Archive for the ‘Civil Liberties’ Category
by Nicholas Testaccio
I have struggled over the last few months to complete an article. It’s not because I don’t have something to contribute to the latest problems. It’s certainly not because there aren’t many issues that should be commented on in the face of the propaganda that is being spewed out to the general public. It’s definitely not because there isn’t a myriad of questions that never seem to be asked.
I am frozen by the fact that despite the evidence
placed right in front of us, most Americans will do nothing at all, while some
will do nothing more than contribute to the downfall by either applying the
same methods that are proven failures, or actually promoting the divide.
One of the issues we face today regards immigration. Let’s
set the record straight right from the start so that readers will go into this
article with a clear picture. I am not against lawful immigration wherein a country
has the Sovereign authority to protect its borders, and its people from harm of
any type.
The Declaration of Independence reads that “[King George] has endeavoured to prevent
the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for
Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their
migrations hither…”
At the time that our first law was ratified, the
population of the Colonies was approximately Thirteen Million people who occupied approximately Four Hundred Thirty Thousand, square miles,
or more than Two Hundred Seventy-Five
Million acres.
America was sparsely populated, and would certainly
benefit from an influx of people, particularly those who would be needed
tradesmen. There was also the fact that Westward of what was to become the
United States, was a vast landmass. The Founders were cognizant of the fact
that there were Hundreds of Millions of
acres that could become productive parcels of land.
Simply put, the Colonies needed an influx of migrants
who were capable, adventurous, and hungry for Liberty as it was hitherto unavailable
to the World’s population. America needed immigrants willing, and able to
create a great nation.
Do we need migrants today that are unskilled? Do we
need to have millions come across our borders who pillage our coffers? Do we
need to have those entering the country and shouting that we should leave here
as it is no longer our country? Do we need to have violent gang members coming
here to establish their brand of crime?
The answers to these questions should be obvious. We
need to protect our sovereignty, and not allow this nation to become a staging
ground for civil war, and the loss of all our rights.
Next up is the question of taxation. Despite what may
or may not be believed about this point of law, taxation as it is today saps
billions of dollars out of the economy and accomplishes next to nothing other
than pilfering the wealth of the nation in order to promote an oligarchy. It is
done by convincing the people that taxing provides for the running of government,
offers assistance to the needy, and a host of other, often unnecessary, and
unconstitutional acts.
Taxation as it is applied today is unlawful to begin
with. As the Supreme Court stated in Stanton v Baltic that “it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no
new power of taxation”. So why are we paying a direct tax on the wages, or
income we receive?
In 1947, undersecretary of the Treasury Beardsley Ruml
concluded that if we start withholding small amounts of money from paychecks of
Americans that they would simply go along with it. 26 U.S.C. requires that the
Secretary send, by December 31 of that particular year, a notice to anyone who
owes money to the government. Ruml reasoned that people would not voluntarily
comply with a large bill received at the end of the year. However, taken in small
doses there would not be any pushback.
While there is no law that anyone can find that
requires the individual living and working in the United States to pay a direct
tax on the money he earns, the government takes Trillions of dollars from the American people by the hands of an
unchartered agency that the Supreme Court has stated was not created by any
organic act of Congress. It simply exists to terrorize the public into handing
over their property to an out of control government.
So, the question often comes, why do people who don’t pay taxes go to jail? Simply put, we currently lack the courage, spirit, and knowledge to act as the Founders of this nation did and had hoped that future generations would. However, there are a few out there who rise to the occasion, listen, comprehend, and act accordingly; see The Government v Whitey Harrell.
What Marcy Brooks, the foreman in the above case, did was
to go beyond the indoctrination, and take a stand for justice. That jury did
something that most would never consider. They rendered a just decision based
in fact as applied to law, and justice.
Next up, the legal profession and the courts. Those
who opposed the Constitution during the ratification debates realized that given
time, and the position that they were granted, the judiciary would corrupt the
rule of law, and centralize power to the government. It should be fairly
obvious that we now have a judiciary that does not follow the limited delegated
authority granted by We the People in our Constitution. The judges placed in
such high positions work to implement their own agenda, and thereby place
liberty in jeopardy.
Anyone who has gone through the court system can tell
you that it does not serve justice at all, it functions to create a criminal
base, and therefore wealth for those who belong to the private organization
known as the Bar. It is also creating a class of elites who are not brought to
justice for any of their crimes.
While I could go on about the condition of our legal
system, none said it better than H.L. Menchen who 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 ...
No Comments »
by Nicholas Testaccio
I could ask the question as to how the Second Amendment appears in the minds of those who oppose an armed populace?
I could ask the question as to what it means to those who believe themselves to be supporters of the Amendment?
I could ask what it means to man’s most despicable, and dangerous creation; government?
I could also ask what it means in the minds of those who are members of the legal profession, and those who pretend to be honest jurists?
To answer those questions, you must know the entire context of the law. You must understand the dynamic of the men and women who risked all to create this nation. You must commit to the success of the Republic. In short, it does not mean what any of today’s lot of so-called experts believe, suggest, or interpret.
The true question is what did it mean to those who proposed, debated, and ratified the Constitution. Why was the Second added when the body of the Constitution prevents anything other than an organized, armed, and disciplined Militia; “The whole people.”?
What did the Founders actually say when they added the Second? The body of the People well trained, armed and organized with the recognized power "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions" shall remain sacrosanct. All able-bodied men shall be at the forefront of the whole People prepared to protect and defend this Nation from the tumult, whims, fears of the cowardly, the ignorant, the treacherous, the corrupt, and the tyrannical.
The most pertinent questions arise as to why those who wrote the Constitution added Militia at all. The answers present valuable insight as to what men such as Patrick Henry were hoping to both accomplish, and hopefully prevent.
In order to understand the depth of the lawlessness surrounding the Second Amendment we need to review some facts.
Militia existed long before the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The Militia was all inclusive with mandatory universal enrollment on the body of the People.
The front line of defense was generally all able-bodied men aged 17 to 60, depending on the Colony.
Every Colony had Militia statutes detailing the training, organization, and armament.
All the People participated in some form unless exempt by statute.
The duty of Militia able-bodied men were to be armed at all times for the protection of the Colony.
Protection of the Colony included the enforcement of laws, and to also act as soldiers in time of conflict.
Militia officers were charged with making sure that all able-bodied men kept their firearms in good working order and have sufficient ammunition on hand as prescribed by statute.
Those who could not afford to own a rifle were assigned one from the local Militia Armory, fronted a loan, or provided one by a person in the community who could afford to do so.
Militia were required to train, and if they failed to do so were fined.
Contrary to the many myths surrounding Militia, it was a working application of law that every Colonist understood as a duty. “The Shot Heard Around the World” was fired on April 19, 1775 when 70 colonial militia met 700 British regulars on the Green at Lexington. The battle went on from there to Concord, and to Boston as Militia from the area engaged the Soldiers of the standing army as they retreated to Boston.
I presented the battle above before going further for a reason. It shows us that Militia existed, were organized, armed, and disciplined so that they could perform duties later prescribed at Article 1, Section 8, Cls. 15 of the Constitution.
I need to point out that we will eventually loose our ability to Keep, and Bear Arms, in large part because of those who profess to be supporters of the Second Amendment. Allow me to explain. The Second Amendment holds no force of law unless the People are willing to enforce it by the means detailed in the Constitution, and the State statutes.
The Second Amendment reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” I’ll stop there because it is these Thirteen words that are misunderstood, ignored, and in the case of those who oppose private gun ownership, denigrated.
One of the primary tenets of the Constitution is that it cannot be changed without employing the amendment process at Article V. That also means that the words that were carefully debated and understood by the delegates cannot be changed in order to corrupt the lawful language of the document.
For well over a Century prior to the ratification of the Constitution, the colonies, that eventually became the revolting states, maintained Organized and well-armed Militia to perform the task of both police, then soldiers. Every able-bodied man was equipped with a rifle and sufficient ammunition to ensure the weapon could be effectively used in times of strife. The colonial statutes required that the able-bodied men of the community were always to keep their weapon within arm’s reach. You were not given a choice because Militia enrollment was a requirement of law. It was not voluntary. You carried your weapon, you trained with it when scheduled to attend a drill, you kept it in good working order so that the Militia officer could inspect it regularly, whether in the field or at home if deemed “necessary”.
Statutes were written detailing the duties, armament, training which included schedules, and muster. Every able-bodied man had a rifle, and if he could not afford one, he was assigned one from the Militia Armory, given one by a wealthy patron, or given a loan to procure a good rifle. All this was enacted and enforced by fines placed against the offending militia men. The statutes were at least similar across the Colonies with the exception of age requirements, and muster.
So, when those at the ratifying convention took up the subject of Militia, it was not about what constituted Militia, but rather whether it was “necessary”. The definition of Militia, as ...
No Comments »
by Nicholas Testaccio
Execution of the law requires some means of actually enforcing in terms of bringing about a form of relief, bringing a perpetrator to justice, or enforcing a judgment. A principle that is at best a clouded issue in our system wherein sovereignty is supposed to remain with the People.
In response to the Supreme Courts decision in Worcester v Georgia, President Andrew Jackson said, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." Jackson was saying that I am the enforcement branch of this government, but I have no intention of forcing compliance with a decision, for which I do not agree.
“The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men.” That is to say that “We the People” have delegated certain sovereign powers to agencies of government, and we expect that representatives of the People abide by those rules. If they do not, if they overstep their bounds, and the rule is enforced by created agencies, how do we reconcile the abuses, and corruption?
Let us start with some basic principles.
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. *** The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” – Federalist 45, written by James Madison
To which the Supreme Court declared in kind; “We start with first principles. The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers. See U.S. Constitution, Art. 1, 8. As James Madison wrote, “[t]he 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.”” – United States v. Lopez
“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” – Federalist 78, written by Alexander Hamilton
To that fundamental idea of government the Supreme Court confirmed that “Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.
“This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this court as one of the fundamental principles of our society.” – Marbury v Madison.
What’s that you say? We have laws, and the states have unlimited powers. NONSENSE!
First, and foremost in any logical thinking persons mind is whether, or not the political genius of the Founders created a document that reads “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof *** 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”, but then turned a blind eye to the possibility of abuses that may be perpetrated in any given state. The conclusion can only be no, because tyranny can spread much the same as ignorance, greed, and corruption across all boundaries as the Founders experienced first hand.
If you are not convinced of the fact that the states must comply in all matters within the federal Constitution, you need only look to the Fourteenth Amendment that reads in part; “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
What would be the solution, if any, to abuses of government at any level? Could the People maintain a free and independent life if bureaucrats, or elected representatives at local, state, or federal positions declared that they were not obliged to adhere to the principles of limited delegated authority? Would a slow decay of society bring us full circle, and back into the hands of an oligarchy if there were no means of control for the general public?
The Founders recognized what had already been established and relied upon to enforce the law, and help to prosecute the Revolution. They drew upon what they experienced for decades, and years of guerrilla fighting.
The Founders added a Bill of Rights with restrictions, and guarantees that incorporated a body of law enforcement designated as “necessary to the security of a free State” so that in any one given district, county, or state, the good People could employ their arm “to execute the Laws of the Union”, and thereby obtain justice. Restraining government could be as easy as placing power in the hands of the People to determine, and then alter abuses perpetrated by bureaucrats.
As we study the nature of our institution of government and its development, more questions should form in any thinking mind. Would the Fifty-Six men who signed the Declaration of Independence, and essentially their own death warrants, have written the words “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government” without recognizing and institutionalizing a lawful method for the People to not only prevent, but to also arrest, prosecute, and jail those who run afoul of our “rule of law”?
I’ve presented some questions in ...
No Comments »
by Nicholas Testaccio
The United States of America is a Constitutional Federal Republic, wherein all power “to execute the Laws of the Union” is vested in the People in their status as Sovereigns.
This is a long-standing principle of our rule of law as the court had stated in Chisolm v Georgia, “[o]ne constructed on the principle that the Supreme Power resides in the body of the people.”
The Supreme Court later opined, “Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.” - Yick Wo v Hopkins
A government so corrupt that it does not resemble that, which the Founders devised, has obfuscated the principles of our law. It is now a government that ignores the doctrine that it “deriv[es] its just power from the consent of the governed”, and therefore can only operate as that entity the People have the authority “to alter or to abolish.”
The principles of popular sovereignty, and the explicit recognition in the Constitution that it is only the good People that have the authority “to execute the Laws of the Union” would be in full force were it not for a completely corrupt judiciary, and its accomplices in the executive, and the legislative branches. Sadly, many groups and organizations of self-proclaimed patriots have also helped to misinform the public.
Mentioning only a small part of the history and law surrounding the fact that this was meant to be “a government of laws, and not of men,” I am perplexed, but not surprised, by a recent statement by Justice Neil Gorsuch. This newly appointed Supreme Court justice does not share a “cynicism about government and the rule of law”.
I wonder if Justice Gorsuch, or the legal profession in general have read the Constitution and understand what it means???
I can state from personal experience that many lawyers, perhaps the vast majority, do not display any indication that they have read the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, or any of the ratifying convention debates. Perhaps, if they did, they would then know “[w]hat *** those who framed and adopted [the Constitution] underst[oo]d [its] terms to designate and include.” Reading and comprehending what the Founders thought might just preclude a good deal of the judicial tyranny, to which we are now subject.
What lawyers seem to know is what they are told by an Imperial Judiciary. The legal profession, or as some have noted, a good-ole boys club, is a rubber stamp for abuses of power. Rather than questioning, it acts in accordance with decisions of the court, whether or not the court acts to defend the Constitution.
The rule of law be damned is the philosophy of the judiciary. The mission of those who crave power is to circumvent the sovereignty vested in the good People, and centralize it to suit the crazed and corrupt appetite of the few elite who have attained office through whatever perverted means available.
On tape for all to see and hear, Justice Sotomayor states that the role of the court of appeals is to legislate from the bench. Instead of being impeached, Sotomayor was given a seat on the highest court.
The role of the judiciary, for those who can’t comprehend the clear words of the Constitution is to be an advocate for the strict adherence to the rule of law. There is no wording that grants an authority for interpretations by political activist, power hungry black robed administrators and their co-conspirators.
As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 78, “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
Who would protect our prime doctrine?
Benjamin Austin wrote, “Certain characters now on the stage, we have reason to venerate, but though this country is now blessed with a Washington, Franklin, Hancock and Adams, yet posterity may have reason to rue the day when their political welfare depends on the decision of men who may fill the places of these worthies. . . .”
Who has followed?
Bush, Clinton, Obama, Roberts, Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Cuomo, Bloomberg, Brown, Ryan, Kasich, just a short list of the many for whom “we have [no] reason to venerate”, or trust at any level. Still we re-elect them, or allow them to sit in positions that they consistently corrupt.
We have a judiciary from the lowest to the highest court filled with those who have no respect at all for the Constitution. We have executive and legislative branches around the nation that act in a manner so contrary to both the federal and state Constitutions that their disrespect and lawlessness is immeasurable.
We have lawyers destroying every principle of law in every branch of government. No one has put it more succinctly than journalist, author, and political commentator H.L. Menchen; “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.”
We were ...
2 Comments »
by Nicholas Testaccio
In order to subscribe to the individual rights theory you must ignore the history of the nation and what the Founders specifically understood from personal experience. You must ignore the fact that the individual rights theory is a product of the later part of the Twentieth Century. You must also ignore the fact that the promoters of the theory are the same people who pushed through some of the most restrictive gun laws.
It’s simply a matter of bait and switch. If you convince the public that the Second amendment protects an individual right rather than the awesome power that the Constitution recognizes as the only authority “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions” you’re one step closer to removing the sovereignty of the People.
The Second amendment reads, “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”. What does that mean in terms of those who wrote the Constitution, and for whom the document was written?
In Pollack v. Farmers Loan and Trust Company, 157 US 429, 558 the court opined, “What did those who framed and adopted it understand the terms to designate and include? We must remember that the fifty-five members of the constitutional convention were men of great sagacity, fully conversant with governmental problems, deeply conscious of the nature of their task, and profoundly convinced that they were laying the foundations of a vast future empire. *** They had immediately before them the example of Great Britain, and they had a still better school of political wisdom in the republican constitutions of their several States, which many of them had assisted to frame."
In Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. 213, 332 the court noted “On this subject also, the Court has taken such frequent occasion to declare its opinion as to make it unnecessary, at least, to enter again into an elaborate discussion of it. To say that the intention of the instrument must prevail; that this intention must be collected from its words; that its words are to be understood in that sense in which they are generally used by those for whom the instrument was intended; that its provisions are neither to be restricted into insignificance nor extended to objects not comprehended in them, nor contemplated by its framers is to repeat what has been already said more at large and is all that can be necessary”.
Each of the Thirteen colonies had their own constitution that framed the workings of their respective republics. Each had its own militia that, for the most part, had existed for some 150 years prior to the revolution. Each understood militia to mean the body of the People with all able-bodied men, generally, from 17 – 45 required to keep and bear the prescribed firearm exactly as detailed in the statutes. Each understood the role played by militia when the first shots were fired on Lexington Green.
Tenche Coxe wrote: “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. –The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: “Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” I Annals of Congress (August 17, 1789)
George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
William Rawle: “In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, in the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulation as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.” – William Rawle, “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America” (1829)
Most important are the words of George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment: “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788. Clearly, the authors of the amendment understood that the word militia meant all of the People. It did not mean some body of the army, nor John Rambo out there pretending to be some super soldier.
So why is there this insistence that the second amendment is about an individual right and nothing else? Why is it that modern Americans can’t comprehend that militia is “the whole of the people” as stated by one of its authors?
In part, the idea of serving in some fashion is out of the question for most people. The Dick Act came into effect because the states allowed the militia to atrophied. Even the congress understood the need for “the whole of the people” to ...
No Comments »
Recent Form Posts