ultimate force of law.

“Who are the militia? are they not ourselves.” The question posed and answered by Tenche Cox was inherent at the founding of this nation. The whole of the People “entitled and accustomed to their arms” would be a bulwark against any force bent on the destruction of liberty, but in component application of citizens united represented a community bound in friendship, understanding, recognition, and most importantly “security”.

But the questions seem to come up as to whether we need Militia today? Whether it even exists under the current unconstitutional statutes? As Dr. Edwin Vieira explains, the congress has corrupted the wording to mislead the public as to what they are lawfully allowed to enact. The deceit perpetrated by the state should be reason enough to realize that Militia is most important, especially today, in order to regain our freedom.

We live in dangerous times. The U.S. has troops all over the world, in some 150 countries as a matter of fact. This represents at least two dramatic issues. One being that the military could not possibly repel an invasion of this nation.

A nation of just over Three-Hundred-Million that imposes its will on the world is bound to make enemies in at least a small percentage of those countries now occupied. It is estimated that we’ve killed Millions overtly, and covertly in places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria in this apparently never ending war on terror. If that hasn’t produced some who seek revenge I’d be greatly shocked.

I see in the atmosphere of America that retribution against our nation does not seem to enter into awareness. While it is a very likely possibility that we would be subject to “blow-back” the public stands quiet on the need for emergency preparations, and the outrageous immigration policies that are allowing at least known criminals, if not terrorists, into the country.

We are a nation ill prepared for a catastrophe. While there is ample contingency provided by statute for those who represent us, the statutes are silent on what we the People should do if an emergency arises. What we do know is that there is plenty of crying, and demand for restitution by the public in cases such as Hurricane Katrina, and Sandy. Who, but for a few of us, are talking about the need to have the entire populace prepared for disasters?

The typical state Emergency Preparedness statutes, modeled from the federal statutes, read like any other aspects of code. They are filled with definitions, authorities, points, aspects, but most importantly nothing that goes to the heart of where you and I go, what we do, or who we look to while the disaster is underway.

Is there an Emergency Preparedness coordinator on your block, or in your town? Someone with whom you’ve discussed your preparations, and your role should an emergency take place. Someone who has come to your home and outlined what would be important in various emergencies.

What of a chemical, or biological disaster out of control? What do you do if a nuclear power plant goes critical? What of a tsunami, major fire, or any other catastrophic destructive force?

If MS 13, or one of the other growing gangs in this nation decides to single out your home, to whom do you turn? Do you call 911 and hope that the police aren’t busy with some other crime, or whether they’ll take their time in responding? Do you take on the thugs on your own? Do you even understand what they are capable of?

What do we do in the case of a terrorist attack, or an invasion? What if it’s the worst-case scenario? Do you muster somewhere? Do you have “all the terrible instruments of the soldier” to defend the homeland? Are you familiar with the proper use of those tools?

We’ve been lucky over the last century in that we’ve not experienced the kind of catastrophe that struck Fukushima. The frequency that Earthquakes are occurring has been increasing, and the fact that our nuclear plants are on or close to fault lines seem to be a recipe for a coming catastrophe, for which we are ill prepared.

More importantly, we’ve not seen battle on our land since the Civil War. Would we know how to respond if the lives of our children became targets of terrorist attacks as this government keeps warning? The answer is an unequivocal NO! Instead we will have more calls for disarming the very body that is, by law, the only authority to “repel Invasions”.

Considering our open border policies, and the warnings from our Border Patrol of known or suspected enemies crossing into these United States the possibility of a Fifth Column leading the way to an invasion is a very real risk. Look at your children, and take a moment to consider what I’m saying here.

Where’s the army to take on the invaders? Even if it is just an increase in the influx of well-armed vicious gangs, can the law enforcement community handle the strain? There are reductions in the military, which itself is burdened with systems that are faulty, and as we’ve recently seen, the military is not even authorized to defend itself from the type of attacks that have led to the deaths of a number of our servicemen right here in hometown USA.

With the army being posted all over the globe it is unlikely they could respond in a timely fashion to more than one incident, nor are they authorized by law to do so. It is “We the People” who are responsible for our defense. It is there in plain sight. It has been made irrelevant by not only the lies from the halls of the legislatures, but by our own failure to recognize what is right in front of our face.

Ask yourself, when an emergency arises, what will you do? Look to your Militia unit? NO! You’ve let it die along with so many other aspects of that, which made this country.

Nicholas Testaccio

No Comments »

This Fourth of July 2015

July 4, 2015 | Founders, History, Militia

We have a tradition here at Restore the Republic. Each year I write a small tribute that refers to the day when the Continental Congress declared “That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved;”

This year I had not thought that my spirit was up to the task of celebrating independence from England when it is so obvious that we are now under a tyranny far worse than King George could have imagined for the colonies.

While we no longer have a king to lord over us, the acts of this government, from the local municipality to the federal executive carry the same bearing as “A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant”.

So with no thought other than to squander some time in mindless entertainment, I sat down in front of the TV. I took a disc from my collection of movies and popped in an old favorite “The Patriot” starring Mel Gibson. It reminded me that there was a time when men truly understood the nature of duty to oneself, the community at large, and the nation as a whole.

It is a tale of the trials, tribulations, and the struggles that this life may present. It is the story of anger, revenge, courage, evil, love, and most of all, commitment. Mel Gibson portrays a man known as Benjamin Martin, who is feared as “The Ghost”. He is the fictional adaptation of a few of our legendary Militia who kept the resistance alive until the British were placed into a corner from which there could be no outcome but defeat. Francis Marion, Elijah Clark, and Andrew Pickens were just a few of those brave, cunning, and often times ruthless Militia who harassed and battled the British for what may have seemed an eternity.

It reminded me that men of fortitude once existed, and that sometimes they would forsake the comforts of home for a higher duty. From the Lexington Green where Captain Parker’s Militia men stood as rebels, through the forests of Georgia, The Carolinas, and Virginia, the Yeomen of the colonies, accustomed to their weapons as they were, fought a guerilla war against the British regulars.

Militiamen, who knew the way of the woods, appeared here and there to harass the Red Coats. Men as old as Hezekiah Wyman who was Fifty-five years of age whom the British titled “Death on a Pale Horse”. Older still was Samuel Whittmore, age 78, whose accuracy and barrage of fire led the British to believe that he was an entire rifle squad.

It reminded me that for some time now I have written of, spoken about, and petitioned for that most “necessary” body of men to come forth and save the Republic from the overwhelming destruction of liberty by bureaucrats, autocrats, corrupt politicians and their willing dupes who carry out orders of destruction upon their neighbors.

It reminded me that few are listening to the cries of a nation in despair, few know the true nature of survival, and fewer still are willing to give up their time to do what it takes to revitalize, not only Militia, but also the spirit that once made this a great nation.

It is the Fourth of July. It is a day when long ago men placed their signatures on their own death warrant by stating in a bold and clear fashion “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor”.

It is the Fourth of July. It is today, and men will no longer pledge to anything other than the box scores, the latest trivial event, or far worse, cry about what they haven’t received as a handout because Mother Nature was unkind, or something insignificant prevented them from accomplishing the most menial enterprise.

Where is the Militia today? It rots in the history books as a myth of days of yore when men of action marched off to the harshest of environments so that you and I could raise a glass and toast to something we can neither support, nor are willing to understand.

Nicholas Testaccio

 

 

 

No Comments »

“Fire – Fire”

May 15, 2015 | Civil Liberties, Congress, Constitution, Founding Documents, Judicial, Militia

Fiction is meant for entertainment. When grandpa told you stories about his youth, and he embellished a bit, his idea was to make it exciting. It’s done for the entertainment of the child.

When your fishing buddy tells the story of the one that got away, everyone has a good laugh while chiding him on the details.

I loved the Bourne series of the books, and the movies. The movies were a far cry from the books, but they were action packed. The movies were exciting, entertaining, and added the visual effect that you might not have imagined in the books. The fight sequences drew the viewer into the story, while the books told a story of intrigue about two mortal adversaries.

Fiction is all well and good when it’s made for the enjoyment of the public. When the fiction is part of the legal system it is a means of dismantling the law. It is not designed for the well being of the people, but rather the consolidation of power by government, and the powerful forces that choose our elected representatives.

These fictions lead to erroneous notions, concepts, and case law that are an affront to “A Declaration”, and The Constitution of the United States. The design can be nothing else but a strategy to bring us into the slow but inevitable decay of tyranny.

It seems to be the general belief that our unalienable rights are not unlimited, and that they can be regulated and licensed. In order to sanctify the blatant contradiction of the fact that the People “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”, fictions are created as points of law. Often cited, as the proof is the statement that “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater”. This fiction of law is based in part on the half-truth related to the opinion of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes writing for the court in Schenck v United States, 249 U.S. 47.

The fiction occurs because of the fact that the common man will not sit down and examine the details, nor take the time to read the actual case, from which this massive fraud derives. I say massive because men, women, talking heads, government crony’s, and even those pretending to be patriots repeat it. Someone said it somewhere along the line so it is believed, and truth will not overcome the combination of ignorance, and ego.

The case is based on the fact that Schenck, and others, were inciting people to violate a law that the congress actually had the power to create. It was 1917, and the United States was entering the war in Europe. Congress declared war, and as delegated at Article 1, Section 8, the Congress used its power “To raise and support Armies”.

I am a firm believer in the fact that those powers delegated to the government should be recognized as valid, but I am diametrically opposed to perceived or created powers based on interpretations. I do not subscribe in any way to the notion that we have a living Constitution. All these maneuvers are of course fictions created by the courts, and carried out by myths, compliance, and conspiracies.

In Schenck, Justice Holmes wrote, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic”. The controlling aspect of the statement points to the fact that the act inflicts an injury to wit, “causing a panic”. Even to the most casual observer a panic can, and will inflict some form of harm on those in the theater.

Holmes goes on to say, “The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent”.

In Schenck, the defendants were charged “with the mailing of printed circulars in pursuance of a conspiracy to obstruct the recruiting and enlistment service, contrary to the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917”.

Holmes clarifies by writing “We admit that, in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done”. Congress had declared war on Germany for the sinking of the Lusitania, an act that was considered an attack on the sovereign United States. In order to prosecute this war they exercised their power to protect this nation by calling forth the men of this country.

This entire case pivoted on arguments that were inadequate, and obviously detrimental to congresses authority “To raise and support Armies”.

Schenck could have argued that the war created a “clear and present danger that” it “will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent”.

The obvious underlying fact of the matter for those of you who run from the term “conspiracy theory” would have been that the Lusitania was indeed stocked with munitions, that congress should have been aware of this violation at least by way of their oversight of the War Department, and that the entire scenario was cooked up by J.P. Morgan and his associates who had lent the British and French over One Billion Dollars.

The British and French were loosing the war so Morgan and his associates needed a means of bringing the United States in to save the day, or more appropriately the money. None of this would have been a complete secret from the members of congress as not to make a viable defense. Over and above this is the fact that if congress perceived a “clear and present danger” then it had the duty to muster Militia to exercise its duty to “repel invasions”.

The congress does of course have the delegated power “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States” in order that the Militia may carry out its duty “to execute the Laws of the Union” ***“suppress Insurrections”. By exercising this delegated power the Congress removes the chance of impropriety as the ‘Sword’ remains firmly in the hands of the good People of this nation who are the ultimate arbiters of the law.

The defense could have argued that if there was “a clear and present danger”, the Congress should have called for the authority “necessary to the security of a free state”. In this manner the Homeland would be on alert, and the good People of this nation would be well prepared, and on a war footing while learning the full extent of the attack.

Schenck and his cohorts had to know that they were violating law, and they failed on putting forth a defensible strategy. That was probably because of their lack of knowledge regarding the proper defense of the nation. This is the problem that we face today. We lack knowledge and understanding of the law, and the absolute need to hold strictly to the written word.

In all matters it must be clear that the state has the indisputable power to create then execute the laws as they are written without interpretations by a body that was not granted that power.

Some may argue that the state has to have some form of enforcement. No. The state may create legislation, but it is ultimately the People that must maintain the authority to “execute”. It must be this way in order to protect the populace from “a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving *** Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation” and “pretended offences”.

But how would we survive without an FBI, DEA, BLM, EPA, and so on? Congress obviously has certain delegated powers to regulate, but those powers do not grant any authority to enforce outside the control of the People. Any agency can, and should be under the ultimate authority of the People as part of the Regular Militia, and subject to the procedures and disciplines of Militia. In fact, those agencies would more than likely work quite efficiently, and the documented practice of framing innocents in order to attain a number of arrests, or for whatever other nefarious reasons, would become a thing of the past. In addition, the statutes that were created for such offenses, court martial would deal with abuses.

However, Schencks actions as being cognizable under the laws of the U.S., the problematic defense of the action, and the opinion of the court are not in question. What is at issue is the strategic misquote of the words written by Justice Holmes, and the subsequent infringement of rights based on a fiction of law.

That misquote has been used as a method of reducing, and as far as I can see it is geared toward the elimination of all our rights. It has been most pervasive in the battle to destroy the Second Amendment and its true nature. You can’t own this, you shouldn’t own that, and you certainly don’t need this, just as “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater”.

Those arguments extend the ridiculous statements such as, “well you can’t own a nuclear weapon” when debating the Second Amendment. To which I must ask the question, what kind of idiot would want to keep a nuke in his basement or garage? It speaks volumes to those who make such outrageous statements. Obviously no sane person would subject family, and friends to the potentially catastrophic affect of some incident pertaining to that device.

Obviously there are clearly insane people in governments around the world. Some of them do have their finger on the trigger of a nuclear arsenal, and in some cases it is “terrorists” who have acquired nuclear devices. I would worry more about those people than the good People of this nation in their constitutional role as the Militia of the Several States keeping a watchful eye on the security, and sanity of the nation.

The person who yells fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire does so to cause mischief, or perhaps with the intent of seeing persons injure himself or herself. That person does not call out for any good purpose. What possible good could come of the action? None!

This is where logic and knowledge of our peculiar form of law and governance comes into play. Wherein the misunderstanding of how harm and free speech have been lumped together to give an ever-expanding control to government agencies, and bureaucracies.

The First Amendment was not written to protect the injurious acts of a scoundrel, but rather the common man’s ability to spread the truth without fear of retribution from some agency of government. I cannot libel, slander, or defame another. Doing so would cause a harm that would subject me to a suit as an offender of the sanctity, and security of another. Causing harm is not part of any constitutional power or protection.

I can claim that operations such as Jade Helm 15 are in fact aimed at some nefarious outcome, and the possible lead to martial law. The purpose of the Amendment is to protect our speech against government intrusions on the rule of law. To be able to speak out when agents go beyond the limits of those powers delegated to them by the People. To be able to speak out when our elected representatives violate their oath of office.

The circumstance and arguments of the Schenck case are akin to this present government inciting, and arming terrorists around the world, and then telling the American people that while there is a substantive danger that you could be gunned down by anyone of a number of terrorist groups, you can only use those weapons that we allow, and while you foolishly wait for help from an unconstitutional agency your own lawful power cannot be employed.

The saddest part of this is the illusion that your rights can be regulated away by fictions created from interpretations, misstatements, and misapplications that the majority support out of some misguided notion of a powerful central government that does not work for the benefit of the People, but rather to centralize all power unto itself.

Nicholas Testaccio

No Comments »

Recognizing The Enemy, Part 2

April 11, 2015 | 2nd Amendment, Civil Liberties, Constitution, Founders, Founding Documents, Militia, Sovereignty

The year was 1924. In an article for The Baltimore Evening Sun, H.L. Menchen wrote, “All the extravagance and incompetence of our present Government is due, in the main, to lawyers, and, in part at least, to good ones. They are responsible for nine-tenths of the useless and vicious laws that now clutter the statute-books, and for all the evils that go with the vain attempt to enforce them. Every Federal judge is a lawyer. So are most Congressmen. Every invasion of the plain rights of the citizens has a lawyer behind it. If all lawyers were hanged tomorrow, and their bones sold to a mah jong factory, we’d be freer and safer, and our taxes would be reduced by almost a half.”

What Menchen wrote was a restatement of what the Founders feared most; a legal institution that would consolidate its power. For the most part, lawyers operate under the control of a legal system, but not the “rule of law” as those who delegated certain sovereign powers to the state instituted it.  Lawyers abide by the court, and not in accordance with what was intended as a nation wherein the People are the ultimate arbiters of the law.

During the ratification debates there were those who felt that there was wording in the Constitution that could be interpreted to mean other than what was clearly decided by the delegations. Suspicion was cast on the legal profession as a primary vehicle for corruption.

Writing as Brutus for those who opposed the Constitution, Robert Yates stated, “The supreme court under this constitution would be exalted above all other power in the government, and subject to no control. The business of this paper will be to illustrate this, and to show the danger that will result from it. I question whether the world ever saw, in any period of it, a court of justice invested with such immense powers, and yet placed in a situation so little responsible.”

The ink was not yet dry on the Constitution when the court started to dismantle the document by first taking allegiance to the Bar as the method, by which an attorney could counsel. Eventually by conferring upon itself the authority to interpret the law, the legal profession has made law a cesspool. When a lawyer speaks it is legalese based on misdirection, misinformation, misapplication, propaganda, and in many cases outright lies. I have seen enough judges perjure themselves from the bench, and I’ve seen one too many attorney’s sell out their client.

Lawyers take an oath that states in part, “I will not counsel or maintain any suit or proceeding which shall appear to me to be unjust…” Are we to believe that the position of state prosecutor, one that was despised by the Founders, is in any form complying with that oath?

From time to time the good People of this nation must be reminded that this is a nation of popular sovereignty. The state is an establishment, by which we the People band together in order to have a forum and method for protecting rights, freedom, and tranquility. We do so because there is, first and foremost, evil about that seeks to disrupt the lives of the common man. In the hope that they could limit, or possibly eliminate the encroachment upon liberty, the Founders created, and intended to maintain a uniform “rule of law” so that the state could not impose its awesome power on the individual by making rules outside its delegated authority.

It should be obvious that in order to maintain this system, it was up to the good People to enforce the law so that no one could unjustly prosecute, particularly by the hand of the state, any individual. Some clearly defined tools were incorporated into this nations Constitution that were to stand for justice, and prevent state abuses.

Government can never be a perfect institution. This was understood, and so the Founders attempted to design a functional government with certain limited delegated sovereign powers while “sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts”.

The Constitution established as indisputable law with enumerated powers and mechanism a bulwark against encroachment by the state. Even the common dirt farmer of the day understood the principles for which they had suffered through years of turmoil in order to create a nation of free People.

However, we now have a system of government that is beyond corrupt. It is everything that the Founders feared, and by no means the nation that farmers, merchants, laborers, and even clergy laid down their lives to create.

It has morphed into this, not because we lack the utility to thwart tyranny, but because we are a population that is as intellectually dishonest as the system that we allow to exist. We are a people that are so ignorant of the design of this nation that we work to support the encroachment and infringements by the bureaucracy rather than working to halt the obviously budding police state.

There is still hope, but that hope lies in a very few who are not encumbered by their ego. They are those people who live by the doctrine that every word in law has its intended meaning, and that assumptions in law, opinions of attorney’s, and judicial wrangling are the enemy of a free society.

You cannot maintain liberty if you subscribe to the notion “that any act of the legislature, contrary to the tenor under which it was created” is lawful. You cannot maintain liberty if you believe that it is the state, rather than the People who should possess the power of the ‘Sword’.

Logic should tell us that almost every lawyer is either ignorant of the law, or as many already believe, a liar. They do not fight the system, but rather operate in a fraud shrouded in legalese. Misapplication of law, improperly and illegally instructed jury’s are common place without an  attorney lifting a finger to put an end to those acts of judicial tyranny.

In most cases, instead of assisting your cause, your lawyer works to further his situation and that of the system. I’ve seen that far too many times to feel comfortable in what I laughing refer to as a court of law, lorded over by a black-robed bureaucrat. Has anyone heard of an attorney admonishing a judge for improperly instructing a jury?

To place a fine point on the legal profession, I once heard an attorney say that if lawyers were honest, most of us would not be paying an income tax. As one who has read through the code, I know this to be true.

The methodology “enshrined” in our Constitution to thwart tyranny are a grand jury, jury, and the Militia of the several states. These agencies of the People were intended to have the ultimate authority to stop the encroachment that is so obvious today. They cannot be voted away, legislated away, or judicially voided by instructions from the bench. They do not depend on what a lawyer might say, but rather what justice calls for, and what is the understanding of the People as to the function of law.

Each of the lawful bodies that are enshrined in the Bill of Rights have atrophied by our own hands, and our misguided trust of those within the legal profession.  We have succumb to “the useless and vicious laws that now clutter the statute-books, and for all the evils that go with the vain attempt to enforce them”.

We not only submit, but we validate it by enforcing every act of twisted words, and unconstitutional agencies. All about us a police state grows. All around are lawyers whom, rather than speak the truth they work within their own system to slowly, but surely, take all that we have, all the rights, and eventually the freedom fought for with the price of blood.

Patrick Henry, an attorney himself, was one who had no love for the ratification of the Constitution because he saw it as an instrument that could be easily manipulated to take power from the People. He understood the character of men, and in particular those of his own profession. It is why he insisted, along with others, that a Bill of Rights be added as some measure of clarity and security.

That Bill was intended, not merely as words to constrict the federal government, but also as a doctrine for the states and the People to uphold the rule of law. In this nation, despite all the theorizing about what this or that might mean, “the Constitution must mean exactly what it says or it means nothing at all”.

It is simple enough to understand that words have specific meaning within the context of a statement. The U.S. Constitution recognizes just one body as that, which has the authority to “execute the Laws of the Union”. That authority is the Militia of the several states. It’s not debatable, nor can it be disregarded, removed, dismissed, or formed outside the spectrum of a body of all the People without the force of law.

You will note that most of my recent articles gravitate towards Militia at some point. I do this for a number of reasons. First, Militia is a lawful authority of the People. Second, it was not a voluntary organization, but rather mandatory on all. Third, it was under the direction of officers appointed by the state as demanded by the Constitution. Fourth, it cannot be lawfully formed outside the rule of law by persons with no lawful authority as so many believe. Fifth, it is “necessary to the security of a free state”. Sixth, the vast majority have no idea as to what Militia is, its intended functions, duties, its power, and its ever pressing need. I could go on.

Militia is so misunderstood by the populace that it is ignored or disparaged by even those who profess to be supporters of the Second Amendment; “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.”

There are “Thirteen Words” within that amendment that are disregarded. But the amendment doesn’t tell the entire aspect of law because at Article 1, Section 8 we can read:

“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

The amendment and the authorities enumerated in the Constitution are acts of law, and as such cannot be interpreted away, nor can they be changed without the consent of the good People as instituted at Article 5.

Militia cannot be formed by a group of men outside the rules set forth by the Constitution that relied on the previously existing state statutes that defined all the workings of the body.

“A well regulated Militia” organized in a manner provided for by statute, and regulations created by the congress is a lawful authority that is included in both the federal and state constitutions.

“Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.” Because the congress has the power “To provide for organizing” Militia, it does not have the authority to un-organize it as is believed by the pro-2nd community. In fact, the Dick Act that supposedly creates an “unorganized militia” does not contain those words, but instead contains the definition of those who are not “Regular Militia” as being “the Reserve Militia”. Reserve being those who are statutorily excused from the required scheduled training, or have reached the age of maturity.

As a matter of fact, as the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution codifies Militia across the spectrum of law from the federal to the local. Neither the congress, the states, nor the People themselves have the authority to un-organize militia, or create bodies that do not comply with the law as it was originally defined.

Herein lies the heart of the matter when we talk about the legal profession, and the judiciary. The doctrine of law is clear. Lawyers fail to abide the simplest principles of the rule of law; “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

We fight endlessly about statutes that are enacted contrary to the Constitution, when it is those very statutes that contradict the tenor of law that are the problem. If we concern ourselves with the simple rule, as was the original intent we can regain the authority “necessary to the security of a free state”.

We need not run to those who have a vested interest in maintaining their status while diminishing ours. We need only to read and understand the simple words that the Founders gave us, and tell all others that we are perfectly capable of being the ultimate arbiters of the law.

“Men at some time are masters of their fates. The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings.” – From Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar

Nicholas Testaccio                                                                                             Part 1

 

 

 

 

 

2 Comments »