Archive for the ‘Congress’ Category
by Nicholas Testaccio
The charge of Treason has been bandied about for some time now in light of government infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. After years of listening to the charge cast, I have decided to examine the issue in order to ascertain whether I could make the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Article III, § 3, Cl. 1 – “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
The Constitution is clear as to how such an indictment might come about. To start I must ask the following questions:
Is there someone, entity, agency, or organization engaged in “levying War” against the United States?
Does war include covert acts, propaganda, sabotage, and acts subverting our ability to wage a war and defense of the nation?
Is there someone, entity, agency, or organization who “in adhering to their Enemies, [is] giving them Aid and Comfort”?
Considering the unique form of government in the United States, do the definitions of “levying War”, “Aid and Comfort” expand the criteria by function and implication of our law?
Does disarming “the body of the people” rise to the level of treason?
In his commentaries, William Blackstone wrote, “Treason, proditio, in it's very name (which is borrowed from the French) imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of faith. It therefore happens only between allies, *** This is looked upon as proceeding from the same principle of treachery in private life, as would have urged him who harbours it to have conspired in public against his liege lord and sovereign: *** [W]hen disloyalty so rears it's crest, as to attack even majesty itself, it is called by way of eminent distinction high treason, alta proditio”.
Sir Michael Foster, Discourse on High Treason. “High Treason being an Offence committed against the Duty of Allegiance, it may be proper before I proceed to the several Species of that Offence which will be the Subject of this Discourse, to consider From whom, and To whom Allegiance is due.” Foster goes on to explain that “Natural Allegiance is founded in the Relation every Man standeth in to the Crown considered as the Head of that Society whereof He is born a Member”.
Foster wrote his Discourse in 1762, a time when monarchs ruled, and the not yet formed United States was nothing more than a hope and dream of a few who wished to throw off the bonds of allegiance to royalty. Someone who came to power in birth under the divine right of kings. Those who claimed the loyalty of the people simply by being born into the right family.
In 1776 a new nation was formed with the unique concept “That all men are created equal, That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, *** That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”. Within those words are the construct of a government of, by, and for the People. It was an idea so novel as to foster a revolution here and in nations so inspired by our Declaration. Sadly, in today’s world, the principle of the rule of law for this nation has died through years of judicial and legislative twists that “evinces a design to reduce [us] under absolute Despotism”. Be that as it may, this country remains, in the rule of law, a Nation “constructed on the principle that the Supreme Power resides in the body of the people”.- Chisholm v Georgia 2 U.S. 419, 457
The United States Constitution requires an oath of allegiance that we have assigned to every officer, from dog catcher, to jurist, to representative, to the president. In so doing we bind those public officials, and ourselves to adhere to the powers and restrictions laid out in the Constitution. The contract and the rule are pointless if both parties avoid and deny the force of law as it was laid out in plain language.
That “the Supreme Power” be the doctrine of this nation, it is only logical that the people constructed the State, and therefore the central government subordinate to the State. In 1776 when the Colonies “dissolve[d] the political bands” with England, they created a unique nation in law by vesting authority in the People who would be the caretakers of their freedom, rights, and liberty. The first act of the Continental Congress was to lay out the doctrine of law, by which all law is to follow the fundamental principal that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”.
In simplest terms, this is a nation based on popular sovereignty. Everyone owes allegiance to the Constitution created by “We the People”. The sovereign, in international law, claims the right to prosecute, to defend, to wage war, and ultimately to control all that is within his/her sphere of influence. As a sovereign, I do not consent to any “statute *** extending beyond those matters which it was within the constitutional power of the legislature to reach.”. - McCullough v. Commonwealth Of Virginia, 172 U.S. 102
While our form of government is unique throughout the world, it is nonetheless a fact of law instituted and defined in our first two documents of Law: The Declaration, and the Constitution. They clearly establish that in our nation, “Sovereignty, is of course, not subject to the law, for it is the author and source of the law, but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to agencies of government, sovereignty itself, remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.”. – Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356
To protect and defend the principle function of a nation so fashioned in the matter that “the Supreme Power resides in the body of the people” there must be a method for caretaking. Of course, it ...
1 Comment »
by Nicholas Testaccio
In the late 1930’s, Abbott and Costello introduced the nation to a comedic routine that they had performed in Vaudeville. It was a sketch that played on certain words in order to create confusion, but more importantly it gave us enjoyment, pleasure, and a piece of entertainment for the ages.
Today, our elected representatives have turned the English language upside down, around, and around, to confuse and confound the people they supposedly serve. While Abbott and Costello brought us laughter, our servant government brings us derision, turmoil, and angst. There is no upside to allowing government to wander from the strict meaning of the law as set out in the Constitution.
Playing words for an outcome that produces laughter is one thing, but when you twist the legal nomenclature of your founding documents you morph into a society hell bent on self-destruction.
Article IV, Cl. 3 of the U.S. Constitution requires that “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution”.
The oath binding our representatives to the Constitution should not be taken lightly. The Constitution is a written contract produced by “We the People” instructing those we elect or appoint to be our servants. The words are clear, and they were extensively debated by those who took up the responsibility to produce the rule of law, by which this nation should be guided. It does not live in the minds of the foolish, the despots, and the corrupt. It means what it says to the extent, to which we may decide to alter or change its provisions, restrictions, and delegated authorities.
Article V allows for changes by “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof”.
If there are changes to be made then it should be done by the process laid out in the Constitution. For more than One Hundred years, the government comprised of our representatives have made changes that restrict, encumber, and suppress the people those servants are elected to serve. While writing on the provisions set out by the delegates to the constitutional convention, Alexander Hamilton commented that “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.”.
For more than One Hundred years, a government of the People has operated in a manner “that the servant is above his master”. Prior to the last century the idea of regulating every aspect of the lives of the people who elected them to office was met with stiff resistance. The courts ruled by “What *** those who framed and adopted [the Constitution] underst[oo]d the terms to designate and include”. The terms were not fictions of law, but rather hard and fast rules set out to maintain a Constitutional Federal Republic.
Article IV, § 4 reads in no uncertain terms, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion”. Were I to be granted the task of some play on the word “Invasion”, I would consider it to be interpreted by the words for which was originally declared in that an internal force “has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.”. I see no other way to interpret the promotion of such agencies that enforce the myriad of rules and regulations that not only restrict, but also feast on the labor, production, and property of the populace.
We have “public officials” playing the words of the Constitution to suit their avarice rather than applying them in “the common parlance of the times in which the Constitution was written” for instructing “those for whom the instrument was intended”. In no uncertain terms, the rendering of the Constitution into a bastardized document has been promoted by usurpers, tyrants, and to their own foolishness a segment of the population that is functionally illiterate. As comedic was the confusion laid out by Abbot and Costello in their use of “who” and “what”, the reinterpretation of the Constitution into a living document is regrettably tragic. Should I say disastrous, foolish, and ignorant to a level so profoundly deep as to give new meaning to the word idiotic.
“In expounding the Constitution, every word must have its due force and appropriate meaning, and no word is to be regarded as unnecessarily used or needlessly added.” Where it states a specific delegated authority or restriction, it is not to be interpreted to mean anything other than what is clearly written. Under Article I, § 8 there are eighteen clauses that constitute the “Powers of Congress”. Under § 9, the Constitution enumerates eight clauses that list the “Powers Denied Congress”. And at § 10 of Article I, the Constitution lists three clauses that detail the “Powers Denied to the States”. So, when the Constitution provides for specifically enumerated powers, or denies certain powers it does not mean to leave room for the laws to go beyond, or in many ...
No Comments »
by Nicholas Testaccio
Dr. Miles Bennell here singing, “Great Googamooga, can’t ya hear me talkin’ to ya? It’s a Ball of Confusion. That’s what the world is today.”.
Yes, that is what I awoke with in my head this very morning. I showered, shaved, brushed my teeth, and gargled so that I might look and smell good for my computer. Heck, who else am I doing it for? I am restricted from moving around, going down to the local watering hole, and perhaps imbibing a beer or two with the regulars. If I go anywhere, the fascist mask Nazi’s demand that I must wear a face obliterator to prevent the spread of germs for a virus that doesn’t really appear to be as deadly as they keep promoting.
My head has been in a perpetual state of turmoil as I watch my country torn apart by psychotic, megalomaniac’s, power hungry bigoted sociopaths that occupy both the halls of government and the media.
By the way, it is extremely important to note that those people are chosen to govern by our vote, a process that has now proved that the Founders were correct in setting out parameters for eligibility. What does a person think about when they cast a vote for someone who not only is an incessant liar, but does the exact opposite of what they promise? Top that off with a two party system, and tyranny, turmoil, and dissolution are inevitable.
Onward!
It has been over two months since the election, or whatever else you might call it considering the confusion, and we are headed toward an administration that has promised to hunt down Trump supporters and make them pay. Yes, that has been the rhetoric that has come from that side, and it is most certainly validated by last year’s turmoil in which several cities, including DC, were set ablaze, pillaged, and plundered. Just like the good old days. Wonderful!
I did not hear people condemning the violence then. While video of fires and looters were all over, the media proclaimed it was mostly peaceful, and our newly elected vice-president was proclaiming the virtues of the rioter’s behavior, she was also assisting in their release from jail.
But! But when protesters stormed the capital there was no end to the condemnation by both sides of the aisle. Accusations of sedition and treason were spewed from the leftist media and incoming communist party members. Trump was blamed, again, by his mere existence.
And of course, after a second impeachment, the FBI comes out with the fact that they had received information that the storming of the Capitol was planned. What else is new? It’s not that we don’t already know that the DOJ is thoroughly corrupt and filled with democrat partisans.
For those of you who do not know, Kevin McCarthy played the role of Dr. Miles Bennell in the 1956, original edition of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. I have made mention of the character before because I believe, unswervingly, that I am watching the people of this nation, and probably the world being consumed by some sort of entity that does not allow for rational thought.
Follow me now, especially those who are condemning the violence and warning that “they”, the democrats, are coming for our second amendment rights. I may have to wander a bit before I come to my pressing question, but I promise I will arrive at some point. My mind is all over the place right now trying to understand what is taking place.
Mark Levin pointed out that in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia the democrats went around the State legislatures by going to the executive and judicial branches in order to affect changes in voting. It is clear as the nose on your face, but since you are wearing that ridiculous mask you may not see your nose. I should also note that the full videos of Levin and two constitutional law professors has been removed from YouTube.
To provide for the selection of the delegates to the Electoral College the U.S. Constitution requires “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…” I am not going to discount the Twelfth Amendment, which explicitly explains how the election of a president is to take place. I’m simply going to recommend that you go read it, and hopefully understand that the current process is a corruption of the Electoral College.
In support of the claims that the election was corrupt, I contacted my State representative here in Pennsylvania to advise him of the law. He told me that there was nothing that the legislature can do. I objected, but he told me that their counsel advised them that there was nothing that the legislature could do.
In my quest for truth, justice, and the American way, no I am not Superman, I sent my representative and the leadership the following:
-----I am linking to McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892). Of particular importance, according to SCOTUS comes at 34 & 35 where the Court rules;
-----"The appointment of these electors is thus placed absolutely and wholly with the legislatures of the several states. They may be chosen by the legislature, or the legislature may provide that they shall be elected by the people of the state at large, or in districts *** This power is conferred upon the legislatures of the states by the Constitution of the United States, and cannot be taken from them or modified by their state constitutions *** Whatever provisions may be made by statute, or by the state constitution, to choose electors by the people, there is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated."
-----I hope that McPherson clarifies the fact that the legislature has the ultimate authority to place the electors, and in particular when public officials and courts ...
No Comments »
by Nicholas Testaccio
The idiom, “Stupid is as stupid does”, popularized by the film “Forrest Gump” indicates one’s level of ignorance or stupidity. Some definitions grant that it could also indicate one’s level of intelligence but given the fact that the word stupid is emphasized, I am going with the negative.
This is a constitutional Republic as I have noted many times in the past. Yet, we allow the people we send to congress, other public officials, and the media to continually label our nation a democracy. It cannot be a simple mistake because the U.S. Constitution commands that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”.
So, is the constant rhetoric about democracy a mistake, a clear violation of the law, or insidious propaganda? Vladimir Lennon is credited with saying that “A lie told often enough becomes the truth”. That particular mode of propaganda has been used quite effectively over the years. For anyone paying attention, we are deluged with it from the same political bent from which it arose. That is to say that it is a tool of the Marxist, elitist, oligarchs, and mainstream media who are all part of the cabal to overthrow liberty. If you question this, refer to the title because I am almost certain that others besides myself see the same picture.
The Founders of this nation were wary and skeptical as to whether we could keep a Republic. They were students of history, and as Patrick Henry conceded, “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.”. Given the history gone by, and the character of man, both good and evil, Thomas Jefferson lamented “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”.
It is easy enough to look back at history, and second guess those who lived in some of the most interesting times. We can accuse those who lived in a moment of great importance and question their actions. We can celebrate those who fought for freedom, denounce the evil doers for their wrongs, and learn from the errors that all of mankind makes. Abandoning our history is akin to ignoring that “one lamp by which [our] feet are guided”. That certainly would not be wise for within the dusty pages that comprise our past are the building blocks for a better future.
As astute as the Founders were, they knew that liberty shines brightest when the people, who are for the most part peaceful, have the means to maintain their freedom without the corrosive interference of bureaucrats. Evil doers abound, the murderers, the thieves, the greedy, the power hungry, and the genocidal maniacs do not disappear from the pages of news simply because the law exists to prevent their ambitions. With that in mind, the Framers recognized for the people the tool that they deemed “necessary to the security of a free State”.
It would be simple enough to read the law of the land, and the papers written by those who explained, in detail, what the words meant, and the recognition of the pitfalls that might ensue. Given the predilection of man to be swayed, particularly in today’s world, by silver-tongued viper’s claiming the title of expert, I have little hope that reading every word in the Constitution, and comprehending that it not only must be interpreted by what the Framers understood, it must be enforced as detailed.
I took to writing these articles with the hope that, in their short version, people would take the few minutes needed to read, and gain some understanding of our law. I was prompted to this when I made a statement, years back when debating the application and enforcement of the income tax, that the American people are stupid. I made the claim because the facts are spelled out, and those facts of law are not the same as policies enforced by bureaucrats, and dishonest judges. I was immediately rebutted by another stating that the American people aren’t stupid, they just don’t know. I handed him a stack of papers proving the law as I had claimed, to which he responded, “I haven’t got time to read that shit”, thus validating Forrest Gump’s now famous idiom.
I spend my days reading articles, listening to the opinions of others, and trying to make heads or tails of today’s issues. Sometimes, I am asked to comment on a particularly high-profile case. In many cases, I find that the interpretation does not square with what was opined, ruled, or decreed. I remember the words Paul Simon wrote in “The Boxer”; “Still, a man hears what he wants to hear And disregards the rest…”
How poignant when we consider the rule of law, and the Forty-Two Hundred words of the U.S. Constitution. The document requires that every public official of the federal and State governments, be they elected or appointed, swear an oath to protect and defend. In those Forty-Two Hundred words are delegated authorities, and restrictions that “We the People” have made law. Each word must be given its due force as the Constitution must be read in its entirety in order that the rule of law “[o]ne constructed on the principle that the Supreme Power resides in the body of the people”, be interpreted by “[w]hat *** those who framed and adopted it underst[oo]d [its] terms to designate and include”.
“In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning”, and what could be more important to “the Supreme Power *** of the people” than the ultimate authority “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions”?
John Locke wrote in his Second Treatise “To understand Political Power right, and derive it from its Original, we must consider what State all Men are naturally in, and that is, a State of perfect Freedom to order ...
No Comments »
by Nicholas Testaccio
“I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.” – Patrick Henry, Richmond, Virginia March 23, 1775
History tells us that men are more likely to sit quietly and suffer rather than to right the wrongs that are cast upon them. They make no allowance for what their docile attempts at reconciliation may have on their posterity. “Not a man lives on the continent but fully believes that a separation must some time or other finally take place, and a generous parent should have said, ‘If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace’; and this single reflection, well applied, is sufficient to awaken every man to duty.” – Thomas Paine
Over the
years, I have been called many derogatory names for my stand on the Second
Amendment. I’ve been called an idiot, a dolt, moron, and even a traitor. On
more than one occasion I’ve been told to go back to my masters. Nope! I’ve not
heard that from anyone who wants to take our guns, but rather supposed
supporters of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. That group of so-called
patriots, as far as I can tell, know little to nothing about the subject. They
parrot much of the false doctrine promoted by groups such as the NRA, and GOA.
In fact, I was asked to leave a group for speaking about what the Second
Amendment clearly states; “A well regulated Militia, being necessary
to the security of a free State…” It does not go on to say that we mean
only the individual, but in the context of the Law as the Framers knew it to
be, the individual was ultimately responsible for acquiring and maintaining his
“weapons of war”, in order to fulfill his requirement to be armed and trained
in the Lawful Militia.
When I started my journey, the first thing I asked was, “What do those words, "A well regulated Militia" mean?” I was told by members of the NRA that they meant nothing. So, the men who debated, and understood the meaning of the words that they placed in the document, were what? Were the words irrelevant? Did someone say, let’s add some words to confuse people? Was the intent to make the document a twisted wrangle of unexplainable non-sense so the good People would eventually lose their rights?
The Constitution begins with “We the People”. It then goes on to delegate certain limited powers to the federal government and impose duties and restrictions on the States. So that the People are firmly in charge, the Framers clearly placed in our hands the authority to enforce the rule of law. Over the years, the judiciary, and its esquire’s have muddled what the Constitution clearly states. Warnings came from those who opposed the Constitution that the judiciary would usurp what the Framers enshrined, and then take justice from the people and centralize it to, what has become an oligarchy.
In debating
the rule of law, I’ve noted over the years that it comes down to one recurring
fault, the People have lost the concept of a free society in which they are the
ultimate authority. It eludes even the most well read among us. In fact, they
will argue assiduously for their own demise by citing every so-called expert
who knows so little as to refer to this as a democracy wherein the branches of
government should decide what the Constitution says.
Thomas
Jefferson wrote the seminal document on the relationship between the people and
the governments they form in order to protect their rights. To some this means
that we have a body that dictates and enforces the law. In our form of
government, what the Founders did was to create a vehicle for the legitimate
enforcement of a set of rules that We the People have prescribed. The
underlying fact is that government was never given any authority to prosecute
without the overriding consent of the People. We have a Grand Jury that
investigates a complaint in order to determine whether a wrong was committed. If
that wrong can legitimately be established, and if that suit can be rectified
to the satisfaction of the person who has been violated then justice is served.
If the
violation cannot be rectified, and the perpetrator is not readily within the
grasp of a sheriff, or marshal, then the Militia is called forth “to execute
the Laws of the Union”. Once the perpetrator is in custody, a Petit Jury is
empaneled so that the facts, and the law may be examined in order to make a
final determination of whether or not a harm has been inflicted, whether or not
the accused is indeed the perpetrator, and if the facts reconcile the complaint.
In the case
of some supposed crime against the State, in other words if a statute that
originates from some limited authority granted by the People, then the Petit
Jury also has the duty to examine the law, and make the determination on the
constitutionality of the law in question. For it is We the People who are the
author and source of the Law. As Justice Joseph Story wrote in his commentaries
on the Constitution, "It is to be
interpreted, as all other solemn instruments are, by endeavoring to ascertain the
true sense and meaning of all the terms and we are neither to narrow them, nor
to enlarge them, by straining them from their just and natural import, for the
purpose of adding to, or diminishing its powers, or bending them to any
favorite theory or dogma or party. It is the language of the people, to be
judged of according to common sense, and not by mere theoretical reasoning. It
is not an instrument for the mere private interpretation of any particular men.
The people have established it and spoken their will; and their will, thus
promulgated, is to be obeyed as the supreme law."
This is a
Constitutional Federal Republic despite the constant repeating of the term
democracy. It is based on a series of laws that “The Senators and Representatives *** and the Members of the several
State Legislatures, and all executive and ...
No Comments »
Recent Form Posts