The Right Stuff

April 9, 2022 | 2nd Amendment, Civil Liberties, Constitution, Founders, General, Judicial, Militia

by Nicholas Testaccio

There are times when I become maudlin over the affairs of the Nation and the World. At those points in my life, I feel the need to lash out with a rant. I see, what to me is an obvious lack of spirit, desire, the absolute soul crunching failure to protect that, which is most precious to the human spirit. I want to run through the streets yelling at the top of my lungs – DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR AMBIVALENCE AND IGNORANCE?

I am very fortunate in that my grandparents saw fit to take that journey from Italy to a country over Three-Thousand miles away. I did not know my paternal grandfather as he passed away when my father was still a boy. He came with a skill and used it to set-up his business as a barber. I wish that I could have spent time with him as I did with my maternal grandfather Vincent. Unfortunately, I was just Ten years old when Grandpa Vincent passed away. In the short period of time I had to spend with him I learned about tools. I learned about the soil as he had quite a large garden in the middle of Brooklyn, New York. There was an apricot tree some thirty feet high that produced hundreds of its sweet fruit. Three peach trees from which we would snack. Strawberry’s, blackberry’s, figs, and nuts that often made breakfast a delight when I’d spend the summer days with my grandparents.

Grandpa was a veteran of WWI. He came to America, walked from the ship to the local recruiting station, and joined the army. Several years later he would warn the young men in the family that “War is a terrible thing.”. As far as I know all the men in my family served in WWII if they were able. I had the privilege of hearing about some of the events that took place at Pearl Harbor on that dark day from one of those men. He laughed as he noted “We didn’t know what was going on.”.

History is replete with stories from the men and women who survived the turmoil and the vicissitudes of turbulent, dark, and dangerous times. For some of those who survived it was a scar that would not heal. For others, the realization that they made it through made them stronger. They could laugh at the past, taking note of the actions they took, and be thankful for another day.

In Henry V, William Shakespeare wrote what would become a battle cry throughout the ages as commanders often took the time to read Henry’s speech. Generals read the words to rouse the spirits of their own men, some of whom would lay down their lives. As I think ahead to what might befall this nation, in the midst of strife, I would like to call together those who see that our country is under siege. We are facing an enemy unlike that, which Henry and his tired, hungry troops faced.

On October 25, 1415, Henry’s depleted force of some Five Thousand Men, were blocked from their return to England by an army of Twenty Thousand French. At Agincourt, Henry used everything he had in front of him to his advantage. The English Men-At-Arms slaughtered about one-third of the French army, while Henry suffered the loss of but a few hundred. Against tremendous odds King Henry V was able to defeat the French in what is marked as one of the great military victories throughout history.

In Shakespeare’s soliloquy of what Henry V might have spoken to his men, he calls forth that spirit that stirs all to victory. The battle was in front of a tired group of soldiers, stressed by the campaign they had fought. This battle was for all that was left within them, and the pages of history that would place the appropriate label upon their victory or loss.

“That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart. His passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse.
We would not die in that man’s company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.”

As you scroll through the pages of history, you may have a glimpse of what was, but more importantly, what may come. Patrick Henry tells us “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.”. Yet, we are allowing our history to be destroyed by factions that I am convinced are part of a plan influenced by communist agitators and their promotors.

Henry went on to shout “Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun!”. And now we come to the point of my rant, as I see a downfall aided by those who have no inkling of their complicity in our demise.

Let me repeat. “As a citizen, I know the government *** to be republican; and my short definition of such a government is one constructed on this principle — that the supreme power resides in the body of the people.”.– Chisholm v Georgia 2 U.S. 419, 457. If this be the case of a nation “of, by, and for the people”, then a method of retaining that sovereignty over a servant government should be enumerated in our founding documents. And if that means be so stated, then it must be employed for the purposes of which it was made law.

A Declaration made on July 4^th, 1776 explains the principles of this nation where that foundation created  government “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”.

Fifteen years later The United States Constitution was ratified as the “Supreme Law of the Land”, defining the delegated authorities, and restrictions for the operation of such a country, wherein the People retain sovereignty. In order for this document, and the application of “just powers from the consent of the governed” to function as desired, the Constitution must mean exactly what it says, or it means nothing at all.

For it to mean exactly what it says, certain rules of law, and indeed the English language must apply. Doctrines that were studied and employed by those who debated and ratified the Constitution were meant to be carried forward, not set aside for the deconstruction of the rule. Some of those doctrines include the fact, that throughout the World, the sovereign, “We the People”, have the ultimate authority to self-defense, the ability to prosecute, the sanctity of immunity by way of our sovereignty, and the means, by which we can protect those powers.

For it to mean exactly what it says, we must understand that if it says one thing, it does not mean to imply an alternative; “Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.”  The Constitution, to which every “public official” swears an oath, expressly recognizes one body, that is the body of the sovereign authority, “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions”. It can be no other way. It cannot be construed to allow “public officials” to create agencies such as the FBI, ATF, and other governmental enterprise with any authority “to execute the Laws of the Union…” To say other, or to enforce powers usurped by agencies of government makes the subscriber complicit in the destruction of liberty.

If the Constitution is not clear to you, then I suggest that you refer to the words of those who debated each word and understood its meaning. Those words do not grant an authority to interpret what the Framers explicitly wrote. If you are enamored of a judiciary who has torn apart the rule of law, may I suggest you consult the papers of Robert Yates, who feared that “The supreme court under this constitution would be exalted above all other power in the government, and subject to no control. *** 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.”

And then those of Alexander Hamilton who wrote “If there are such things as political axioms, the propriety of the judicial power of a government being coextensive with its legislative, may be ranked among the number. The mere necessity of uniformity in the interpretation of the national laws, decides the question. Thirteen independent courts of final jurisdiction over the same causes, arising upon the same laws, is a hydra in government, from which nothing but contradiction and confusion can proceed.”. 

Yates wrote in opposition to the Constitution, while Hamilton wrote as a supporter. In reading Hamilton, I find that he presents reasoned conclusion based on the written word. Yates, on the other hand, has an insight as to what he perceived as the outcome. In opposition to the judiciary, he wrote;

“In my last, I shewed, that the judicial power of the United States *** would be authorized to explain the constitution, not only according to its letter, but according to its spirit and intention; and having this power, they would strongly incline to give it such a construction as to extend the powers of the general government, as much as possible, to the diminution, and finally to the destruction, of that of the respective states.”

“First. Let us enquire how the judicial power will effect an extension of the legislative authority.

“Perhaps the judicial power will not be able, by direct and positive decrees, ever to direct the legislature, because it is not easy to conceive how a question can be brought before them in a course of legal discussion, in which they can give a decision, declaring, that the legislature have certain powers which they have not exercise, and which, in consequence of the determination of the judges, they will be bound to exercise. But it is easy to see, that in their adjudications they may establish certain principles, which being received by the legislature, will enlarge the sphere of the power beyond all bounds.”

Article III, which details “The judicial Power”, is simple. If we are to take the written word for something other than what it meant at the time, and particularly in law, we place ourselves in peril, and this is where we stand today. We have either proved the “Anti-Federalists” to be at least prophetic, or the “Federalists” to be delusional. If those who opposed the Constitution were not wary enough to comprehend the human character, and demand a “Bill of Rights”, we might be in a far worse position than we have allowed.

As it stands now, we walk in the same path as did those who claimed that the Constitution would be enforced as it was written. In fact, those who have the loudest voice in the community that see themselves as constitutionalists are at best as delusional as those who could not see that, as Adams opined, if there were not evil in this world, governments would be unnecessary.

Today, as the field of battle is laid out before us, there is one side that operates under the principle that “all’s fair in love and war”. The other subscribes to an illogical notion that we must do it peacefully. I say illogical because to succeed peacefully you must have a working knowledge of how to obtain such a lofty goal. An ending, in which blood, tears, and destruction are not part of the road to victory. If the last two years have not proved otherwise I am speaking to the wall.

It should be noted that, aside from the fact that peacefully, at this point, is a matter of degree as to how much blood will shed before the one side wakes from whatever cloud in which they reside.

For a peaceful resolution to be attained, one must first understand “the Laws of the Union”, and by what methods have been established those Laws must be enforced. This is part of the prescription that appears to be lost on the conservative commentators constantly proclaiming peace as the methodology for rectifying the turmoil the other side created.

I have news for those who cannot reconcile that you will not attain any goal unless you comprehend the path to victory. There must be a strategy to success, but that plan should not include taking blow after blow from the opposition. You’ve already lost the battle. Wake up! You cannot achieve success if you ignore all the tools necessary for victory.

We have abdicated, even denied the proposition of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. We have turned a blind eye to the slow erosion of all our rights, including the critical right and Duty to maintain the Militia. We have, in the face of all the violations of the Constitution ignored the fundamental obligation “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…”

How do we do this peacefully when all around, even those with law degrees, appear to have almost no comprehension of the rule of law? The principles of our form of government, the mere fact that this is a Constitutional Federal Republic, but we allow our representatives to subvert that foundation, and the sovereignty of the people places a question mark on everything that so-called patriots propose.

While the talking heads keep insisting on doing this “peacefully” and working local politics by placing people in office who are clueless as to how our system was designed to work is as inane as spitting into the wind.  

You can debate this all you would like but remember that you are doing it at the cost of your freedom, and unfortunately mine and my children. You can live by that which you have been indoctrinated, or you can act by what you’ve learned. You can argue points that are in direct opposition to the written word, or you can focus on what is there in plain text. You can continue to make statements based on a program of propaganda designed to destroy your independence, or you can take up the “Sword” in the form of the lawful tools bequeath to us.

We can start by asking questions of our representatives when we see our laws degenerating into agenda driven abominations. Perhaps we can ask the current Senate is there any chance that those who are sworn to uphold the Constitution might tell us why the hell are we ever considering people for the high court who have a political bent, or particular DNA?

Can we start nominating people who will read the Constitution and actually understand that it is composed of powers and disabilities? Changes to the Constitution do not enhance our freedom, but rather expand the reach of government. It is a rule book with specific authorities laid out for the operation of those we entrust with office. It is not a living document for whatever agenda might arise.

Recently, Congresswoman Boebert said that the Constitution was not evolving. She was blasted for that, but I did not hear anyone come to her defense. IS THE ENTIRE CONGRESS IGNORANT OF THE LAW, AND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE?

The Constitution has evolved through the lawlessness of those we trust to uphold their oath of office. It was not designed to evolve. While it has a method for change, that is not the same as taking the words that those who debated and ratified understood, then perverting them to suit the needs of what has become a VERY DANGEROUS government. As a  point of law, “We know of no reason for holding otherwise than that the words *** on the one hand, and *** on the other, were used in the Constitution in their natural and obvious sense. Nor, in arriving at what those terms embrace, do we perceive any ground for enlarging them beyond, or narrowing them within, their natural and obvious import at the time the Constitution was framed and ratified.” Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Company, 158 U.S. 601 (1895)

There are no hidden meanings within the sections and clauses that outline the function of a government subservient to the People it serves. “[J]ust powers from the consent of the governed…” is not code for we can take what we wish to attain our goal. “[J]ust powers” are enumerated and limited to those exact words as were ratified. The delegated authorities, and disabilities so stated are not malleable phrases for our representatives to twist and turn into the destruction of our independence. They are roadblocks and bulwarks against the avarice, evil, and treachery of those who would sell out their constituents for some crumbs at the table of power.

The Framers of the Constitution institutionalized the “Militia of the several States” as the first line of defense against the convulsions of invasions and the turmoil of internal strife. Yet we here, even those who pretend to be patriotic, and those who strive for the illusion of a peaceful outcome are wanting to comprehend the magnitude of our denial of the one tool that the Founders deemed “necessary to the security of a free State…”

It is illogical to glance past the fact that Militia is the only institution that was cast as “necessary.” The fact that we deny the law and statutes surrounding the form and function of Militia speaks volumes to who we are, and what we are willing to ignore for the sake of our convenience.

In 1939, Justice McReynolds wrote these words in the Miller decision; “With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of [Militia], the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

“The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia — civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.”

We cannot continue to deny our birthright with arguments incongruent “the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators.” Those Founders who drafted, debated, and ratified the Constitution were succinct in their application of the ultimate power passed down to us. In order to maintain a free State, we hand to you the Duty to preserve a functioning, organized, armed, and disciplined Militia.

In days ahead, and hopefully with the flower of freedom fresh and revitalized by the will of good People, we might proclaim,

‘These wounds I had on Crispian’s day.’
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he’ll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words,
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remembered.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers.

The path to a peaceful outcome, in which “We the People” reclaim our sovereignty shrinks as the days go by, and we delude ourselves into thinking that we may accomplish that which has never been done before. That is to say, attain a peaceful solution while being both ignorant of the rule of law, and depending on others equally as ignorant of the truth.