“to execute the Laws of the Union”

September 7, 2017 | 2nd Amendment, Civil Liberties, Constitution, Founders, Founding Documents, Militia, Sovereignty

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 a different manner. I showed how the courts originally looked at the rule of law. I’ve gone on a bit about how conflicts between what takes place in the world, and what was intended dilutes the authority of a government of the People. I’ve done so in hopes that I would stir some thought as to what would even be the point of a written Constitution if those who seek power interpret it away? Why bother with a piece of parchment? Was it worth the time, effort, money, and blood it cost to print the document if there are those who, not only ignore it, but also tell us its black when we know that it’s white?

Article IV, Clause 3 reads, “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”.

Why even suggest adding such an oath to the document unless it would be enforced by “We the People”?

The concept of enforcing the document so that the government will redress grievances to our satisfaction seems to be beyond the scope of comprehension for almost all of the general public. It was not past the understanding of those opposed to the Constitution. They were cognizant of the character of man. They fought for, and obtained a Bill of Rights.

In that Bill of Rights, there is one word that sticks out. It was so important to the men who wrote our Constitution that it is repeated Four times in the body of the Constitution. It is the only institution that the Founders deemed “necessary”.

George Mason, co-author of the Bill of Rights; “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.”  

With that in mind lets think of the Second Amendment in full context, as it was recognized in each of the Thirteen Colonial Constitutions, as our Forefathers understood, and practiced; The whole of the People, well trained, and well armed is the best, and most effective way to maintain freedom, justice, peace, and the welfare of our posterity.

The men who vigorously debated, and ratified the Constitution were fully aware that they were creating a system, in which the People would firmly hold the sword so that we could keep sovereignty with the good People. In order for us to maintain our freedom, we must recognize that the duty “to execute the Laws of the Union” rests with us, and then admit to ourselves that we have forsaken the responsibility to enforce the law.