MY CORE POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
Peter J. Mancus
Attorney at Law
California State Bar
876 Gravenstein Ave. So., Suite 3
Sebastopol, CA 95472
Tel: (707) 829-9050
Everyone is well advised to heed the following wisdom and guideline principles. I, and others who are like minded, retain the power to put these principles into action and to force our will upon those who disagree. In that sense, I, and others, retain the option to become proactive and to force certain issues via an escalation to a level most reasonably constituted persons would prefer to avoid.
There is a sickening, dangerous, appalling convergence of two dangerous trends in our nation: (1) Statecraft malpractice--Too many Government Actors are intent on expanding their powers at the price of contracting citizens’ rights, and (2) Citizen malpractice–Too many citizens who do not want the burdens of Liberty are willing to let this trend continue and allow Government Actors to snuff out Liberty’s flame by reducing rights to privileges.
Nation’s Organic Laws
Three documents make up this nation’s Organic Laws: The July 4th, 1776 Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights to that Constitution.
Most Important Ideas
The most important ideas ever conceived and communicated by Mankind–in any language, in any culture, in any age, on any land mass, by any race--are found in the second paragraph of the July 4th Declaration: 1) All men are created equal; 2) They are endowed by a Creator with certain unalienable rights; 3) Human beings have unalienable rights; 4) Included among these rights, but not limited to them, are these rights–Right to Life, Right to Liberty, and Right to Pursue Happiness; 5) The most important primary purpose of Government is to secure these rights of individuals [Rights to Life/Liberty/and Pursue Happiness]; 6) When Government fails to secure those three most fundamental unalienable rights, the People, after a long train of insufferable abuses and usurpations of its powers, have a right and a duty to rebel and to replace an oppressive Government with a new Government that will secure these rights.
These ideas, especially that Men are Equal, Men have Rights, and Men have a Creator, are more powerful than the combination of Einstein’s famous equation, all scientific discovery, all nuclear weapons, all conventional explosions, and all natural phenomena, such as earthquakes, the tides, tornados, and hurricanes. These ideas are powerful because they declared a definite break from the idea of that Kings had a Divine Right to rule arbitrarily. These ideas are the core bedrock for limits on the powers of Government and Government Actors. These ideas empowered Susie Seamstress and Louie Lunchbucket to have certain rights and to have a meaningful measure of self-direction and control over their lives.
An unalienable right is a gift from a Creator that existed before, during, and survived the formation of Society and Government. All human beings have such rights by virtue of being a human being. No Society, no Government, no Government Actor and no Majority can strip anyone of their unalienable right without a compelling justification, and that justification must be based on what a person did. It is illegitimate to strip anyone of any right based on fear of what they–or others–might do with their rights if they retained their rights.
No Guarantee of Happiness
It is important to note that this Declaration declared an unalienable Right to Pursue Happiness. No one is guaranteed Happiness. No Government, no Society, no Individual, and no Government Actor is burdened with the duty to secure “happiness” for anyone. Thus, the Right to Pursue Happiness is pregnant with the Right to Fail, and the Right to Find Misery during, and at the end, of that pursuit.
Corollary of Rights
It is also important to note that the declaration of these rights strongly implies the existence of a Corollary of Rights, including but not limited to, the right to use reasonable means to enforce these unalienable rights.
No Sham Unalienable Rights
The existence of this subset of corollary rights must be so; otherwise, these unalienable rights are a sham. Unalienable rights are not a sham. Hence, there does exists a subset of rights to use force, if necessary, including lethal force, to enforce one’s unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Compelling Justification for Unalienable Rights
Analytically, there must be a source of rights. Right or wrong, those who signed the July 4th Declaration declared that a Creator was the source of these rights.
The Tree of Liberty
Significantly, those Signors did not declare that Government is the source of unalienable rights.
Since all mean are created “equal,” it would be illogical and dangerous to make one man–any man, the source of such a vital category of rights.
Men can have legitimate reasonable differences of opinion about the nature of this “Creator”–whether this “Creator” is some type of God or Nature. The ambiguity allows for all inclusiveness, which strengthens the concept, to a certain extent.
It is dangerous to assert that anything other than an ambiguous “Creator” is the source of these unalienable rights. Once anything man-made, with an Earth bound, mortal existence is deemed to be the source of such rights, all such rights are in peril.
Part of the beauty of the Unalienable Rights concept is this: Since no one can claim that they are “the Creator” [at least not without being dismissed], no one can persuasively claim that they were born into this world as a Perfumed Prince or Perfumed Princess worthy to sit on another’s back and ride them into the ground.
No Man was ever born worthy enough to ride another into the ground.
This Organic Law is this nation’s Tree of Liberty. The Natural Law concept declared in the July 4th Declaration is the Tree of Liberty’s roots. The Constitution is the Tree of Liberty’s main trunk. The Bill is the secondary branches off of the main trunk. The foliage–and the comforting shade provided by that foliage--is Liberty.
Liberty is the right to do any thing you want as long as it does not harm another.
A citizen’s daring to peacefully claim his or her rights is the water that nurtures The Tree of Liberty.
A citizen’s shedding of blood to enforce his rights, and/or dying in the attempt, is the iron fertilizer that radically revitalizes The Tree of Liberty.
Everything that stunts The Tree of Liberty’s growth is constitutional poison.
Every law that conflicts with The Tree of Liberty is a dry rot secondary branch, twig, or dead leaf that needs to be periodically pruned from The Tree of Liberty.
The Founders who signed the July 4th Declaration told the Crown in polite, professional,
restrained, language that they declared themselves independent. They knew the Crown would not let them go–free of the Crown’s rules. They knew there would be war. They knew they would have to fight. They knew that thousands of Redcoats [soldiers of one of the world’s then existing superpowers] were already embarked on ships, thousands of them, en route to subjugate them and to hold them accountable as prisoners, and they knew the Crown could, and would, send thousands of more redcoats. Yet, each signed anyway, and about half of the signors were lawyers.
Ramifications of Alienation
About half of the signors did not survive the American Revolutionary War for Independence. Individually, and as a group, however, they achieved their goal: Independence. Why? Because they cared enough to do what was necessary, they were skillful, they persisted, they did not take counsel of their fears, and they got some outside help–from the French who loathed the English.
Along the way, the English also made the mistake of alienating two personalities who proved to be instrumental in motivating enough colonials to rebel, who vowed to make the English pay dearly: Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine. By analogy, Governments and Government Actors in this nation, since the Korean War to date, have excelled in motivating persuasive personalities to publicly discuss rebellion anew. These personalities range from Black Panther Party intellectuals to ordinary folk of all races. These citizens share the following attitudes: 1) A genuine commitment to Liberty under a Constitutional Rule of Law, 2) a belief that Government, as it is presently operates, is Public Enemy No. 1, and 3) At some point rebellion and lethal force, including political assassination, is justified to restore Liberty and to enforce rights.
Digression: Alienation and Sworn Peace Officers’ Admissions
From 1972 to 1976 I was a Deputy District Attorney criminal prosecutor in Southern California who developed a close friendship with a few sworn peace officers. Occasionally, these officers told me the following: They had friends who were LAPD or LASO officers who told them that it was their standard practice when they stopped a car of young Blacks or young Latinos to approach the stopped car with their key out ,and they “keyed” the car [deliberately scrapped the paint on the side of the car, for its entire length, as they approached the driver’s door, and did so in a loud manner, to show “dominance” and “who was the boss.” Such behavior stunned me, and disgusted me. Sworn peace officers admitted that vandalism was standard practice for them in making a traffic stop, and that they, the sworn peace officers, were the criminals. I wonder how many of those officers motivated minorities to turn on them. What those LAPD and LASO officers did was a form of unconstitutional intimidation, ego trip power play, personal vendetta, and a milder version of chopping off a runaway slave’s toes.
Aggravated Race Relations and Citizen-Sworn Peace Officer Relations
Project yourself into that situation. I cannot imagine anyone of any race reacting warmly to a sworn peace officer of any race who vandalized their vehicle.
Is Freedom Free?
While there are many minorities who are the opposite of being saints, there are many sworn peace officers who have irresponsibly and illegally aggravated an already bad situation, to the detriment of all of us.
Freedom is not free. It never was. It never will be.
Origins of the July 4th, 1776 Declaration
The July 4th Declaration had many origins. The core idea of the right and duty to rebel is traceable to Algernon Sidney’s Discourses Concerning Government. Scholars have proven that Thomas Jefferson relied heavily upon Sidney’s Discourses when he penned the Declaration. Sidney, in Section 36, “The General Revolt of a Nation Cannot be Called a Rebellion,” of his Discourses, wrote:
How to Determine if a Government is Good or Bad
. . . by increasing the power of their master, they add weight to their own chains. . . Rebellion . . . of itself is neither good nor evil, . . . but is just or unjust according to the cause or manner of it . . . They who know the frailty of human nature, will always distrust their own; and desiring only to do what they ought, will be glad to be restrain’d from that which they ought not to do. . . . it being much better that the irregularities and excesses of a prince should be restrained or suppressed, than the whole nations should perish by them, . . . . all disputes about right do naturally end in force when justice is denied (ill men never willingly submitting to any decision that is contrary to their passions and interests) the best constitutions are of no value, if there be not a power to support them. . . . [Emphases added.]
This is a most interesting excerpt. Sidney set forth a simple, persuasive, quick test for determining if one’s leaders or government is good. The test is this: A citizen need simply to complain, peacefully, about X to his leader(s) and government(s) and ask same to reform and wait to see if their is prompt, meaningful reform. If there is, one is governed by good leaders who “desire to only do what they ought”.
Right to Rebel
If there is no reform, citizens have a right to rebel to restrain and to suppress the prince’s “irregularities and excesses” so that “the whole nations should [not] perish” as a result of citizens being enablers in the further destruction of the nation by the leaders’ perversions of the nation’s laws.
A timeless, accurate, maxim of politics, law, and human nature is this: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Algernon Sidney’s Most Famous Sentiment
Another such maxim is this: Politics abhors a void. Power will ever expand to fill all voids.
Another such maxim is this: Power can be made out of nothing if there is sufficient will, audacity, boldness, and well executed strategy.
Perhaps the most famous quote attributable to Algernon Sidney is:
This hand, enemy to tyrants,
By the sword seeks calm peacefulness with liberty.
Jefferson and Madison Embraced Sidney
This nation’s Founders and Framers carried Sidney’s core idea forward to our shores and codified it in the Second Amendment.
Broken Faith/Destroyed Vision
Too many Government Actors, however, have broken faith with the Founders’ and Framers’ vision. They have wiped their collective asses with the Bill of Rights at too many citizens’ expense. What has been done in the name of “Law and Order” is insufferable. These perversions of the Organic Law shall not stand as a precedent.
Bill of Rights Basic Purpose: End Arbitrary Discretion and Codify Rights
The Bill was calculated to take away civil authority’s discretion and to place certain matters 100% off limits and beyond the will or the power of any majority, law maker, judge, sworn peace officer, executive.
From First Principles and Aspiration to a Fleshed Out Constitution
The July 4th Declaration was a splendid declaration of broad, First Principles, vague rights, and attractive aspirations.
Bedrock “Law and Order”
The Constitution is a manifestation of the codification of those First Principles, vague rights, and attractive aspirations in a remarkably short, concise document.
The Bill of Rights was a further fleshing out the Constitution’s skeleton.
The United States Constitution is the bedrock of “Law and Order.” That includes the Bill of Rights, which are the first ten amendments to that Constitution. Article V of that Constitution expressly declares that all amendments thereto are part of the Constitution.
What is Power
Power is the ability to obtain the desired result.
Distinction: Power and Powerful
There is a difference between power and powerful.
Framers’ Genius: Divide Power and Empower the Little Guy With Rights and Arms
A thermonuclear weapon and a tornado are powerful but neither can thread a needle.
A tank is more powerful than a rifle but a citizen armed with a rifle has the power to kill a Tyrant Wannabee.
The Framers’ genius is that they knew power [the ability to obtain a desired result] could never be eliminated. They also knew that no Man is an angel, that Man has a potential for Good and Bad, and the best they could do to cope with the problem of power and Man’s nature was this: To keep power in check by dividing it and creating pockets of countervailing power.
Rights Are Not a Matter of Governments’ Grace
The Framers prudently divided power in this nation by A) Creating three separate, co-equal branches of government, with a written constitution; B) This constitution has many built-in countermajoritarian safeguards to guard against the passionate swings of a majority [the tyranny of the majority] and the ill conceived policies of leaders. These countermajoritarian safeguards include staggered elections for Senators and Representatives, a bicameral legislature [Senate and House,] an electoral college, veto power, and the advise and consent requirement for the selection of certain department heads or judges; C) They codified certain rights in the Bill of Rights; D) They drew a distinction between the army [the Government’s army] and the Militia [the Peoples’ army]; E) They codified that the People have “a right to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed.” Hence, they declared that ordinary folk who are not employed by government have a separate, independent, right to arms, the pragmatic means to hold the Prince to his promise; F) They declared that the People are the ultimate repository of all political legal power in this nation; and G) They codified certain rights of the People [as stated in the Bill and throughout the Constitution.
These rights are exactly that–rights. They are not a matter of Government’s grace. They are also not a mere privilege.
The movie “Amistad” is a true story. It is about the capture of Blacks in Africa, their transport to America on a slave ship, their mutiny on the ship, and what happened to them when they arrived in America and the legal battle over their fate, one that went to the United States Supreme Court. There are many gripping scenes in that movie. One scene is this: Early in the movie, a muscular Black male slave who breaks free, during a stormy night, wields a knife to kill the slave ship’s crew. I condone what that slave did. He was a free man torn from his nation, shackled, kidnaped, reduced to an insufferable status, abused, and was being transported in horrific conditions against his will. As a last ditch effort to regain his freedom, he used lethal force.
The Devil is in the Details
Much later in that movie, this same character, during a court room hearing about his fate, while dependent on lawyers to free him, stood up in the jury box and said something to this effect, “Freedom. Give me freedom.”
Everytime I hear and see that scene, I compare it to the earlier scene where he made his freedom by using lethal force to regain his freedom.
That character got it right the first time and got it wrong the second time. Because rights, freedom, and liberty are not self-enforcing, one has only those rights, freedoms, and liberty one is willing to kill for to gain or to retain, literally, if necessary. That is reality.
There is no magic in having a Constitution–regardless of what the Constitution does or does not state. It is impossible for any Constitution to be better than those who interpret and apply it.
The Constitution Was Binding On Each State When Each State Joined the Union
Every constitution is made up of words and concepts. But, every word and every concept are malleable to the mind and will of Man, some of whom are better than others.
Constitutions are only paper with ink. They are dependent on mortals to interpret them and to apply them.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law” regarding the rights to freedom of speech, to freedom of the press, to association, and to petition government for redress of a grievance.
Reasonable minds can disagree as to how literal, categorical, and absolute that “no law” is or should be.
Journalist Sam Donaldson once opined that if he were a correspondent on June 5, 1944 he had an absolute right, per the First Amendment, to broadcast to the world, including Hitler and Rommel, where and when Eisenhower planned to invade Europe. Is Donaldson right or wrong? Why? I think his opinion is wrong. This is because his Freedom of the Press right has to be balanced against the right of the soldiers, sailors, and airmen whose lives were on the line, and the rights of the nation, and its citizens, to win the war. On the other hand, national security concerns can be, and have been, abused, and they will continue to be abused.
Does Congress have a right to pass a law making it a crime for sailors on a U.S. Navy ship to discuss committing a mutiny with the intent to do so? Why? I think Congress has that right.
Does the Judiciary have a right to pass laws that impose limits on when someone may file a petition for redress of a grievance? Should a person be allowed to file a petition for a redress of a grievance that is five years old? Fifty years old? Why? If there is no limit to how long a person can petition for a redress of a grievance, what about the rights of the person who was involuntarily sucked into a dispute long after the evidence has disappeared, witnesses cannot be located or have died, and people have acted upon an established set of facts?
Does the Judiciary have the right to impose limits on the nature and format of the petition? Should a person be allowed to file a petition for a redress of a grievance that is etched on one inch thick steel plate 5 feet by 25 feet? Why?
Dos the Judiciary have the right to impose a page limit or a word limit on 8 ½ by 10 inch paper? Why?
Does the Judiciary have the right to impose a filing fee for exercising the Right to Petition? Why?
Does the Judiciary have the right to restrict who you may use as a legal representative to press your petition? Why?
Article VI, Section 2 of the United States Constitution declares that it is the Supreme Law of the Land binding on every State judge regardless of what any State law to the contrary might declare. Article VII of that Constitution also declares that once that Constitution was ratified by a sufficient number of States, that act of ratification would be sufficient to establish the Constitution between those states, and, by implication, any State that joined the Union.
U. S. Supreme Court Has Sanctioned Government Jumping the Constitutional Tracks
It is logically impossible for a State to be part of the Union and to have its own laws be inconsistent with any part of the Supreme Law and have the Constitution be the Supreme Law.
When the States ratified the Constitution they formed a federal system of government: One central Federal Government and the State Governments legally bound in a federal system of government, with all of these governments subject to the United States Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land.
Every State that joined the Union did so charged with knowing what the Constitution declares, including that it asserts that it is the Supreme Law of the Land.
The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, reinforced the concept that the Bill of Rights–the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution–are binding against the States, and it is Congress’ duty to enforce those rights against the States.
The United States Supreme Court, has, occasionally, declared a few decisions which have expressed eloquently that citizens have rights. On balance, however, the United States Supreme Court has substantially contributed toward the ruination of the United States as a nation that functions in harmony with its Constitution.
Constitution as Contract
The United States Supreme Court has done all of the following, which has severely undermined the United States as the “sweet land of liberty”:
- It incorrectly, contrary to the Constitution’s expressed wording, declared around 1830 that the Bill of Rights was not binding on the States because it was binding only on the Federal Government. That decision allowed the States to deny their residents federally guaranteed rights declared in the Constitution;
- Shortly after the new nation was born, it declared the Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy, namely, that it alone had the final legal power to declare what is and is not the law and what is and is not constitutional. It invented that illegitimate doctrine. That doctrine makes it the defacto supreme branch of government, which destroys the idea of three co-equal branches of government, each with a pragmatic defacto veto power over the other. That doctrine also put the U.S. Supreme Court above the Constitution and above the People. That doctrine made the Supremes the New King;
- It invented the concept of immunity for Judges, Lawmakers, Presidents, and for many of their sub-ordinates and other Governmental Actors. The rationale for this immunity is this: Government Actors need to be immune from lawsuits and personal, official, and financial liability for their decisions and actions or inactions because, but for such immunity, good people will not be inclined to hold public office and to zealously discharge the duties and responsibilities of their office. That rationale has some merit; however, it fails to recognize that that rationale suffers from two horrendous problems: First, it creates a legal and financial sanctuary for those who are incompetent, negligent and/or evil, and second, it guts the First Amendment’s Right to Petition Government for Redress of a Grievance. What good is the Right to Petition when Government Actors can hide behind their immunities and escape being held accountable? Immunity creates a strong disincentive for Government Actors to be conscientious, to be moral, to be prudent, to function constitutionally;
- Even though the U.S. Supreme Court has declared that the Bill of Rights is binding only against the Federal Government, which includes Congress, it has inexplicably upheld Congress’ illegal “prior restraint” laws that violate the Second Amendment;
- Contrary to the Constitution’s express language in Articles VI and VII and the Fourteenth Amendment, it invented the nonmeritorious Doctrine of Selective Incorporation, namely, the only rights declared in the Bill of Rights which are binding against the States are those rights which it–and it alone–determines, on a case by case basis, are binding against the States. In context, the Black Robes who sit on that Court boldly overrode the expressed language of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Fourteenth Amendment. By doing so, the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed the Federal Governments and the State Governments to impose unconstitutional prior restraint victim disarmament laws against peaceful citizens. These laws increasingly reduce the United States to one gigantic Liberty Free Zone and Victim Disarmament Zone.
- Reformulated, the U.S. Supreme Court has, for decades, sanctioned a form of real, increasingly serious, prior restraints against the Second Amendment. In that limited sense, the United States Supreme Court is not meaningfully different from history’s tyrants who imposed disarmament as a prelude to tyranny and government sanctioned genocide.
- In the process, the United States Supreme Court has increased Government’s powers while contracting Citizens’ rights, which is a dangerous trend, notwithstanding that occasionally that Court does author a case that is pro individual liberty.
This Court has also ruled that while Constitutional rights are important and Government Actors should not violate same, when a person sues to vindicate his rights, because the value of the right violated is too amorphous, one cannot collect money for the mere violation of a right! One can collect money for damages arising from a violation of a right but not for the violation of the right itself. That, to me, is a most peculiar and nonmeritorious ruling. Any Court that deprecates rights so much should be removed from a large, plush courthouse and be forced to hold court on the pavement by the trash bins behind some restaurant. And such a Court should not be permitted to have the word “Supreme” in its title.
- The United States Supreme Court has also interpreted two clauses in the United States Constitution broadly–so broadly that it has allowed the Federal Government to slip its Constitutional collar and, thereby, gut the Bill of Rights. These two clauses are: A) Article I, Section 8, Clause 1's “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States”and B) Article I, Section 8, Clause 18's “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers . . . .” [Emphases added.] The United States Supreme Court started to interpret these two clauses broadly when Founders James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were still alive. Madison was a Federalist who believed in a strong, powerful, central, federal government, and Jefferson was an anti-Federalist who believed in the opposite; however, Madison and Jefferson both left a substantial body of writings where they railed against the United States Supreme Court’s broad interpretation of these two clauses. Madison and Jefferson argued this: A) The “general welfare” clause was a mere, general, introduction to the specific, enumerated, listed, limited powers that the Constitution granted Congress, and not a grant of power itself, and, certainly not a grant of unlimited power to Congress; B) If the “general welfare” clause was intended to be a grant of unrestrained power to Congress–which it was not–there would have been no need to list all of the specific, enumerated, limited powers granted to Congress by the rest of that Article; C) “[G]eneral welfare” was the Framers’ way of declaring that Congress had the power to help everyone, generally, without showing anyone special favoritism, but that concept was restrained by the immediately specified limited powers granted and by the rights declared in the Bill of Rights; D) The United States Supreme Court, by construing the “general welfare” clause so broadly, instantly morphed the Federal Government into one of unlimited powers instead of limited powers, which stood on its head and reversed the Framers’ intent; and E) The “necessary and proper” clause is still restrained by the rights granted to citizens in the Constitution–before it was amended and after it was amended. Jefferson agreed with Madison on these points 100%. I agree with Madison and Jefferson. If the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation is correct, then the Framers could have, and should have done this: Write a Constitution that said: “Congress can pass any law that it deems will promote the general welfare, and it has all necessary and proper powers it needs to promote the general welfare, and these powers have priority over the People’s rights, in Congress’ sole discretion.” If the Framers’ intended that Congress had that kind of unfettered power, they knew how to draft a Constitution that said that. But, that is not what they intended and that is not what they drafted, and that is not what was ratified. Conclusion: The United States Supreme Court got it wrong–again.
- On balance, the United States Supreme Court has not managed conflict well, has invented horrific doctrines, has imprudently and unconstitutionally allowed the Federal Government to expand its powers, and it has, as a result, ratcheted us down tighter and closer to civil war.
The United States Constitution is a form of a specialized type of contract known as a trust.
Government Actors Are Fiduciaries
The Preamble to the United States Constitution declares, “We the people of the United States, in order to form . . ., and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” [Emphases added.]
Based on that language, this Constitution is a contract that was entered into by the States, which agreed to form the Federal Government, by ratifying it. It is also a contract among the States and the Federal Government. And it is also a trust between the Founding Generation, the Federal Government, the State Governments, the succeeding generations, and the current generation–the “posterity” mentioned in the Preamble.
All Government Actors hold office as fiduciaries. A fiduciary is one who voluntarily assumes a position of high trust for the benefit of another and is duty bound to put the best interest of the other ahead of his or her own.
Name One Politician . . . .
All Government Actors, whether elected or appointed, are fiduciaries. As such, they are held to, and should be held to, the highest duty of loyalty to the beneficiaries of the trust. The American citizens are the beneficiary of this trust–the United States Constitution.
Article VI, Section 2 of the United States Constitution declares [exact and complete quote]:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, 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.
The “which shall be made in pursuance thereof” makes all Government Actors, repeat, all, a fiduciary for every Suzie Seamstress and Louie Lunchbucket American citizen, bar none.
Can you name me one politician, one office holder, one President, one Senator, one Congressman, one judge, one police chief, one sheriff, who has a sustained track record of functioning as a fiduciary–one who consistently put the best interests of the American citizens ahead of his or her own career? Reputation? Pocket book?
The Constitutional Hiccup
Perhaps reasonable minds can justify nominating one person, on average, per decade. Perhaps. That, however, is probably too optimistic and too unrealistic.
The disqualifying qualifier is this limiting language: “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; . . . .”
What Stops Unconstitutional Behavior?
Since when did this language stop our Misleaders, our political-judicial whores, from amending the United States Constitution in the guise of interpretation or in the guise of promoting the general welfare or in the guise of making another law that was, allegedly, “necessary and proper”?
Do the words, ““This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; . . . .” stop unconstitutional behavior?
Withholding of taxes?
Do these words, “This Constitution . . .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.” stop unconstitutional behavior?
Does the truth stop unconstitutional behavior?
Does litigation stop unconstitutional behavior?
Do petitions for redress of grievances stop unconstitutional behavior?
Do free and open elections stop unconstitutional behavior?
If peaceful, nonviolent, legal remedies do not stop unconstitutional behavior, what is left?
Rebellion? Political assassination?
When Was the Last Time You Heard . . . .?
When was the last time you heard Senators Diane Feinstein/Charles Schumer/Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Hillary, Gray Davis, George Bush I & II, Ashcroft, etc., state, “I cannot and will not support X [another law] because it is unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional because I am unable to find in the Constitution specific authorization for X. If passed, X would not be in pursuance of the Supreme Law of the Land, the United States Constitution. I have a high fiduciary duty to enforce the United States Constitution first and to function constitutionally. Consequently, I am opposed to X.”?
Would You Sign This Contract?
Would you sign a contract with me if the contract said anything like this: I alone get to determine what the law is, what your duties and responsibilities are, and what my duties and responsibilities are, and how the law should be applied to us, and you are bound by my unilateral determination, because you have no rights appeal; you must trust me–my decisions, my judgment; and, if you do not like how I apply the contract and what my final decisions are, no matter what, tough, you are still bound; and, if you do not do what I tell you you must do, I have the power to order law enforcement, the armed forces, and other branches of the government to terminate your liberty–because I said so–and punish you–because I said so.
The Judiciary’s Legacy
The Judiciary in this nation, from 1789 [the year the Constitution was ratified] to date has construed the Constitution in such a way that it is now a type of contract that no reasonably constituted person would sign in any kind of a “normal” transaction.
We Have Come Full Circle
To exacerbate matters, it is unlikely that the Judiciary would uphold as valid any contract that granted to one party such unilateral powers to construe and to enforce the contract.
Shockingly, however, the United States Supreme Court has construed the Constitution so that the oligarchy that sits on that bench has such unfettered power.
This reality is insufferable–especially when the highest court has turned the Sweet Land of Liberty into the Land of the Fee and the Home of the Slave.
The Revolutionary and Founding Generation fought a war for independence to get out from under King George, III’s arbitrary rule.
What Would Make the United States a Nation and a Great One
The Framing Generation, a few years later, passed the Bill of Rights in 1791 to codify [reduce to law] once and forever that in America–the new land–Europe did not exist, and, over here, the idea of the arbitrary Divine Rule of Kings and the idea of titles of nobility, etc., were forever extinct. Why? Because, in America, citizens had certain rights, these rights were a gift from a Creator, and the Creator was the source of these rights–not a King and not a Government, and, in America, these rights were “off limits.”
In 2004, however, functionally, legally, we suffer from the defacto effect of arbitrary rule by a new king, in disguise: The Judiciary has boldly declared, citing itself as authority, that it alone gets to have sole final say as to what is the law, what is and is not constitutional, and it is immune from being held accountable for anything that it does that is “judicial”. To put it in more simple terms: Judges can boss us around and we cannot do anything about it. Or, at least that is what many of them have tried to get us to believe.
Bottom line, the status quo is now this: 1) The Judiciary can amend the Constitution with every one of its decisions in the guise of interpreting it; therefore, they can shape it to their will. This is a form of Judicial Tyranny; 2) The Judiciary is the most powerful branch of government; 3) We no longer have three co-equal branches of government; 4) The Judiciary has slipped its Constitutional collar; and 4) We now live under, and are controlled by, Judicial Tyrants, who are “supreme” only as long as we tolerate their perversion of the real law, the Constitution itself.
Scientific discoveries, technology, large land mass, large population, mature infrastructure, awesome military power, instantaneous communication, modern medicine, and vast natural resources, individually and combined, do not make the United States a nation, let alone a great nation.
One Supreme Law
To be a nation, and especially to be a great one, we must remain 100% faithful to our Organic Law and nurture our Tree of Liberty. We must take rights seriously and we must obey the Constitution’s bright lines [word commands] that separate Government’s powers from Citizens’ rights.
There is only one Supreme Law in this nation: The Constitution. Just as the mass of one object cannot occupy the same space as the mass of any other object, all “laws” that conflict with the Supreme Law, are, by definition, subservient to the Supreme Law, and, when they conflict, the Supreme Law, by definition, remains supreme, and the conflicting laws are null and void, unconstitutional, and, in that sense, illegal and not a valid law. Nothing trumps the Supreme Law–nothing.
Most Precious Currency
Many have paid the most precious currency–human blood–for this concept: We have a Tree of Liberty, which, when well nurtured, yields Liberty for all.
The Law That Should Always be Enforced First
The United States Constitution is more than a constitution. It is the Supreme Law, the controlling law, a legal precedent, and the first law that should be enforced.
Americans’ Battle Cry
Americans, if they want to remain a nation, if they want to savior the Blessings of Liberty, and if they aspire to be part of a great nation, should adopt as their battle cry this motto: ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTION FIRST. They need to function as if they meant it. They must insist that the Constitution is enforced first.
Mini Crash Course On Rights, Permission, and Duties
Rights and permission are mutually exclusive, by definition.
What Quality of Freedom?
To permit is to control.
Control is the antithesis of Liberty.
Liberty cannot exist without rights.
Wherever there are rights, rights must be taken seriously, and someone must be brave enough to breathe life into the right to keep it from disappearing by apathy, atrophy or whatever.
Simultaneously, in order for there to be rights there must be corollary duties–duties on the part of Government and duties on the part of Citizens.
Government has the duty to take rights seriously.
Government has the duty to construe rights liberally, in favor of the Citizen.
Government has the duty to honor a citizen’s peaceful, responsible exercise of a right.
When Government construes rights narrowly and its powers liberally, it contracts citizens’ rights, it expands its powers unconstitutionally, it alarms alert citizens, and it fails to protect citizens rights.
Society as a whole is benefitted when Government respects a citizen’s peaceful, responsible exercise of a right–any right, even if the responsible exercise of same makes Government or any of its actors uncomfortable.
A Government that will not take rights seriously, will not protect same when peacefully asserted, that punishes one who peacefully assets a right, is a tyrannical government that alarms me, that disgusts me, that has no value to me.
Citizens must also exercise their rights responsibly.
Government may legitimately punish those who exercise their rights irresponsibly or illegally.
Liberty and Anarchy are different. The American Constitution envisions this basic legal framework: Liberty With Order.
The art, the difficult judgment call, often, however, is this: When Liberty and Order conflict, on balance, which of the two is preferred and why? Is the conflict resolved with a bias for Liberty? Or with a bias for Order?
With tightly constrained narrow exceptions [as in the Sam Donaldson case about D-Day,] I believe that in the vast majority of instances it is better to err on the side of Liberty.
A “freedom” that disappears upon the peaceful exercise of a right is a quality of freedom that is not worth having.
Limits on Governments’ Lawful, Legitimate Powers
He who defecates taxes to support a Government that treats a citizen who peacefully exercises a right supports a Government that has morphed into a criminal enterprise under color of law.
The primary purpose of the Bill of Rights is not to redress a violation of same but to prevent an abuse of same. However, too many Government Actors do indeed wipe their ass with the Bill and treat citizens as yesterday’s road kill.
Simultaneously, all citizens have a duty to exercise their rights responsibly.
When a citizen exercise any right responsibly, they are legally immune for doing so.
Right is a form of a synonym for immunity.
A citizen has a right to exercise 100% of a right.
A citizen has no duty to exercise less than 100% of a right, to forfeit any part of a right to Government.
Government has no legitimate power to penalize a citizen who peacefully and responsibly exercises any right, even when they dare to exercise all 100% of a right, even if and when doing so makes one or more Government Actor uncomfortable.
The Price of Constitutional Government
The price of having a Constitutional Rule of Law is this: Governments at all levels, and all of its actors, must respect citizens’ rights and the Constitution’s bright lines that separate the Citizens’ rights from Governments’ powers.
Evidence That the United States is Not a Great Nation
It is insufferable that while Government runs Constitutional red lights, it is hostile toward citizens who peacefully dare to exercise a right or who fail to turn perfectly square corners. That is an insufferable double standard, which is typical of a government that is unwilling to do what is right.
The United States is a powerful nation, but it is also one that increasingly appears to be in the advanced stages of dying–literally. It is no longer a great nation. This nation now serves up a quality of freedom that makes me unwilling to fight for it. I remain willing, however, to fight for my vision of America–literally.
Sadly, there is overwhelming evidence that the United States is no longer a great nation. Consider the following evidence:
- The Constitution is no longer enforced first, if it ever was.
- There is no Federal nor State “Department of Bill of Rights Enforcement.”
- The Federal Bureau of Investigation has officially branded a class of citizens known as Constitutionalists to be terrorists.
- Judges increasingly are not letting litigants nor their attorneys make any argument based on the Constitution in civil or criminal trials and have threatened to incarcerate litigants and their attorneys for making such arguments. Some states even train their judges in how to defeat such litigants, their attorneys, and such arguments.
- When the Judiciary makes the Constitution unwelcome in a courtroom, this nation is dead; it suffers from an advance case of dry rot; the Guardians of Liberty wear Black Robes, which symbolize the spread of the functional equivalent of a legal bubonic plague.
- The Honorable Edith Jones, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, told the Federalist Society of Harvard Law School on February 28, 2004, that the American legal system has been corrupted almost beyond recognition, that the administrators of the law daily display their contempt for it, and that the law is so complicated that it is difficult to decipher and it often contradicts itself.
- A simple, constitutionally correct way to clarify the law and to escape these contradictions is to return to First Principles–the Constitution itself, and ask oneself this question: Does this law conflict with any part of the Supreme Law? If the answer is “Yes,” whatever conflicts should be flushed. If that approach were followed, the law would be much less complicated and there would be few contradictions, if any. Most Government Actors, however, do not have the will, the desire, the intent, nor the courage to go through this drill. Why? Because for them, and for those to whom they pander, it never was about “the law.” Instead, it was always about, and it continues to be about, only sheer “power” and “control.” They knowingly pass unconstitutional law and knowingly enforce same to increase their power and to increase their control.
- Too many prosecutors function as persecutors who pervert the law to win at all cost, who play hard ball in an unethical, unprofessional, mean spirited manner, to the bitter end, putting citizens to the test, grinding them down, and passing the buck to the Judiciary to fix their mess, while too many Black Robes have become Statist Whores who lack the courage to enforce the Constitution first and fix the mess.
- It has become dangerous to be a well informed citizen who peacefully asserts a right enshrined in the United States Constitution.
- There are documented cases of sworn law enforcement personnel training subordinates to violate citizens’ rights under color of law.
- Too many cops, too many prosecutors, too many judges, and too many constitutionally illiterate jurors will beat up on a citizen who dares to exercise his or her rights–peacefully.
- A bizarre form of freedom and rights has evolved in the United States as of 2004, and this existed before 9-11, namely, you are free and have rights until you peacefully dare to exercise them, and, when you do peacefully dare to exercise them, they automatically disappear when some badge heavy, moronic, mislead, undertrained, neanderthal wearing some form of blue, brown, green or grey, terminates your liberty and treats you as a criminal.
- The United States has become the Land of the Fee and the Home of the Slave.
- FBI now stands for Fascist Bullies of Intimidation.
- One can peacefully petition government until every forest is decimated, and still the petitions are ignored and no meaningful reform is experienced.
- Government Actors call their perversions of the law Law and their injustice Justice.
- We have come full circle. Too many Government Actors now wipe their ass with Mankind’s greatest achievement, the Bill of Rights, which is suppose to be “a bulwark of liberty.” That paper parchment, however, has proven to be inadequate as a legal barrier to keep Government Actors from coloring outside the Constitution’s bright lines.
- Instead of being a body of constitutionally literate citizens, “united we stand,” with a mature appreciation of, and a sound understanding of, our form of government, with a shared goal, we are a gaggle of elitists who think “freedom” is their liberty, their right, and their prerogative to oppress anyone who disagrees with them, even when the disagreement is manifested out of deep principle, conviction, and the highest respect for the law. In that sense, we are not meaningfully different from the Iraqi factions conflict, the Arab versus Jew conflict, and the Irish Protestant versus Irish Catholics conflict. In those hot spots, most everyone is fighting for the freedom to oppress the other faction. Americans are supposed to be different from that. But, we have become that in our own Homeland. Doing that to ourselves is the antithesis of security.
- The United States is comprised of large gaggles of selfish hypocrites, constitutional illiterates, misleaders, fools, hedonists, control freaks, elitists, Domestic Enemies of the U.S. Constitution, American Taliban [those who pervert a concept for their own purposes] and cowards. Currently, most U.S. citizens are among the world's most stupid and most cowardly human beings. They tolerate, encourage, and even beg for and help to perpetuate, political-legal crap, with an insatiable appetite for more of the same. There is no shortage of Misleaders who are eager to give stupid and cowardly citizens what they demand.
- This nation has more domestic enemies of the United States Constitution than it has foreign ones. If there were no domestic enemies of the United States Constitution, many people charged with a crime would never have been persecuted, would never have been convicted, and I would not be investing my valuable non-billable time writing this.
- Too many Judges are now Sludges [they function as corrosion on the nation’s “liberty pipes”–impeding the free passage of Liberty] or Fudges–[they function as Statists who fudge on the law, e.g., they no longer function as Guardians of Liberty, but as Apologists for Government's Perversions of the Constitutional Rule of Law.];
- Too many citizens have committed sustained citizen malpractice by allowing the Guardians of Liberty to function as Statists;
- Too many citizens are willing to trade Rights for the illusion of Security;
- Too many citizens are among the world's most stupid and most cowardly human beings;
- Too many citizens are too docile and too dependent on sucking on Government's tit;
- Too many citizens are hypocrites as to how they approach the United States Constitution. An example of a sobering, recent, reality check follows. Speakers at the recent Democratic Convention spoke of gains made in the civil rights movement and the sustained effort made to enforce rights guaranteed in the United States Constitution--rightfully so. Simultaneously, while few of them mentioned their desire for more victim disarmament laws ["gun control"], that bunch, as a whole, is a rapid group of gun grabbers who, in that sense, want to turn the United States into a Liberty-Free Zone and one huge Disarmament Zone where only Government Actors have a monopoly on arms.
- John Edwards said, “Hope is on the way.” John Kerry said, “Help is on the way.” And when they said that, the crowd cheered. John and John are fixing to force more unconstitutional prior restraint “anti-gun/anti-Liberty” laws down our throats. That to me is inconsistent with “Hope” or “Help”.
- Too many U.S. citizens are Constitutional hypocrites: Those who proclaim, in effect, "I like this part of the Constitution and demand you honor it for me, but I do not like that part of the Constitution that protects a right you want to exercise; therefore, I have the right to strip you of that right when I get enough to support me and outvote you." That mind set is infantile and un-American. It is a manifestation of dysfunctional Constitutionalism run amuck. It is a manifestation of the electorate functioning as a gaggle, as a gang, as myopic, irresponsible, dangerous, selfish, Useful Idiots for Tyrant Wannabees. It is a manifestation of democracy at its worse--mob rule, unrestrained by the Constitution's many built-in countermajoritarian safeguards. It is a manifestation of the mob wiping its collective ass with Mankind's greatest achievement--the Bill of Rights. Those who have this disgusting, egregious mind set have an immature comprehension of "American Constitutional Law" and do not understand the difference between the "Constitutional Rule of Law" and any "Rule of Law." Per an adult's solid, mature, true, correct, comprehension of "American Constitutional Law," Freedom is not merely anyone's "right" to oppress another--no matter how benignly or well intentioned--just because one has the political clout to out vote another and get enough political-legal support to impose the oppression.
- Another example of how misleading speakers at the recent Democratic Convention are is this: Every speaker who referred to this nation's form of government described it as a democracy. That description, literally, means, one man, one vote; majority rule is always outcome determinative; mob rule--unchecked by anything. The United States is not a democracy. Instead, legally, we are a Constitutional Republic. Our Constitution has many expressed, built-in countermajoritarian, anti-mob rule, prudent safeguards, and Constitution's commands declare that Government's powers stop at the People's rights. I suspect that those speakers know this but persists in telling the lie that we are a democracy. This is because they want to blur the crucial distinction between a democracy and a Constitutional Republic. They want to blur this distinction for these reasons: A) They want to use a simple majority vote to plunder citizens, to rob them under color of law to redistribute income and wealth to pay for their social programs that they promise to buy votes to gain office, and B) They want to induce people to believe that the Constitution’s commands are inadequate to stop a majority’s will to strip people of their rights. They need people to believe that Government, not a Creator, is the ultimate source of rights. They need people to believe this so they can reduce rights to privileges. “Hope/Help is on the way.” is code for–we are fixing’ to plunder to redistribute wealth.
- Another example of this egregious mind set is this: Homosexuals and lesbians demand the "right" to marry a person of the same sex, demand the "right" of privacy to engage in their sexual practices, demand the "right" to plunder me in the name of "social justice" and "morality" to pay their horrendous medical bills to cope with HIV, while, simultaneously, demanding that I be stripped of my Second Amendment right to arms on the grounds that they have a "right" to feel safe from me while forcing me to be exposed to the byproducts of their unsafe sex practices. These people really think that their right to execute their sexual practices is more important than my right to protect my life with a loaded firearm in a public place.
- Another example of this egregious mind set is this: Too many demand that Government Actors reduce rights to privileges and tolerate that when it is done.
- Republicans, under Bush II, Cheney, Ashcroft, Powell, etc., are not a meaningfully satisfactory alternative to the gun grabbing Democrats. The best this bunch has been able to do is to pass Patriot Act I, clamor for Patriot Act II, and try to scare us enough to surrender Rights for the illusion of Security, while running up the nation’s largest deficit, and giving Cheney’s former company sweet heart contracts at taxpayers’ expense. Stripping American citizens of their birthrights is hardly the equivalent of defeating terrorists.
- Bush II is a disaster. It has been reported that in a recent anti-abortion right speech he referenced to a fetus as a feces about twelve times, such as, [paraphrased], “I am against abortion because every feces is a gift from God born with unalienable rights.” It has also been reported that Bush is viewed by many of his advisors as being borderline or actual “looney tunes.” The problem is this: He is an untreated dry drunk alcoholic who may have also abused controlled substances. In any case, he is supposed to believe that he will lose the election, he is paranoid, and he has told his staff if they cannot protect him from the mother f . . . . media, he will replace them. To cope with such outbursts, a psychiatrists has put him on powerful anti-depressant medicines, but they impair his ability to think, and he needs a high dosage of same to cope with his depression.
- In any case, Bush II and the Republicans have had four years to meaningfully declare that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to arms and he and they have failed to do that.
- Our own government has become the world’s biggest criminal enterprise. We spent the 1900's establishing three major international legal concepts: No nation may cross a border with arms with hostile intent, “I was only following orders.” is not a valid legal defense to crimes against humanity, and prisoners of war must be treated humanely per the Geneva Convention. Bush II’s administration, however, has violated each of these principles that the United States spent a nation’s treasure and tons of human blood to establish.
When the Government or a Government Actor says something “official” can you trust it? Rely upon it? Be held immune in a court of law from criminal prosecution for doing something in reasonable reliance upon what the Government said in an official Government publication? Or for doing something in reasonable reliance upon what a high level Government official said?
Mixed Signals, Incompetence, Hide the Ball, Political Posturing, Weaseling
Answer: It depends. As the Honorable Edith Jones, Judge, said, the law is so complicated and it does contradict itself. I know of court case decisions that give 180 degree opposite, conflicting answers to these questions. One case says: No. The government and the law is too complicated and too big and the government has different spokespersons; therefore, no one has a right to believe or to rely upon what any government publication or official says! Other cases hold the opposite.
Sadly, however, these same Governments have ruled that “ignorance of the law is no excuse”!
Bottom line: Our Governments and our Government Actors have created for themselves lots of wiggle room for themselves [They are immune; we have to obey them; we have to know what is the law because ignorance is no excuse.]
Well, excuse me, Mr. Government Actor, but, when Mr. Government Actor I says X and when Mr. Government Actor II says Y and when X contradicts Y, how can I know who to believe? How can I obey X and Y–when X and Y conflict?
Excuse me, further, Mr. Government Actor, but, is it okay if we just ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTION FIRST–THE SUPREME LAW? Can we get rid of all laws that conflict with the Supreme Law? Would you please just obey our Constitution? Please?
The media reported that soon after the recent Democratic Convention, President Bush, during a Cambridge [Massachusetts?] rally told the crowd:
How is the General Welfare Promoted by . . . .?
We stand for the Second Amendment, which gives every American the right to bear arms [and my record] stands in stark contrast to my opponent. Our message is, law abiding citizens should be allowed to bear and own a gun, and criminals who commit crime with guns ought to go to jail.
Did you detect anything that is unconstitutional about what President Bush said and how he said it?
Does the Second Amendment “give” anything or does it codify a right–confirm the existence of a pre-existing right?
Did the Federal Government “give” citizens this right via the Second Amendment? If so, can the Federal Government take back what Bush seems to imply the Feds “gave” citizens?
If I am being too hyper picky about “gives,” what about this verb–“allowed”?
Who is Constitutionally empowered to make the decision as to who is “allowed to bear and own a gun”? The party in power? Judges? The United States Supreme Court? The States? A Police Chief? A Sheriff? A State Lawmaker? A Federal Lawmaker?
If any one has the power “to allow” citizens to “bear and own a gun” what other rights do these people have the power “to allow” citizens to have? Or to reduce to a privilege? Or to deny? Suspend? Dilute?
Where does it state in the Supreme Law that unless X “allows” one “to bear and own a gun” to do so is a “crime”?
But, is not that exactly what politicos like, and including, Feinstein, Kennedy, Schummer, Davis, Perota, Boxer, etc., have been asserting–and getting away with. In essence, is this what our Misleaders have been telling us: “In our opinion, the general welfare is not promoted if you have a gun; therefore, it is necessary and proper for us to disallow you to have a gun. We do not care what the Second Amendment states. We have the necessary and proper power to promote the general welfare, despite the Bill of Rights, and the United States Supreme Court has upheld this construction of the Supreme Law.”?
All of these politicos are political whores–Domestic Enemies of the United States Constitution of the First Rank. They are also Traitors of the First Rank. Their sworn oaths of office have not stopped them from uttering such unconstitutional crap and morphing it into unconstitutional laws and calling their perversions “leadership”.
Yet, citizens continue to commit citizenship civic malpractice by electing and re-electing these politico whores who speak with fork-tonged, circular reasoning.
How is the general welfare promoted by stripping people of their rights? By making America more like the rest of the world–where people do not have rights? By making people increasingly dependent on Government for their protection?
Saddam Hussein can, while remaining 100% factual . . . and accurate, point to the gap between what our Constitution commands, and what our Government does, and make a powerful case that the United States is the world’s biggest, most threatening, criminal enterprise, it has unconstitutionally stripped its citizens of their most basic rights, and we/our governments are First Rank Hypocrites.
The “National Glue” is Broken!
Example: Did you invade Iraq after complying with Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of your own Constitution–“The Congress shall have power to declare war”? No.
Example: Do you allow your own people to rely on your official pronouncements and to make Constitutional arguments in a criminal case as a defense to a criminal charge? No.
Example: Do you allow people to keep and bear arms without any prior restraint? No.
Example: When your IRS handbooks and regulations say your federal income tax is “voluntary,” do you allow people to not pay their taxes? No.
Example: When your citizens file a petition for redress of a meritorious grievance, do you respond to them timely, with good cheer, and promptly remedy the problem, in full compliance with your Constitution? No.
Example: Did you honor the Geneva Convention regarding Iraqi prisoners of war? No.
Example: Are you Freedom Haters? Liberty Thieves? Yes. Yes.
Mankind's greatest achievement is the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. This is because that Bill codified the most important rights of Mankind and declared The Power of "No!", namely, Government's powers stop at the People's rights, as declared in that Bill. Just look at the first Ten Amendments and the prominent use of the word “No.”
Why Fight? Fight For What?
That Bill, when taken seriously, is the only thing that separates the United States from the rest of the world. That Bill, when taken seriously, is the only thing that makes this nation "great". That Bill, when taken seriously, is the most important, singular thing--visible or invisible--that holds us together as a nation, as a form of invisible political-legal-attitudinal "glue."
Too few, however, believe this any more. They now tolerate politico-legal crap and even demand it and condone it.
Who would fight for that Bill? For the rights declared therein? Would you? I would. I
would fight for that Bill because I value Liberty, my independence, and the Constitutional Rule of Law. I am willing to shoulder the burdens of citizenship, and, frankly, I am willing to kill to enforce my rights, damn the consequences. Some people are traitors. These traitors have earned a comeuppance.
Beautiful Lyrics: But, Where are America’s Real Patriots?
The song “America the Beautiful” has beautiful lyrics, but it seems that America itself no longer has enough real patriots worthy of those lyrics–those fine aspirations.
Four Boxes of Freedom
Consider this partial excerpt from that song:
How can there be peaceful mending of America’s ills, with “liberty in law,” when the Black Robes and other Government Actors hide behind their illegitimate immunities and do dastardly things against citizens under color of law, with each branch of government “sistering up”–protecting the other, from a citizen’s meritorious Petition for Redress of a Grievance?
God mend thine ev'ry flaw,Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law.
O beautiful for heroes prov'd
In liberating strife,
Who more than self their country loved,
And mercy more than life.
May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness,
And ev'ry gain divine.
O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears.
God shed his grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea.
How can there be heroes who loved the country more than their own lives, who, through “liberating strife,” boldly told the Government Actors “You are wrong! You must obey the Constitution’s commands.” when so many heroes who do stand up are beaten down, ignored, maligned, marginalized, criminally prosecuted, incarcerated, and left to rot?
What is “noble” about a Government that refuses to obey its own Constitution’s commands?
How can there be “brotherhood From sea to shining sea” under these conditions?
There are Four Boxes of Freedom: Soap Box, Ballot Box, Jury Box, and Cartridge Box. I am now on my Soap Box.
Friend or Foe?
There are only three boxes before the Cartridge Box. I stress–only three.
In too many real world cases, all three of the first boxes have failed citizens. One failure would be one too many.
These Four Boxes are best used in the order in which I listed them.
He who reasons from and to the United States Constitution, wears his Constitutional Collar, and obeys the Constitution's commands, is your Friend and can properly lay a legitimate claim to being an American. Everyone else is your Enemy, a Tyrant Wannabee, a Useful Idiot for your Enemy or Tyrant Wannabees, a Freedom Hater, a Liberty Thief, a Domestic or Foreign Enemy of the United States Constitution, and/or a Statist.
How Do You Reason or Think?
I reason from and to the United States Constitution. If I deem X to be Constitutional, I support it, whether I agree with it or not. That is true for all human beings–regardless of their sex, color, creed, sexual preference, age, etc.
What Rights Do We Really Have?
Too many, however, reason from or to what they think will put the most money in their pocket.
And, I suspect, most judges do not even think of the Constitution as a law. Instead, most judges probably think of the Constitution only as the Constitution. Such judges reason, at most, only from case precedent to case precedent.
I once had a judge in open court tell me when a Constitutional argument was being made, “Well, we have refined it since then.,” as if case precedents are the law and the Supreme Law itself is not the law! And I once had another judge tell me in open court that he was duty bound to reason from and to case precedents, not from and to the Constitution–the Supreme Law!
When judges reason like that, when cops terminate your liberty on nonmeritorious grounds, when prosecutors function as unprincipled persecutors, when the Guardians of Liberty function as Statist Whores, when too few in the system refuse to obey the Constitution's commands, is not this statement true: One has only those rights that one is willing to kill for to retain?
When Lethal Force is Justified
Anyone who is so devoid of common decency that he or she is hell bent on stripping you of your rights, and is willing to function as an Oppressor to impose his or her will against you, in violation of your rights and the Constitution's commands, has forfeited his or her right to life. Such an Oppressor will continue to oppress, with the approval of his or her rationalizations, until stopped. If it requires lethal force to stop the Oppressor, lethal force is justified.
Finite Limits for Tolerating Public Serpents
There are finite limits as to how long well informed citizens will tolerate public serpents functioning as piranhas that increasingly bit off chunks of Liberty as if they were devouring a hapless hippo. Piranhas should not be surprised when the hapless hippo morphs into the most awesome crocodile that devours the piranhas.
What Government Actors Must Do: Obey the Constitution’s Commands
Government Actors, especially judges, need to do the following, immediately: Find the integrity and the courage to do their sworn duty, namely, to support the United States Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic; to obey the Constitution’s commands; and to reason from and to the Constitution.
What Citizens Should Do: Never Surrender Rights for Security
When we keep our rights [R] we know we have R and we enjoy R's benefits--Liberty [L].
Violence is the Only Remaining Remedy When All Other Remedies Fail
If we surrendered R, or allowed anyone to take R from us, to achieve "Security" [S], we would foolishly make ourselves dependent on another for S, would no longer have R or L, and we would have only an illusion of S. Those who trade R and L for S get only T--Tyranny.
The best way to achieve meaningful S is to retain all of R so we can maintain the greatest measure of L and pragmatic means to enforce R, which yields meaningful S. It is better to shoulder the responsibility of doing everything necessary to retain R and L. If that requires using lethal force, so be it.
Real Patriots understand this and will act accordingly.
Others are unworthy of Liberty.
It is prudent to never let a weakling determine policy or your fate.
What are peaceful citizens suppose to do when the first three boxes yield an oppressive result? Answer: Read the July 4th Declaration of Independence, second paragraph, namely, “. . . But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. . . .” [Emphases added.]
Rail against these ideas if you want. As a nation, however, we legally celebrate them every July 4th, and there are millions of American citizens right now who have already made the decision to rebel because they are exasperated with Governments’ actors pissing on them and calling their perversions of the nation’s laws rainwater.
I write this to try to reason out loud with my fellow citizens, to enlighten them, to peacefully stake out certain ideas in the hope that they will prevail in the market place of ideas so that violence will prove to be unnecessary to restore Liberty and to enforce rights.
Having the Guts to Act on Deep Thinking is Not Core Criminal Conduct
General George S. Patton opined that no one is thinking when everyone thinks alike. I think. If my thoughts differ from yours, that does not make me bad, a criminal, stupid, or less wise in comparison to you.
The Secret of Happiness
It is not a crime for me to tell my fellow citizens what they need to know.
An ancient Greek correctly opined: The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the Secret of Freedom is Courage.
Is It Now Time to Revolt? Or to Say, “Seig Heil!” ?
If it is now a crime for any citizen to peacefully communicate candidly with any government official to try to peacefully redress a grievance, the time to revolt has arrived.
The Law’s Life Blood: Experience, Not Logic!
It is never time to say, “Seig Heil!” Never. Never. Never.
Once Government makes it clear that it is a bad government and is hell bent on continuing a long trend of usurpations of rights and insufferable abuse, any day and every day is a mighty fine day to revolt.
A U.S. Supreme Court judge once opined that the life of the law is not logic but experience. True. The War Between the States [or the War of Northern Aggression] from 1861 to 1865 was part of our national experience, which arose from various legal issues. The American Revolutionary War before that was part of our national experience, which also arose from various legal issues.
To Permit Is to Control.
Government Actors who perpetuate on-going abuse of citizens will contribute meaningfully to increasing the odds that there will be another outbreak of sustained violence.
The general welfare is not promoted when rights are reduced to privileges, when
Government is so powerful that it can wipe its ass with the very thing that was once declared by judges to be the Bulwark of Liberty--the Bill of Rights.
The Fifth Branch of Government
To the extent that the Media is the Fourth Branch of Government the Militia is the Fifth
Who Will Swerve?
Branch of Government. The Constitution specifically mentions the Militia and specifically drew a distinction between the Militia and the Army. The Militia enjoys Constitutional stature as much as the Media or the Army enjoys same. The Army is the Government's army. The Militia is the People's army. The Militia is the People--the ultimate depository of all political-legal power in this nation.
When Government Actors refuse to wear their Constitutional collar and obey the
Constitution's commands, when Society's and Government's institutions fail to take Individual Rights seriously, when the Guardians of Liberty [Judges] function as Fudges, Sludges, and/or Statists Whores, ultimately, the Militia has a necessary, dirty, snarly job to do as a matter of the highest civic responsibility: Put the Constitutional collar back on every damn Government Actor's neck and force those Perfumed Princes and Princesses to wear same, no matter what, and, if that ultimately includes the need to resort to lethal force, so be it.
Statists Government Actors and Patriots [real ones, not the Pretender Patriots] are long
down the road of a defacto game of "chicken". Neither have served. Odds are high that Statists Government Actors will not swerve. This is because the "game" is about power, not about what is legal.
To the extent Real Patriots are serious about retaining Liberty, it appears to me that the
time has already come for Real Patriots to stop side-stepping the charging Statists bulls, but to seriously consider charging the damn bull, armed with Liberty's Teeth, and end the Statists bulls' charge.
Those who want more "gun control" had better be willing to fight and to die for what they want. The mood now is dicey. John Kerry and his crowd want more victim disarmament laws, and they want to plunder people to redistribute wealth. George Bush and his crowd want to pervert the law for Elitists, want to wipe their ass with the Bill of Rights, too, in the guise of promoting Security, and refuses to declare--seriously--that the Second Amendments does indeed guarantee an individual right to arms that "shall not be infringed."
Both major political parties have motivated Patriots to come to terms with committing homicidal acts to restore Liberty and to reduce Statists to maggot meat.
No one is going to turn the United States into one big Liberty Free, Victim Disarmament Zone.
Ultimate Purpose of Private Arms
American citizens are not on probation. Millions are armed. Millions are justifiably, virulently, pissed off.
Patriots know the ultimate purpose of Liberty's Teeth: The Patriots' Final Answer to Oppression.
Two Versions of Gun Control
Anyone who disagrees with me and insists that we will have more “gun control” will
have to take delivery of Patriots' guns--bullets first. When that happens, two versions of "gun control" will be in play: "Victim Disarmament" versus "Hitting the Target."
It Ain’t About Hunting
I have a friend who won election to the Sonoma County Superior Court bench. This friend is an excellent wit. Long before he became a judge, he told me [paraphrased], “Peter, you feel about the Second Amendment how I feel about the First, but, you do not need an Uzi to hunt Bambi, and you have no right to use an Uzi to hunt Bambi.”
The Overall Quality of Our Leadership
I told my friend, “X, the Second has nothing to do with hunting. It has everything to do with retaining the pragmatic means to deter Tyranny, to restore Liberty, to deter a foreign foe and to provide a pragmatic means for self-defense against the common criminal. Like you, I also love the First Amendment, but, unlike you, I love all of the Amendments. Each Amendment is like a ply on a tire or an overlapping zone of fire on the battlefield–they each re-enforce the other. Together, they have a great synergistic effect, if people have the courage to use them.”
Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and George Bush can have their picture taken one million times holding a shotgun or whatever, proclaiming “I am a hunter. I am like you. Vote for me. I support your right to hunt.”, but that will have no positive effect on me. If they want my vote, I want meaningful, specific, completed acts that clearly demonstrated that they take “Bill of Rights enforcement”–the entire Bill for all citizens, 24/7, seriously. I have not seen nor heard anything to that effect, and I expect I never will. Why? Because they are politico whores, not statesmen. They recklessly, arrogantly, foolishly think they have the power to determine what my rights are. They are wrong. DO NOT TREAD ON ME.
The only thing the Second Amendment has in common with hunting is this: It empowered citizens to hunt Tyrant Wannabees, Useful Idiots for Tyrant Wannabees, Freedom Haters, Liberty Thieves, and Domestic Enemies of the United States Constitution.
What explains 9-11? The long train of sustained huge budget deficits? The alienation? The contempt for politicians? Lawyers? Judges? The mutual distrust? The hatred for things legal?
America’s Twin Ideals
A partial, meritorious answer is this: 1) Our misleaders are unconstitutional buffoons; 2) Our misleaders have been, and continue to be, faithless fiduciaries who are public serpents who are in politics primarily for their own self-aggrandizement; 3) It is easier to strip docile citizens of rights than it is to defeat terrorists; and 4) Our Governments and our own Government Actors do not obey our own Supreme Law, and everyone knows it or at least senses it, and they are alienated and disgusted.
Equality and Liberty are America’s twin ideals.
Special Reservation of Intense Loathing
I champion the greatest measure of both for all citizens, regardless of race, sex, age, creed, sexual preference, nationality, etc., and I mean it.
I intensely loathe racists, bigots, anti-Semites.
I also intensely loathe unconstitutional ideas and anyone who engages in unconstitutional practices.
As a sweeping generalization, I loathe how the Democratic Party has distorted the idea of Equality. To me, properly construed, Equality means two things: 1) Equal opportunity before the law and 2) Equal protection of the laws. Equality does not mean equal result.
If I were in charge, I would do my utmost best to make certain that every U.S. citizen enjoyed the fullest measure of equal opportunity before the law and equal protections of the law. I would do that because that is part of their entitlements as American citizens. If publicly championing the rights of non-whites to such equality costs me votes from bigots, so be it. Simultaneously, once I was satisfied that the law did provide both types of equality, I would refuse to raid the public treasury to provide citizens with an equal economic result, which is something liberal, big spending Democrats persists with trying to do.
Because people are born with different aptitudes and personalities, when given equal opportunity and equal protection of the laws, if left to their own devices, the result will be unequal. Such results are Constitutional. I would resist the temptation to try to buy an election by promising to give X to Y by taking X from Z, via the tax code, through an unconstitutional redistribution of wealth to promote the general welfare.
It would give me great pleasure to see the darkest skin Black male, married to a beautiful woman of his choice of any race who loved him, driving the most expensive car, living in the biggest, most luxuriest home, owning a yacht and a twin engine airplane, carrying a big, loaded firearm in a public place–openly or concealed, relying upon the Second Amendment as his nation wide gun permit, if I knew that person earned his material possessions, he shared my commitment to Liberty, he truly enjoyed “the American dream” and “the blessings of Liberty,” even if his net worth was 100 million times mine.
I doubt, however, that Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Gray Davis, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, etc., would be happy about any Black being that successful. Why? Because these whores want the minorities to remain dependent on them–economically, politically, and legally, for phoney “entitlements” that are nothing more than socialistic raids on the public treasury, paid for by taxpayers used to massage their guilty conscience and political vote buying schemes.
I, on the other hand, want every citizen to claim, to embrace, to enjoy, and to have the fullest measure of all of their birthrights as American citizens.
Simultaneously, once there really is equality, as I defined it, I can easily live with unequal results.
Equality and Liberty are not mutually exclusive. They are easily compatible.
There is a special class of political whores who I especially loathe. This is the type who wraps himself or herself around a clause in the Constitution that they like and disregards and maligns the clauses they dislike.
Classic examples of this type can be found in the small town where I live: Sebastopol, California. The local city council recently championed same sex marriage and tweaked the pay package for same sex city employees. These city council members said: 1) By championing same sex marriage they were like the Founding Fathers who engaged in civil disobedience; 2) It is none of their business who a person wants to marry; 3) They should not interfere and should let people of the same sex marry; 4) Same sex couples have a right to liberty to marry whomever will marry them; 5) Same sex couples have a right to equal protection of the laws and the law banning same sex marriages is unconstitutional because it discriminates against same sex couples; 6) They do not want to interfere with same sex couples’ pursuit of happiness; and 7) They should trust the judgments that same sex people make for themselves.
These Sebastopol City Councilmembers are First Rank Hypocrites and Unconstitutional Buffoons. They are not like the Founding Fathers. Unlike the Founding Fathers, they hate guns, they hate the Second Amendment, they do not trust ordinary folk with guns, and they would never let any Homosexual or Lesbian carry a firearm in a public place for lawful self-defense without a permit from the local police chief, which they do not want to be issued. In this sense, these whores do not care about the lives of anyone, except themselves and their immediate loved ones. Instead, they are callous to the core. They do not care about Right to Life, Right to Liberty, Right to Pursue Happiness, or Equal Protection of the Laws. Instead, all they care about is manipulating a group of citizens to vote for them, to grand stand, and to get their names in the local newspaper. They certainly do not have a comprehensively, coherent, logically consistent grasp of American Constitutional Law.
One of these Councilmembers, Sam Spooner, once declared that he was against the Second Amendment because a relative of his accidentally shot himself! Does that compute? Because a relative shot himself he thinks he can take an oath of office to uphold and to support the United States Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and then dictate to his constituents who does and does not have Second Amendment rights–per Sam Spooner?
Sam Spooner deserves to have moist fecal matter smeared all over his face, his hair, his private parts, his mouth, his home, his car, his chair, his desk, his bed, his bathtub, his kitchen, his silverware.
Smearing fresh fecal matter on a political whore is uncouth, but it is not lethal punishment.
Sam Spooner’s “reasoning” [if it is worthy of that description] is illogical fecal matter.
Inexplicably, Sam Spooner has a support base in Sebastopol, a community that has no shortage of some of the world’s stupidest, most cowardly people. These fools also have an infant’s comprehension of American Constitutional Law.
Damn them all.
I think someday they will reap what they sow.
Government Actors had better embrace "Constitutionalism Religion" or else. For
example, when FBI stands for Fascist Bastards of Intimidation, we have clear, compelling grounds for armed rebellion. Whether Hell or Heaven is our destiny, odds are high there will be another civil war in our Homeland over Liberty, which will prove to be a Hell on Earth.
To all my fellow Americans, in and out of office, to John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Charles Schummer, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Hilary, Gray Davis, Perota, George Bush--I & II, Aschroft, every Statists Whore judge, my misleaders in Sebastopol, California and in Sonoma County, California and in the State of California, to every American who laid down on his or her rights–which emboldened the Statists and the Tyrant Wannabees, to every American who looks for love in all the wrong places, to every cop who thinks I need his or her damn permission to defend my life with a loaded firearm in a public place, and to all who are guilty of American Talibanism [perverting the Constitutional Rule of Law,] thanks for nothing! Thanks for making matters worse. I do appreciate your contributions. Go to Hell! Stay there! Burn eternally! Self-fornicate! My birthrights are mine--not yours.
DO NOT TREAD ON ME.
The next civil war has started. I’m just waiting for others to catch up to me.
Sadly, today, filing a lawsuit to peacefully and legally vindicate a right and trusting a Judge to function as a Guardian of Liberty is too much like an exercise in self-delusion with odds that seem too high to yield a satisfactory result. Too often, such a lawsuit is like Alice’s trip in Wonderland, aka, Unconstitutional Land or Arbitrary Land or Usurpations Land.
The Judiciary has had its chance to manage conflict, and it has squandered it. Patriots now have more trust in Remington, Winchester, Ruger, Weatherby, and Browning than they do in the Black Robes.
The Black Robes have slammed the door to the courthouse on Patriots once too often. Consequently, they force Patriots to look for justice that comes out of the barrel of a gun.
Every decent citizen, when oppressed long enough, finds behind his or her breastbone and between his or her ears, indispensable qualities necessary for them to revolt: Courage, Conviction, Commitment, Despair, Justification, and Rage. Every sensitized, decent citizen is now working his or her way toward resolving these dynamics.
I agree 100% with what Patriot Rick Stanley of Denver, Colorado wrote:
Freedom and liberty have ALWAYS come at a price. Live FREE or Die! Your tolerance of government's unconstitutional actions are DESTROYING America. I say again: YOUR TOLERANCE. You are responsible for America's demise, with your inaction to defend vigorously our heritage and brithright of freedom and liberty, through the rule of Constitutional Law!!! Allowing the judges of this country to act outside of the law, under the "COLOR OF LAW", is destroying our precious right to freedom and liberty. What are YOU going to do about it? Live FREE or Die! [Emphases added.]
When a sufficient mass of citizens angry enough to revolt is reached, there will be a revolt. It is simply a matter of time.
Statist Government will not swerve. Patriots will not swerve.
The Tree of Liberty will get a jolt of iron–via a massive amount of human blood.
If you do not want your blood spilled in a war to liberate America, do this:
- Obey the Constitution’s commands.
- Support every citizen’s meritorious claim to a Constitutional right, whether you like it or not.
- End immunities for Government and Government Actors.
- Demand that Government Actors wear their Constituitional collar and obey the Constitution’s commands.
- Never lay down on your rights–to do so only emboldens the Statists.
- Prepare for civil war–in earnest, literally.
- Vote Libertarian. Do not reward either major party with your vote. It is unlikely that either major party’s candidates will function constitutionally. If enough people vote Libertarian, the Libertarian slate will win, and, if they do not, your vote sends an important message and you have a clear conscience that at least you voted for the party that best approximates how the Constitution should be upheld.
- Do not preempt–do not resort to lethal force prematurely.
- Fight only as a last ditch effort to restore Liberty.
- When you do fight, fight with zeal, skill, and determination. Win that war. Stay alive if you can. Kill the enemy. Kill the enemy. Kill as many as you can. Never surrender. Once it starts, you must win so you can write the rules and the history books.
To return to our home page, click: