If “We the People” are the creators of the government, and the government is authorized arms, then in order for the people to maintain their position, in relation to the government, they to must be armed. If the servant government (servant of the people) has arms, and the people do not, then the roles are reversed for the people can not resist a government that has become tyrannical. 

This same logic applies to self defense. If the law abiding citizen does not have the means to resist a lawless adversary, then the will of the adversary becomes the law. Our Congress had formally passed an “assault weapons” ban. The stated goal was to remove the arms used by gangs, drug smugglers, and extremists. How many of us really believe that anyone in any of the aforementioned groups, who owned an “assault weapon”, would get rid of those weapons, just because the Congress passed a law? However, many law abiding citizens did, in fact, give up their arms so as to remain “law abiding”. The end result is no change for the criminal element and a disarming of the citizen. This has happened, without exception, with EVERY gun law passed by Congress. In this regard, every gun law, by definition, aids the criminal and penalizes the law abiding citizen.

The Second Amendment, arguably the most contentious of all the Bill of Rights amendments, however, is the least tried in the Supreme Court. It simply states: “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

It may be a small amendment, but, it carries the weight and guarantee for all other rights. For without the capability of the people to defend themselves, to prepare as a militia, or to reign in a tyrannical government, we all become serfs and subjects.

There are those among us that would argue the collectivist position that the amendment pertained only to the Militia and not to individuals. The Supreme Court has spoken on the collective issue in U.S. v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D.Tex. 1999), in which it states: “Collective rights theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people’s right to bear arms. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted.  The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected.  The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized.” (Bold Added)

As the foregoing statement clearly shows, there is one aspect of this amendment which is based in the collective thought, and that is collective safety. The Second Amendment prohibited the government from infringing on an individuals right in order to protect a collective purpose. If the federal could disarm the populace, then the states would have no effective militia and no means to defend itself. This is why there is such a strong tie between the militia and the people.

Remember, the constitution and “Bill of Rights” are there to restrain the government; not the people. This was an instruction to the government to leave the peoples’ guns alone. They could not trespass on or encroach upon our right as citizens to own and bear arms. If we look at the enforcement of federal laws and the cost government has placed on the American people I think we must conclude that infringement has and is occurring. The federal government has the right to regulate its’ jurisdictions outside of the state jurisdiction; but I will show that the enforcement of those laws is where they have violated the Constitution.

In the early years of our nation, it was common sense and historically imperative that the people be armed. They were armed not only for self defense, but as defense against invasion from nefarious nations as well as from “ambitious and unprincipled rulers” who would look to remove their rights and to enslave the nation.

In general, Laws are made to codify certain unwanted behavior and to establish acceptable behavior in society. However, as soon as you transfer this mechanism to inanimate objects, this logic fails. To illustrate, I think we would all agree that a criminal who steals, rapes, or murders is doing wrong. The tools he may use in that action do not change the act. “Ah”, says the liberal/communist, “but if you remove the ability for him to get the tool, then he cannot accomplish the act.” If only that were true. I look at the genocide that has taken place in African states; the mutilation by means of machete; where limbs were severed and people left to bleed to death. Whole villages where women were raped, breasts removed, children hacked to death. Evil will do what evil does by whatever means is at their disposal. To assume the morally bankrupt of our society would stop a behavior by solely passing a law against an instrument he may use in the commission of a heinous crime is naïve at best. Added to this is the undercurrent of black market supplies of weapons, around the world and here in America. The criminal does not obey laws, and he is prohibited to obtain weapons, yet he still gets them. Thus the net effect is to disarm the victims, making them unable to lawfully protect themselves.

The law abiding citizen is, by definition, not the problem. The problem is the criminal, because by definition, he does not obey the law. As importantly, is the fact that the government is treating ALL citizens by the standards of the criminal. For instance, a criminal uses a handgun in the commission of a robbery. Another criminal uses an ice-pick to commit the same crime. A third uses a baseball bat. With the logic of the gun control advocates the mere possession of a gun, an ice-pick, or a baseball bat should be outlawed. The root of the problem, however, is not the objects with which they perpetrate their crime; it is their willingness to commit the crime.  The item used to aid that crime is merely the tool. And as every tool used to commit a crime has a peaceful use, outlawing the tool ONLY infringes on the person who would not use it for nefarious reasons.

What our nation needs are laws that punish criminal behavior and to stop criminalizing honest citizens who wish only to protect themselves and their families. Both the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) statistics have shown that the majority of violent crimes are committed without firearms, and the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with guns that were illegally obtained, bypassing gun laws. So the net effect of gun control laws is to affect the law abiding citizen and has virtually no effect on the criminal element of our society.

The enactment of “firearms laws” is a relatively recent occurrence for the federal government.  The Federal Firearms Act in 1934 was the first act by congress to regulate firearms. This act was based upon the perceived need to regulate the firearms industry and license the dealers, manufacturers, and gunsmiths within the firearms trade. It was based upon the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Appropriately it was codified under Title 15 of the US Code – “Commerce and Trade”. The new “laws” under the Act included the creation of a Federal Firearms License (FFL), for anyone doing business in the firearm trade. One of the primary goals was to prohibit FFL holders from selling firearms to convicted felons. Requiring FFL holders to keep records of all firearms sales, and for the first time it made any alteration of firearm serial numbers a crime. Some felt this was an infringement on state jurisdiction by enacting a law that reached past the state boundary, in violation of the Constitution.

From 1934 to 1968 everything went along fairly well until the government decided to play a little shell game, and they switched the Firearms Act from Title 15 to Title 18. Title 18 is entitled “Crimes and Criminal Procedures.” Why would the government switch the code section from Title 15 to Title 18 after having been codified under Title 15 for thirty years? The only rational reason is jurisdictional obfuscation, or hiding what would otherwise be apparent as to the limits the government could act upon us, the citizens. You see, under Title 15, the government was within its rightful jurisdiction of “Commerce and Trade”. However, if you are bound by “Commerce and Trade”, you cannot enact laws on normal citizens who are not acting in the “trade.” Therefore, the government changed, with the stroke of a pen, their Constitutional powers from commerce to crime.

Shortly after Robert Kennedy’s assassination, in 1968, the “Gun Control Act” was passed. It was an attempt by the government to justify broad-sweeping firearms control. The finesse with which the government’s lawyers crafted and pushed this bill through can be seen right from the opening lines. The bill is entitled: “An Act to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide forbetter control of the interstate traffic in firearms.” Doesn’t that title sound allot like Chapter 15?  In fact, even though there is much overlap between Title 15 and Title 18, Title 15 was never repealed.

This was done to provide better control of “interstate” traffic in firearms. However, the stated purpose of the act is as follows:

Title I – State Firearms Control Assistance

Purpose

• “Sec. 101. The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence,”

Did you catch that? To support State, and local law enforcement! Where does the Constitution say anything about the federal government assisting law enforcement? Remember, the federal government cannot legally do anything that is not specifically enumerated by the Constitution.   So where is its justification? It has none; any federal law that falls outside the enumerated powers of the Constitution is repugnant and is void. That does not stop the jack-booted thugs from kicking in your door and enforcing unjust and unconstitutional laws; it just makes them wrong with a gun.

I can not say this enough, the birth rights we have as American Citizens are higher than the Constitution. They exist by virtue of our creation and are bestowed at birth and these rights cannot be taken by any government, unless we give them away. The Second Amendment is paramount to all other rights, because without this right, we cannot defend the other rights. I have come to understand that those without a means of defense become victims to those who will force their will upon them. I have personally seen this in Somalia, Pakistan, Kuwait, the Philippines, and Afghanistan. In most cases, the only reason we received respect from the enemy was because we had the means to remove them from the face of the earth. Make no mistake, if it were not for the Second Amendment, this nation would not be here today. Our future still depends on the willingness of “We the People” to stand up and fight to keep this right.

It is a proven axiom that a criminal will not try to commit a crime while a police officer is present. Thus the saying “There is never a policeman around when you need him.” There are those who want a society where there are no guns. A society where a woman can walk down a street at night without fear of molestation. Where drugs, gangs, corruption, and evil no longer exists. There is such a place, but it only exists in the stories of Hollywood. The cold reality is that evil does exist and we must protect ourselves and our families against that evil.

So, who is responsible for our protection? Is it the government, the state, the local police? It may surprise you to learn that none of these is the correct answer. Time and time again the courts have ruled, and those rulings have been upheld, that there is no requirement for any level of government to guarantee our individual protection. In this nation, the policy of policing is that of “general” peace and order; and no one person or group can have any expectation of individual protection.

To illustrate this I would like to present the following case that illustrates this position: In Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) the courts ruled:

• “There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution.  The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.”  (Emphasis added)

There are literally hundreds of cases that say exactly the same thing. In the liberal world, I constantly hear that the police are trained to protect the innocent. Quite often this happens solely because they are out on the streets looking for bad guys. Odds are, eventually they will run into a crime in progress and take action. The police are there to bring criminals to justice, which is what they get paid for. However, in order for one to be deemed a criminal they must first perpetrate a crime. Only then can the police take action. You and you alone have the primary responsibility for your protection and safety. By law, someone who pays another to commit a crime is just as guilty as if he committed the crime himself. In my estimation, someone who pays another for protection, and is unwilling to take responsibility for their own protection, is guilty of cowardice. Willingness does not equate to capability. Many people are willing to protect themselves, but do not have the capability. If you are not willing to fight, or even kill to protect your own life or the lives of your family, then you cannot ask someone else to do it for you.

The Constitution states that the Second Amendment “shall not be infringed.” How many laws does it take before it is considered infringed? 500? 5,000? 20,000? That’s about how many laws we have on the books today, over twenty thousand. Not infringed means exactly that; leave it alone.

The United States was built and survived because of private ownership of arms. Many gun haters cannot abide hearing this; and they manage to forget, or they don’t understand the history that brought us through the oppression of the English Kings. One of the sparks to the war of independence was the Kings’ mandate to disarm the people. Our forefathers included in the Constitution the guarantee that the people would never be disarmed again.

The firearm is a tool, nothing more nothing less. It has no powers but what the person wielding it provides. If that person be evil, then evil may be produced. If that person be good, then the good man has a means by which he may protect himself and his family from the evil man. If a man be prone to commit assault or even murder, what does he care about gun laws? Will this evil doer decide to not use a gun when he robs, rapes, abducts children, or kills because there is a law stating he may not carry a gun? Of course not! The evil person cares not for the law, therefore gun laws ONLY affect the law abiding citizen, not the criminal. But it is my belief the lawmakers know this. The excuse, of fighting crime, is only the “reason” to pass the law not the desired effect. The desired effect is removal of honest gun ownership. Once this is accomplished the country is then helpless against the rulers of our nation. Another means of checks and balances, the final means, will be abolished.

The last seventy years have been a continual neutering of the American patriot. When all is said and done, the wresting of our God-given rights from the “communist-liberal left and the powerhungry government bureaucrats” may come down to one thing; our Second Amendment Right.

I will leave you with this quote from Col. Jeff Cooper:

“Weapons are the tools of power, in the hands of the state, they can be the tools of decency or the tools of oppression, depending on the righteousness of that state. In the hands of criminals, they are the tools of evil. In the hands of the free and decent citizen, they should be the tools of liberty. Weapons compound man’s power to achieve whatever purpose he may have. They amplify the capabilities of both the good man and the bad, and to exactly the same degree, having no will of their own. Thus, we must regard them as servants, not masters–and good servants of good men. Without them, man is diminished, and his opportunities to fulfill his destiny are lessened. An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it. “

By now many of you have heard of the Chicago Supreme Court case to hear NRA Vs. City of Chicago and McDonald Vs. City of Chicago to try and overturn the no handgun rule for the city residents.

Now with this next statement I am sure I am going to get a ton of hate mail but please hold judgment until you have read the entire article. You do not have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms!   Now I want you to understand, you MAY have a right to keep and bear arms, but it is not granted by the Constitution.

I can already hear the missiles heading my way. Let me explain; the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution to prohibit the FEDERAL government from passing any law that infringes on the people’s right to keep and bear arms. Remember when discussing constitutional interpretation or law everything is based on context. The Constitution defines what the government can (enumerated powers) and cannot do (Bill of Rights).

Now remember the context of the Constitution is solely the federal government and therefore all items within the Constitution are based upon defining its powers and limitations including the Bill of Rights. Ah, the bright reader will exclaim, but what of the Supremacy Clause making federal law supreme and therefore the states must follow?

The Supremacy clause is found at Article VI, Clause 2 which states: “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.”

In 1982 the Supreme Court ruled in Edgar V. Mite Corporation that: “In effect, this means that a state law will be found to violate the supremacy clause when either of the two conditions exist:

1. Compliance with both federal and state law is impossible, or
2. …state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress…”

So in the first instance the state must acquiesce to the federal so long as Congress has not exceeded its authority. If the Congress has exceeded its authority then the act is invalid and void regardless of the Supremacy Clause and thus no priority over the state law.

In the second instance if the Congressional act is found valid and the intent is to preempt state policy for that of national uniformity then the state is subordinate and must comply with the federal law.

So as we can see the Supremacy Clause only comes into play when the federal law supports a constitutional power of the federal government to legislate as outlined in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. And although many on the left would love to point out that power it just is not there.

In fact for anyone with 15 minutes and an internet connection can determine that the original Firearms Act, which today’s laws are based, was originally codified under Title 15 which is entitled “Commerce and Trade” and was a tax scheme.

This act was based upon the perceived need to regulate the firearms industry and license the dealers, manufacturers, and gunsmiths within the firearms trade. It was based upon the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The new “laws” under the Act included the creation of a Federal Firearms License (FFL), for anyone doing business in the firearm trade as well as to place a large tax on certain weapons they deemed inappropriate such as machineguns and silencers. One of the other goals was to prohibit FFL holders from selling firearms to convicted felons. Requiring FFL holders to keep records of all firearms sales, and for the first time it made any alteration of firearm serial numbers a crime. Some felt this was an infringement on state jurisdiction by enacting a law that reached past the state boundary, in violation of the Constitution.

From 1934 to 1968 everything went along fairly well until the government decided to play a little shell game when they switched the Firearms Act from Title 15 to Title 18. Title 18 is entitled “Crimes and Criminal Procedures.” Why would the government switch the code section from Title 15 to Title 18 after having been codified under Title 15 for thirty years? The only rational reason is jurisdictional obfuscation, or hiding what would otherwise be apparent as to the limits the government could act upon us, the citizens. You see, under Title 15, the government was within its rightful jurisdiction of “Commerce and Trade”. However, if you are bound by “Commerce and Trade”, you cannot enact laws on normal citizens who are not acting in the “trade.” Therefore, the government changed, with the stroke of a pen, their Constitutional powers from commerce to crime.

The publicized purpose under Title 18 was to provide better control of “interstate” traffic in firearms. However, the stated purpose of the act is as follows:

Title I – State Firearms Control Assistance

Purpose

• “Sec. 101. The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence , and it is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, or provide for the imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this title.”

Did you catch that? To support State, and local law enforcement! Where does the Constitution say anything about the federal government assisting law enforcement? Remember, the federal government cannot legally do anything that is not specifically enumerated by the Constitution.  So where is its justification and more importantly where does it get its jurisdiction? It has none; any federal law that falls outside the enumerated powers of the Constitution is repugnant and is void. That does not stop the jack-booted thugs from kicking in your door and enforcing unjust and unconstitutional laws; it just makes them wrong with a gun.

So if the federal government is acting outside of its enumerated powers then the supremacy clause does not come into play. The only other nexus would be through the 14th Amendment which I will get to momentarily.

Now getting back to my original statement; you do not have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms; you do have a Second Amendment right not to have your right to keep and bear arms infringed upon by the Federal Government. I say it this way because of the context the Amendments were added to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was not a grant of right but a prohibition against the federal government acting against the people for the rights listed in the Bill of Rights. But as we can see that has not worked out very well.

Now this leads us to the Chicago case; if the Supreme Court had acted correctly it would have never agreed to hear the case. The proper venue would have been the State Supreme Court arguing that the Illinois Constitution, Section 22 granted “…the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

As you can see the Illinois Constitution has explicit language identifying the individual having the right to keep and bear arms and is directly applicable to the Chicago residents.

I know there are those out there who will ask; can a state regulate firearms as they are doing in Chicago? The answer is – Depends! It depends on the State Constitution. It is my understanding that most, if not all, states have a provision within their State Constitution similar to that of the Second Amendment but the bottom line is the state is supreme except for where the Constitution grants the federal government power and the Bill of Rights is not a grant of power (Article 1 Section but a limitation of power against the federal government.

This leads us to the 14th Amendment; the other nexus the Supreme Court may use to gain leverage over the state. The second clause of Section 1 of the Amendment states: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”  This does not preclude the Federal Government from doing so, but only precludes the individual states from passing laws contrary to the federal laws against the new class of federal “citizens of the United States”.

I won’t go further with the 14th Amendment as it would take far more space than this article to fully cover but I bring it up merely as a possible nexus for the Supreme Court to rule.  As far as how the court will rule is anyone’s guess; but if they rule that all states are bound by the Bill of Rights then it is a blow to State Sovereignty, if they rule against the plaintiffs then it goes against the precedence of similar rulings for 1st and 4th Amendment cases and sets the stage for further litigation and claims of inequality and the courts picking which rights it will defend.

Lastly I have heard the comparisons of this case to the Heller case that ruled the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right to have a handgun for self defense. It was the right decision for the wrong reason. Heller did not live in a state of the Union but in a federal enclave under which Congress has exclusive jurisdiction and as such was bound by federal law and the prohibitions of law enumerated in the Bill of Rights. And because Congress has “exclusive” legislation in federal enclaves is bound by the limitations of the Bill of Rights for its citizens.

This is not the case in Chicago and in my humble opinion is a state matter not a federal one. I also wish to let everyone know that I am 100% behind the right of everyone to keep and bear arms but it is the responsibility of the PEOPLE to hold government accountable when it goes astray especially within the states of the Union and not to wait for the federal government to do so.

Senator Lautenberg uses as his “proof” or basis of this bill 11 points alleged fact which we will review here:

1. He establishes his true target in the very first finding: “approximately 5,200 traditional gun shows are held annually across the United States, attracting thousands of attendees per show and hundreds of Federal firearms licensees and nonlicensed firearms sellers;”  The term “nonlicensed” sellers is a cloaked phrase he uses to say private citizens. Many times people will bring firearms from their private collections to sell at these shows knowing that people come to buy. It is Senator Lautenberg’s quest to turn ALL gun owners that buy or sell in licensed dealers under the full control of the federal government and register all arms and transactions.
2. His second contention is that these gun shows “form a significant part of the national firearms market.”  In fact, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics in a November 2001 study, only 0.7 percent of criminals acquire their guns from gun shows. That is less than one percent. In fact Senator Lautenberg does not want to control sales to criminals he wants to control and register sales to law abiding citizens.
3. The third “finding” is the standard nexus phrase used by many legislators to try and connect any and all transactions to the control of the federal government the “interstate commerce” clause stating “gun shows, flea markets, and other organized events move easily in and substantially affect interstate commerce.” This is misleading and, for the most part, an outright lie! If one believes that transactions which make up less than 1-5 percent of the total sales of an industry as substantial you might be fooled by this rhetoric. In fact this is a legal manipulation verbiage in most bills the government introduces to cross state lines to enact control, nothing more.
4. His next “finding” expands further into the absurd by connecting the raw materials that make up a firearm or ammunition as having at one time moved in interstate commerce and therefore the federal government has jurisdiction to control these products. With this type of circular logic the federal government can regulate ALL items of purchase. As the raw materials for the production of any product moves in interstate commerce and ALL products can be placed under the regulatory control of the federal government. So much for freedom and following the Constitution.
5. His fifth “finding” is worded to intentionally mislead and borders on an outright lie. He states “gun shows, flea markets, and other organized events at which firearms are exhibited or offered for sale or exchange, provide a convenient and centralized commercial location at which firearms may be bought and sold anonymously, often without background checks and without records that enable gun tracing;”  This is intentionally misleading because he knows full well that ALL licensed gun dealers must perform background checks on every sale regardless of the venue. Gun show dealers routinely operate legitimate transactions exactly the same way they do in their stores, without exception. What he is alluding to here is the private sale of firearms from one person to another. For instance if you have a firearm at your house and you no longer want you can put an add in the paper to sell your personal items. Knowing that there are a lot of people going to a gun show to buy firearms it is a good place to go to sell your gun. This is a private sale by someone who is NOT a dealer and therefore not subject to regulatory licensing or the requirement to run a background check on the person he sells it to. What Senator Lautenberg is attempting to do here is make all owners of firearms subject to the Federal Firearms Licensing regulations. More on this later.
6. “Finding” six uses outright lies and misdirecting statements to establish his position stating:  “criminals and other prohibited persons obtain guns without background checks and frequently use guns that cannot be traced to later commit crimes;” There are two glaring problems with this statement; First, as we showed earlier, less that 1 percent (0.7) of criminals obtain firearms at gun shows, which by any stretch of the imagination does not rise to the level of “substantial.” Second, as stated earlier, all gun show sales by licensed dealers must and do obtain background checks before any transaction is made.  Again this is a misleading statement to support his position (a lie) to attempt to gain more control over those who do not fall under the control of the federal government, the private citizen.
7. His seventh finding is a typical statement used by legislators to show how well their laws work, but it is also misleading and shows the true depth of their deception. He states: “since the enactment of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Public Law 103-59; 107 Stat. 1536) in 1993, over 100,000,000 background checks have been performed by Federal firearms licensees, denying guns to more than 1,600,000 illegal buyers.”  If the background checks work so well, and all commercial dealers in firearms must perform a background check where is the problem? And if the federal government is really so concerned with those that are attempting to purchase firearms illegally you would expect that we would have and additional 1,600,000 more people involved in our courts and jails as a result of an illegal attempt to purchase a firearm. The term he uses is “illegal buyers”, if they are illegal and he really wishes to enforce the law why do they not enforce the law and prosecute these people who are illegally trying to purchase a firearm? In fact out of over a million and a half illegal attempts to purchase a firearm (a crime) only a handful (in the single digit percentile) have been actually prosecuted. It is not about crime it is about control.
8. In his eighth finding he states that persons who attend these shows may come from other states and therefore engage in interstate transportation of firearms. Here again he is stretching to build the nexus between the “interstate commerce” clause and the persons attending the gun show. But unless there is a prohibition within the state to curtail sales of firearms to non-state residents this is not illegal. I live on the border of Iowa where I routinely purchase guns and ammo. I have a Nebraska firearms permit, a Nebraska driver’s license, and reside in Nebraska. When I make the purchase I then bring them back to my residence in Nebraska, all perfectly legal. He is trying to demonize a perfectly legitimate action in an attempt to regulate and control what he knows is beyond the scope of the federal government.
9. Finding number nine tries to tie gun violence to gun shows by stating that because gun violence is a national problem that is exacerbated by the availability of guns at gun shows. Again, as we have already shown, less than one percent of criminals purchase their firearms and these events.
10. Finding number ten tries to use the same logic of crimes and sales of firearms at gun shows. This time he tries to make others believe that firearms are bought by legitimate persons who in turn go home and then transfer/sell that firearm to a criminal who then uses that gun to commit a crime. Again refer back to the less than one percent statistic but what is not stated is that this is already a crime (called a straw-man purchase) on the books. So why do we need more legislation when they do not enforce what is already on the books? Again, it is about control not law.  Update: The ATF in one year under the program “Fast and Furious” has put more guns in criminals hands than all gun shows have in many years.
11. And in the final “finding” the senator states that Congress has the power to control these things under the interstate commerce clause, oh really? According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, who stated in an opinion dealing with the interstate commerce clause: “To uphold the Government’s contentions here, we would have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States.  Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution’s enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do.” It is plain to see that the federal government uses the interstate commerce clause to control things they have not jurisdiction over, such as we are seeing in this bill.

Let’s look at the phrase “interstate commerce”, which much of today’s legislation and jurisdiction is purported to rely upon. The governments’ position is that if two or more states are involved, or if a foreign entity is involved, then the federal government has jurisdiction over all aspects of the venture. Let’s see if this position is constitutionally correct. The Constitution states in Article 1, Section 8: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” What did the founders mean by regulating commerce? Madison wrote in Federalist 42 that the primary reason to regulate commerce was to ensure equitable treatment between all the states. He states specifically: “A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former.  We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility.”

During that time southern states wanted to ensure that there would be a level playing field and that the only power the federal government would have was in ensuring no favoritism or benefit would be allowed “between the states.” It is totally beyond the scope for the federal government to be involved in all areas of manufacture and sale of goods. In fact, the belief was that the federal government had jurisdiction between the states; but the jurisdiction stopped at the state line.

In the Supreme Court case U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), Chief Justice Waite’s ruling included the following statement: “In the formation of a government, the people may confer upon it such powers as they choose. The government, when so formed, may, and when called upon should, exercise all the powers it has for the protection of the rights of its citizens and the people within its jurisdiction; but it can exercise no other. The duty of a government to afford protection is limited always by the power it possesses for that purpose.”

Justice Waite affirms the federal jurisdiction as a protection of citizen rights and the people, but it can exercise no other. Obviously this identifies that innate “limited” scope of government in America to be only what the people have given them, not what they can get away with. Because the government does a thing does not make that thing legal or valid.

Justice Waite continues stating: “The government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone. Its authority is defined and limited by the Constitution.  All powers not granted to it by that instrument are reserved to the States or the people. No rights can be acquired under the constitution or laws of the United States, except such as the government of the United States has the authority to grant or secure. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left under the protection of the States.” (Bold added)

These powers are delegated, limited, and defined. They are not to be expansive or broadly defined, but limited in scope and authority to only the defined powers within the Constitution.

Justice Waite also speaks on the jurisdiction and authority of the federal government in relation to the states, saying: “The fourteenth amendment prohibits a State from denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws; but this provision does not, any more than the one which precedes it, and which we have just considered, add any thing [92 U.S. 542,555] to the rights which one citizen has under the Constitution against another. The equality of the rights of citizens is a principle of republicanism. Every republican government is in duty bound to protect all its citizens in the enjoyment of this principle, if within its power. That duty was originally assumed by the States; and it still remains there. The only obligation resting upon the United States is to see that the States do not deny the right. This the amendment guarantees, but no more. The power of the national government is limited to the enforcement of this guaranty.”  (Bold added)

The power of the United States is to insure that the states abide by the Constitution. It has no power against the people, other than through the states, to guaranty the rights of the citizens.

It is important to remember the concept of jurisdiction, as with many aspects of our government, I do not believe that all laws, as they are written, are unconstitutional; but I do believe that how they are enforced often goes beyond the scope and jurisdiction of the law, and that makes them unconstitutional.

The enactment of “firearms laws” is a relatively recent occurrence for the federal government. The Federal Firearms Act in 1938 was the first act by congress to regulate firearms. This act was based upon the perceived need to regulate the firearms industry and license the dealers, manufacturers, and gunsmiths within the firearms trade. It was based upon the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Appropriately it was codified under Title 15 of the US Code – “Commerce and Trade”. The new “laws” under the Act included the creation of a Federal Firearms License (FFL), for anyone doing business in the firearm trade. One of the primary goals was to prohibit FFL holders from selling firearms to convicted felons. Requiring FFL holders to keep records of all firearms sales, and for the first time it made any alteration of firearm serial numbers a crime. Some felt this was an infringement on state jurisdiction by enacting a law that reached past the state boundary, in violation of the Constitution.

From 1938 to 1968 everything went along fairly well until the government decided to play a little shell game, and they switched the Firearms Act from Title 15 to Title 18. Title 18 is entitled “Crimes and Criminal Procedures.” Why would the government switch the code section from Title 15 to Title 18 after having been codified under Title 15 for thirty years? The only rational reason is jurisdictional obfuscation, or hiding what would otherwise be apparent as to the limits the government could act upon us, the citizens. You see, under Title 15, the government was within its rightful jurisdiction of “Commerce and Trade”. However, if you are bound by “Commerce and Trade”, you cannot enact laws on normal citizens who are not acting in the “trade.” Therefore, the government changed, with the stroke of a pen, their Constitutional powers from commerce to crime.

Currently the federal government has no jurisdiction over the private sales of firearms from one citizen to another as long as neither party is in the firearms business. I can sell or buy firearms and ammunition to any other person I want for my own personal use. What this bill is attempting to do is to infringe upon my right to dispose of my property as I see fit.

In section “(d) Responsibilities of Transferees Other Than Licensees” of the bill it states: (1) IN GENERAL- If any part of a firearm transaction takes place at a gun show, it shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to receive a firearm from another person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless the firearm is transferred through a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer…” In essence this would convert a private citizen conducting private sale under the control of the federal government. Taking what would be legal at his home and converting it to a crime if conducted in the parking lot of a gun show. Since when do rights become location dependent?

Lets take a look at this scenario: Let’s say I bring a custom made shotgun to a gun show to display. It is a rare specimen that is worth over $10,000 and often elicits conversation which I enjoy. An attendee at the show really likes the weapon and comments on the beauty and craftsmanship and states he would really love to have one like that and asks to have my contact information to talk to me at some future date. Two weeks after the show he calls and states he is in the area on business and would like to stop by and see the gun once again. During that visit I decide to sell the gun to him. According to this new bill my doing so is in violation of the law.  The bill states that “if any part of a firearm transaction takes place at a gun show,” which this did as he was introduced to the weapon at the gun show, therefore my selling the weapon to him would be a violation. This is totally absurd.

This bill along with the thousands of other firearms laws purports to do so in order to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. Yet by the Depart of Justice’s own statistics less than one percent of criminals obtain weapons in this manner. So, in essence, they wish to burden 99.3% of the law abiding citizens to impact 0.7 percent of criminals. And by their own admission they do not enforce the current laws on the books 99 percent of the time by allowing illegal buyers to commit the crime of attempting to illegally purchase a firearm without bringing charges against the violators.

This is not about controlling crime or criminals it is about controlling the Second Amendment and the citizens who choose to enact that right. The law abiding American Citizen is confronted year after year with attempts by the federal government to infringe upon their rights and the sovereignty of the state governments. It is imperative that we all contact our state governments and demand that they stand up for their state rights and tell the federal government to cease all unconstitutional legislation against the citizens of the many states.

The Tenth Amendment was a reminder to the federal government that they have limited and defined powers and ANY powers not defined within the Constitution were reserved to the states or to the people. It is high time we demanded the federal government to stay within those bounds and for all states to pass legislation that any federal laws that exceed those bounds will be held null and void within the states of this union.

Michael LeMieux is a retired U.S. Army intelligence and imagery analyst, and has served combat tours in Kuwait and Afghanistan with the 19th Special Forces. He is a Purple Heart recipient for injuries received in Afghanistan. Mr. LeMieux is the author of Unalienable Rights and the denial of the U.S. Constitution, published by Publish America and a regular writer for Republic Magazine. You can contact Mr. LeMieux or read more of his writings via his website at www.constitutiondenied.com.

I am troubled over all the hoopla over the recent decision of the D.C. V. Heller case; not for what it has affirmed, but for what it does not say, and for what it left out.

Justice Scalia started off the decision citing the history of the case; and then he jumps immediately into the “meaning of the Second Amendment,” (with which I totally agree).  Justice Scalia then begins his analysis and break-down of the Second Amendment into its various clauses, and then he came to the conclusion, as have many on the right, that this amendment is indeed an individual right.

Justice Scalia continues his opinion dissecting the phrase “keep and bear arms.” His analysis is in-depth and weighs both sides of the argument. His decision on the matter is that keeping and bearing arms is an individual right, that it is not tied to military service.

There has been much discussion of late as to the relationship between the “militia” and the military insinuating that the militia is a part of the military. It seems that Justice Scalia is of the opinion that the militia and the military are synonymous as he uses the term military when the Second Amendment only addresses the militia. During the drafting of the Constitution, one of the main concerns was for state security, as well as national defense. The prefatory clause of the amendment deals with the security of a free “state,” which is a word used to describe the individual states not the union. Article VII of the Constitution states: “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States…”; the signers recognized the individual “states” were signing this document and it was the “states” militia and not part of the standing army (military) until called upon to support the nation during specific emergencies. Furthermore, the militia was also used to balance the power between the federal and the state by ensuring that the states always had a means to defend themselves should the federal government become tyrannical.  This was as much a balance of power between the state and federal governments as it was a declaration of individual rights.

I would also like to point out that the “Bill of Rights” is not a grant of rights. The rights of the citizens of this country are antecedent to the Constitution. The Constitution bars the federal government from trespassing on those rights; and is, therefore, a prohibition against the federal government from encroaching upon those rights.  This is why we read such language as “shall not be infringed,” “shall make no law,” “shall not be violated,” “due process of law,” etc, within the Constitution and Bill of Rights: they are a prohibitions against the federal governments involvement in these matters.

While discussing the operative clause of the Second Amendment, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” he asserts that these rights can be limited, as we do with the First Amendment. However, in actuality, it is not the right that is limited, speaking of the First Amendment, but the responsibility of the person exercising that right and an enforcement of the responsibility associated with that right. We have found that a person can be held liable for the things he says but that does not preclude his right to say them; however, he must bear the responsibility for the exercise of that right.

The same holds true for the Second Amendment; a person has the right to “keep and bear arms” to defend his life and liberty, but he also has the responsibility to answer for his actions, regardless of the tool or method employed.

Justice Scalia then proceeded to give an extensive history of the Second Amendment and kept reiterating the position that many learned men, as well as Supreme Court cases, support the position that there was no power given to congress allowing them to disarm the American Citizen.  For some of us the words “shall not be infringed,” would be obvious.

Justice Scalia referred a number of times to the Supreme Court case of United States V. Miller. Justice Scalia also pointed out, correctly, that the issue in the Miller case was not a rights issue but a regulatory issue for the specific type of weapon being used, namely, a short barreled shotgun. The decision in this case cited, (incorrectly), that this type of weapon is not in common use in the military, and therefore, it is not covered under the Second Amendment.

Conversely, if we used this logic to determine what is covered under the Second Amendment, then all individual weapons which ARE in common use by the military would, by definition, include all assault style weapons, and would be protected weapons. This observation is conveniently overlooked when Congress seeks to pass new gun laws.

Justice Scalia then moves into a dissertation on reasonable restrictions. I found it interesting that many of his previous comments compared limitations on the First Amendment to support limitations on the Second Amendment. Yet, I find it insulting that if we were to conversely use the same limitations commonly employed upon the Second Amendment to restrict the First Amendment, people would riot in the streets.

For example, let’s say that before you were allowed to write a book you must first pay a fee and be trained in the proper use of words. Secondly, you must then pay another fee and receive a license allowing you to write the book. However, in order for you to actually carry that book around, you must pay another fee, have a thorough back ground investigation, and receive a license to carry. Should you wish to teach your writing skills to others, you must first attend a government approved class which would ensure that you are teaching correct writing skills, undergo another background investigation, finger printed, and photographed. You would then be required to pay another fee and get another license before actually being allowed to teach. We will not however, infer that this is in any way an “infringement” on your rights. After all, we know that the pen is mightier than the sword; and “must” be regulated, for our own good, of course.

Regardless of what others may say, a governmental fee is a tax. These are monies collected to fund the operation of a public function; and, therefore, a tax. Paraphrased from the Supreme Court case, McCulloch v. Maryland 17 U.S. 327 (1819), the unlimited power to tax is the power to destroy. This is such a very important concept if we are not to infringe upon rights. One could argue that as long as a means is available by which you may obtain arms, then the right is still in place. But let’s say that a tax/fee is imposed in the amount of $200.00 for every firearm or firearm-related purchase. Would that be an infringement? What if we only required this tax on certain items but not all? Would that be an infringement?

If we deem the government has the power to enact these fees (which they are doing already) then they could establish any arbitrary tax amount. So if they could charge $200 for a transaction, they could just as easily assess $2,000.00. Although politically this would not go over very well, this is exactly what has happened in the past. As part of a government revenue-raising scheme, a tax of $200.00 was affixed to silencers and machine guns. At that time, a silencer could be purchased at most hardware and gun stores for around $5.00. How many of us would purchase a five dollar item and then turn around and pay $200.00 in taxes– virtually none. The industry collapsed; and now they are very scarce, although not illegal (in most states). It is perfectly legal to own silencers as long as you have the tax stamp that goes with it. The government is, by design, infringing on citizen rights in an effort to manipulate the public.

Throughout the court’s opinion in this case, references were made to the right of citizens to “keep and bear arms.” Some instances ruled that the manner (concealed or open) could be regulated but not banned. With this logic, the government requires anyone who wishes to carry must have a license. This “right,” therefore, now requires one to ask permission to do something authorized by the license. This begs the question; do you have a “right” if you have to ask permission or receive a license to perform that right? I would say no!

A Constitutional right is an absolute right. Black’s law dictionary defines an absolute right as: “A right that belongs to every human being, such as the right of personal liberty; a natural right.”  In this country, we have defined life as an absolute right (“life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”); and the natural extension of that is the right to defend that life. As the Heller decision enforces, it is an individual right.

Justice Scalia concludes in the opinion that: “In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.”  Although I agree with his conclusion in general; in this particular case, I believe the Supreme Court has erred.

Article I, Section 8 states specifically that: “Congress has exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by Cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States…”

This means that Congress has the sole power to determine the laws for Washington D.C., or any federal possession or territory. Therefore, as a matter of jurisdiction, Congress would be within its’ power to enact a total gun ban for the entire city.

Just as every military post in the country bans the carrying of “non-official” arms on the base, (open or concealed, even when the carrier is licensed by the state wherein the base resides) the D.C. gun ban was perfectly legal. Not withstanding, Congress has abrogated most every power it has to other branches or agencies in the government; it has not relegated its’ “exclusive legislative” authority to the judicial, who are more than eager to assume.  Although they have abrogated to the incorporated city those managerial responsibilities it still maintains complete constitutional authority.

Others would argue that regardless of location, the federal government must honor the rights of the citizens contained in the Bill of Rights. Yet it has already been settled that government CAN restrict rights in federal buildings, military installations, and within federal territories. And if we deem the federal government can curtail the rights of citizens while on their property (jurisdiction); are the rights of citizens “location dependant?”

If we believe that rights are endowed upon people from the creator and not from the government, then the government cannot take them away, nor can they cause them to be nullified via mechanisms which would place them out of reach of any segment of society; through licenses and taxation. As we have said earlier; the power to tax is also the power to destroy; therefore, all rights must be free from ANY taxation, fee, or license prior to the exercise of that right. To do otherwise transforms that right into a privilege, and a privilege can be revoked.

As with the limitations applied to the First Amendment, these limitations are based upon responsible action. If I use my freedom of speech to harm another unjustly, then I am responsible for the consequences of that behavior. If I slander, libel, or otherwise defame another person with falsehoods, then I should be held accountable. But the common thread running through all of this is the action of the individual. It is a wrongful action which is ultimately the issue, not the right. We, therefore, should not look at passing laws on inanimate objects, or the possession of such, but upon the wrongful actions of the individual.

This is the difference between a free society and a tyrannical society. In a free society, a person is able to move about and live his life as he sees fit while being responsible for his actions. A tyrannical society places prohibitions on things which have no means of independent action or motive, and it makes criminals out of people for the mere possession of that thing and not the action or motive of the person. Rights are attached to free persons; privileges are attached to surfs and subjects of the government, where do you stand?

In his closing remarks Justice Scalia stated:  “But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem.” He intimated that rights are not absolute, that a person is only able to exercise his rights within the confines of his own home. He intimates that a citizen has to have a license (permission) to “keep and bear arms” in his own home; but he is forbidden to “keep and bear arms” outside his home.

Where do we normally feel the safest? Most of us believe that is in our own homes. Yet, we are so often denied the tools to effect our right of personal defense outside our homes and now Justice Scalia has affirmed the right to at least have the right to personal protection within our homes.

Again this begs the question of whether a right is truly a right if one must ask permission to exercise it. Do we have to get permission or a license before we can give a speech? Do we have to pass a test to attend our religious services? Do we lose a right based solely on geography? Or, have we slipped so far into apathy and ignorance of our civic responsibility to control our own government that we no longer are deemed worthy to be free?

The final outcome of this decision is not going to be the declaration that the Second Amendment is an individual right; it will be the “reasonable limitations” expansion that will now be free to infringe our rights even further. And it will be the apathy of the American Citizen that will allow our government to continue the erosion of our rights, for our own good of course.

When it comes to the true purpose of the Second Amendment they could not be further from the truth. To prove this point lets look at the words of the Second Amendment itself: “A wellregulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

How many times was a recreational activity mentioned in this amendment? None, the reason is stated right up front, for the security of a free state.

Security from what? Many of you reading this may be shocked; it is security from invasion, insurrection, or a tyrannical central government!

Our forefathers knew history quite well and new by that history what power does to those in government and their natural tendency to expand its power. This American experiment was to provide a union of independent nations (states) with a balance of power between the federal, states, and the people. The right of arms is the ultimate security providing the means to the people to withstand oppression.

In 1833 Justice Story, a Supreme Court Justice appointed by James Madison in 1811, penned “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.” Regarding the Second Amendment he wrote:  “The militia is the natural defence of a free country… The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic;”

He went on to relate of a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, much as we see today. Almost prophetically he stated: “There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.“

In this same vain Representative Ron Paul stated in 2006: “The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of that time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms.”

It is my belief the lawmakers know this. The excuse of fighting crime or limiting weapons to only recreational use is only the “reason” to pass the law not the desired end effect. The desired end effect is the removal of the capability of the citizenry to resist government. Once this is accomplished the country is then helpless against the rulers of our nation. Another means of checks and balances, the final means, will be abolished.

The last seventy years have been a continual neutering of the American patriot. When all is said and done, the wresting of our God-given rights from the “communist-liberal left and the powerhungry government bureaucrats” may come down to one thing; our Second Amendment Right.

Michael LeMieux is a retired U.S. Army intelligence and imagery analyst, and has served combat tours in Kuwait and Afghanistan with the 19th Special Forces. He is a Purple Heart recipient for injuries received in Afghanistan. Mr. LeMieux is the author of Unalienable Rights and the denial of the U.S. Constitution, published by Publish America and a regular writer for Republic Magazine. You can contact Mr. LeMieux via his website at www.constitutiondenied.com.

There are some in our society, and in government, that believe the Constitution is a living document that must “change” with the times. Oh really? They would have us believe that when someone writes a document for the establishment of a government that the documents meaning would change just because time had passed. And who would be the deciding voice on that change? And who would decide which passages are changeable and which were not?

The absurdity of this belief should be, at once, plain for all to see; for how can law be established, and the Constitution is the gauge for all our law, if the basis for that law is transient?  It does not make sense except to those who do not understand their history or constitutional interpretation and construction.

In law, once the legislature has defined a term that term cannot mean anything except that which the writers have deemed it to mean(1). For example, the word “employee” has a totally different meaning within the IRS than is generally understood, and without knowing the “legalese” you would have an erroneous understanding of the law as it applies to you.

Compare the following definitions for employee:

1. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1977 Edition: “One employed by another usually for wages or salary and in a position below the executive level.”
2. Blacks Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition: “A person who works in the service of another person (the employer) under an express or implied contract of hire, under which the employer has the right to control the details of work performance.”
3. IRS Tax code, title 26 USC, section 3401(c): “employee – For purposes of this chapter, the term ”employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term ”employee” also includes an officer of a [federally owned or controlled] corporation.” (Emphasis added.)

Notice how closely the two dictionaries follow the “understood” or common meaning of the word “employee”. But, as I have already said, in law the meaning can have a definition all its own. In this case, the term has absolutely no resemblance to either of the dictionary terms.  In fact, the IRS’ own definition, and this is their only definition for employee, does not describe the majority of workers within the United States. And by legal construction when you are given a list to “include” the expansive definition beyond what is enumerated can only be those within the general class of the list. In this case what class would you assume that to be? If you said government or government employee you would be correct.

So when we view the Constitution we cannot give the words used the meanings that may be in effect today but must use the meaning as defined, or if not defined, that was in common use at the time of the writing of the document.

One example of a change from the original meaning of the Constitution is the phrase “regulate commerce.” We see nearly every expansion of the federal governments power into the states of the Union has been through what it has deemed as its regulation of commerce among the states; or in the present vernacular “interstate commerce.”

It has been stated that that anything in business that crosses state lines is interstate commerce and that would be true but those were not the words used in the Constitution nor was that the meaning given to the term. The term used was “regulate commerce among the several States”.  But the federal government has brought the weight of government against citizens across this nation, under this clause, when they did not sell an item at all stating that it impacts interstate commerce(2). They have even charged individuals for impacting interstate commerce because having a concealed handgun in proximity of a school creates a condition that does not allow children to learn and thus impacts interstate commerce(3).

But what did those that wrote the Constitution state was the meaning of this term? In plain terms it was to ensure a level playing field for commerce between the several states. They did not want states applying tariffs to competing states which traversed their state to bring product to market.  In the words of Madison in the Federalist papers (No. 42), speaking of the power to regulate commerce: “…A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State…ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former.” This clearly establishes that the federal’s role was that of making commerce regular or fair across ALL the states.

But it seems the further we get away from the meaning of the founders the more perverted government uses these powers to suppress the States and its citizens. In 1922 the Supreme Court ruled(4)that the government’s actions through the interstate commerce and taxing authorities was used to coerce behavior and was outside the bounds of the Constitution, stating: “…Grant the validity of this law, and all that Congress would need to do, hereafter, in seeking to take over to its control any one of the great number of subjects of public interest, jurisdiction of which the States have never parted with, and which are reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment, would be to enact a detailed measure of complete regulation of the subject and enforce it by a so-called tax upon departures from it. …such…would…break down all constitutional limitation of the powers of Congress and completely wipe out the sovereignty of the States.(p38)”

Through taxation, interstate commerce regulation, and the myriad of unconstitutional “departments” within the federal government, all under the auspices of interstate commerce, are put in place to control and coerce the states and the people to comply with their wishes. These are tactics seen every day in the inner cities in the days of organized crime. It seems the tactics haven’t changed only the location from where they are administered.

Now moving even further away from the founders in 1942 the Supreme Court ruled (5)that the commerce clause also extends to activities within a state which may “affect” interstate commerce even when that activity is not deemed “commerce.” They went on to say that Congress had the ability to regulate prices of commodities as well as the practices which affected those prices. The logic here goes like this: If you or I have a garden in our back yard which we grow for our own enjoyment and consumption; then we are affecting interstate commerce because we are not purchasing vegetables from the local grocer who may purchase from interstate suppliers thus impacting interstate commerce and therefore the federal government can regulate that activity.

With this type of “circular logic” there is absolutely no area of our lives that cannot be tied to interstate commerce and thus federal regulation and control. They are doing it each and every day, unconstitutionally and thus illegally, but they carry the big stick of government and the color of law (6)to enforce their will on the American people.

One of the main reasons for the continual erosion of our liberties has been the bastardization of the meanings of the words and phrases of the Constitution. They have been twisted and redefined to the point that they no longer resemble the true meaning of its authors and thus have robbed all of us of our freedoms and liberties and have allowed the massive expansion if a totalitarian regime we now see being implemented today. It is not being done by innocent mistake but by power hungry men and women who will do anything to enforce their will on the American people.

We the People must now force our states to remove themselves from under the control of the federal government by refusing to accept federal funding and the demands to enforce federal law within the borders of the state. They must pass state law or state constitutional amendments that any unconstitutional federal law, regulation, or agency will carry no jurisdiction within the state and any attempt by a federal agent within that unconstitutional agency to enforce federal law will be arrested.

It is time to put the federal genie back in its bottle and start returning freedom and liberty to where it belongs – to the states and the people.

1. Rayonier, Inc. v. Polson, 400 F.2d 909 (9th cir. 1968)
2. Wickard V Filburn, 317 U.S. 111(1942)
3. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)
4. Bailey V. Drexel Furniture Co. (1922)
5. Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
6. Color of Law: law that supplants or replaces the established, or root law, by a controlling government; to give the impression of legitimate authority.

In a previous article for News With Views, “Is State Sovereignty Dead”, I brought up the case of McCulloch V. Maryland where I stated the following:

• “But where we went astray, in my opinion, was based on Chief Justice Marshalls opinion in McCulloch V. Maryland (1819) in which he stated: “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.” From this point on many politicians have gleaned onto Justice Marshall’s declaration that those things which are not prohibited and therefore constitutional.” (Emphasis in original)

After submitting that article I came across an interview between Judge Napolitano and Congressman James Clyburn, the 3rd highest democrat in the House of Representatives, in which Congressman Clyburn when asked about the constitutionality of healthcare stated that most of what they do in Congress is not authorized by the Constitution and when pressed further he countered the question by asking where in the Constitution congress is prohibited to legislate healthcare.

It is interesting that once the idea that lawyers could get laws passed by using Justice Marshalls “not prohibited” they have decided that they are no longer bound by the Constitution but only by their imaginations and the spin they can put on their agendas to make them palatable to the American public. After all they still want to get reelected so they have to make it sound like they are legally doing what they are doing so why not tie it to a Supreme Court case.  After all perception is reality – isn’t it?

I find it amazing that a high ranking political official could make the bold statement that the majority of the work of Congress is not authorized by the Constitution and not one mention on main stream media; but let one unpopular vote on American Idol or Dancing with the Stars and it is splashed over very tabloid and television screen.

But it does answer one question that many may have had as to why Speaker Nancy Pelosi would laugh and croak “are you serious” when asked what part of the Constitution gave Congress the power to enact this legislation – and as Representative Clyburn revealed they don’t care about the Constitution because it is no longer relevant in their work.

So what is the use of having Congressmen swear and oath to protect and defend a Constitution if they admittedly do not feel or act bound by that Constitution? Thomas Jefferson stated: “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence of man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”  We have seen time and time again that man’s lust for power and fame have pushed the very fabric of our society to brink of collapse and degradation and at no time more than we see today do we need to bind our leaders to the chains of the Constitution that they have to date destroyed.

President Obama, and his supporters, has stated time and time again that it is their agenda to move this nation to a socialistic healthcare system of single payer government healthcare. There is no provision in the Constitution to do so but as we have covered above that no longer matters.

The title of this article is Constitution Denied to denote that our federal government system, not just the people within it, the system has been corrupted to deny the chains that bind; has shattered the links of separation of powers and have converted the federal government to be a democratic oligarchy that rule the surfs.

Let’s look at the definition of oligarchy (Webster’s) “1. Government by the few 2. A government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes.”

Now let’s take a look and what is happening in Washington today and over the past 150 years; we have a small group of men and women who admittedly pass laws that they know are unconstitutional, against their oaths, (corrupt) for their own agendas (selfish purposes). President Obama has been pushing this agenda since before he was in government office of any kind and has been bent on the destruction of the very fabric of the American ideal. Remember his stump speech when he told us during the presidential campaign the he wanted to “fundamentally change America.”

President Andrew Jackson, at his farewell address on March 4, 1837, stated:

• “It is well known that there have always been those among us who wish to enlarge the powers of the general government, and experience would seem to indicate that there is a tendency on the part of this government to overstep the boundaries marked out for it by the Constitution. Its legitimate authority is abundantly sufficient for all the purposes for which it was created, and its powers being expressly enumerated, there can be no justification for claiming anything beyond them. Every attempt to exercise power beyond these limits should be promptly and firmly opposed, for one evil example will lead to other measures still more mischievous; and if the principle of constructive powers or supposed advantages or temporary circumstances shall ever be permitted to justify the assumption of a power not given by the Constitution, the general government will before long absorb all the powers of legislation, and you will have in effect but one consolidated government. From the extent of our country, its diversified interests, different pursuits and different habits, it is too obvious for argument that a single consolidated government would be wholly inadequate to watch over and protect its interests; and every friend of our free institutions should be always prepared to maintain unimpaired and in full vigor the rights and sovereignty of the states and to confine the action of the general government strictly to the sphere of its appropriate duties.”

The America of our forefathers, the ideals of liberty established in a republic protected by a constitution and government, does not exist today. The greatest danger we face to American freedom today is not terrorism, it is not Russia’s or China’s long-range nuclear missiles, or even the flood of illegal aliens across our borders; it is our own civic apathy and cowardice toward government domination. Much of this apathy has been brought about by conditioning in our youth due to the lack of proper instruction by parents, schools and community leaders. But the cost of this apathy is possibly the future existence of this nation, our freedom and way of life, and possibly the enslavement of the entire planet.

America was founded on the ideal that no man or government should stand above all others, that indeed, as our Declaration of Independence espouses, “all men are created equal.” Our government was established by the people, and for the people, and the government draws its power from the people it governs. It is the natural inclination of any group or governing body to expand what power they may have, for the greater good of course. We all know the adage that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” By its very nature power will wear on ALL men regardless of how noble or righteous they profess or seem to be. We have seen great ministers fall to temptation and greed. There are senators and congressmen who feel they are above the law, and governmental agencies who have spoken outright that they do not need to answer the questions of citizens, and that their response will be shown by enforcement (read force). There is a line from the movie “V for Vendetta” that provides a prospective rarely seen in today’s media, “the people should not fear their government, the government should fear the people.” This follows the founding fathers’ vision that the government is subservient to the people, and that the power of the government is derived from the people and not from their position.

From the inception of our government the nation has been in a constant state of change. We have progressed in nearly every area of our human existence; except we seem to have forgotten or lost the true meaning of our countries freedom.

When our country was first formed, it was a union of individual states. Each state had representation in all aspects of the government; the state was a buffer between the people and the federal government. Thomas Jefferson said in 1821, “When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”

The federal government was not designed to be a bureaucracy that had, for the most part, any effect on the populace of the country. In fact, the only power granted by the Constitution to the federal government lay in ensuring that government did not trespass against the citizens. It was the responsibility of the individual states to deal with the needs of the people. Federal legislative control was designed only to have jurisdiction only within the District of Columbia and the areas ceded by the states to the federal government for forts, (and other federal sites as needed) or to make laws dealing with interstate commerce or dealing with foreign nations. Since the federal government was created, it has slowly and methodically grown in size and scope until it has permeated every aspect of our lives. Another quote from Thomas Jefferson, “Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have …. The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.“ I believe the current federal position towards its citizens has proven this axiom to be all too true.

There seems to be a misunderstanding in America today about what role the constitution and “Bill of rights” play in regard to the American Citizens. Many believe that this venerable document grants, or is a guarantor, of our individual freedoms. We often hear people talking about their “Constitutional Rights” or “rights guaranteed by the Constitution”; however, they are mistaken. The Constitution has very little to do with the American citizen. It was written to establish a Federal Government and to place the boundaries by which that government would operate. The constitution was never designed to provide or enumerate the rights of the citizens but to restrain the federal government from meddling in state and ultimately citizen affairs.

My research over the past few years has been a journey of awareness and awakening. Much of what I thought to be common knowledge turned out to be common misunderstanding. What I once believed it took to be a good citizen was an understanding founded in ignorance. If we do not stop the massive advancement of unconstitutional corrupt government and take back the republics upon which this nation was founded, we may be doomed to repeat the failures of all the mighty republics that have come before us.

Today we stand on the precipice of grand chasm; behind us lies the ruin of a great nation founded on individual liberty, responsibility, and limited self government. The next step off the cliff is the way of socialistic servitude; not for the betterment of mankind, not to lift up the tired masses, but an enslavement of all to government control. What is at stake is literally the freedom of the world; as we have heard before “so goes America, so goes the world.” We are the only, the last, vestige of freedom in the world and if we fall there will not be another.

Many of you by now have received your 2010 Census form in the mail and have waded through the questions. I must admit I was braced for much more intrusive questions but was still wondering why the federal government needs to know whether I own or rent the dwelling I am inhabiting and how that allows them to ascertain my states representation.

On the very front of the envelope it states “U.S. Census Form Enclosed YOUR RESPONSE IS REQUIRED BY LAW.” And I thought to myself, oh really? If the central government is defined by the constitution and all other powers are reserved to the states or to the people (10th Amendment) where do they get their power to go beyond that?

So I did a bit of research and this is what I found: Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution states: “The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.”

The word enumeration means to count or list one after another. The clause further defines the reason for ascertaining this number and that is to determine the number of representatives for each state and for the purposes of apportionment of direct taxes. And the definition of Census simply means “a complete enumeration of a population.” But I guess Census was easier; after all who wants to go around saying enumeration all day?

And as far as the closing stanza the term “in such manner” means the method in which it is to be completed shall be directed by law from Congress. It says nothing of adding additional purposes to the enumeration, I mean census, and the entire Federalist Paper #55, believed to have been written by James Madison February 13, 1788, speaks only of counting the inhabitants of each state for the purpose of ascertaining the number of representatives for those states.

Now remember I said that the envelope stated you had to answer the questions “by law?” Well that is found under Title 13 U.S.C. Section 221(a) and (b) which assigns a fine of $100.00 for each unanswered question and a fine of $500.00 for any false response to a question.

Okay, I found the law but for any federal law to be valid it must by constitutional. And anyone who has done any research at all into the constitutionality of federal law knows that the federal government will stretch any logic it can to build a nexus from the Constitution to the law even if it is absurd. It doesn’t make them right it just makes them wrong with a gun.

In Morales V. Daley Secretary of Commerce, dealing with a challenge to the 2000 Census; Morales believed the various questions asked on the census form was an invasion of his privacy and was unconstitutional. I think we can all guess the outcome of this case but what is interesting is not the predictable outcome but the reasoning’s for that outcome.

The court cited a Supreme Court Case of McCullough V. Maryland (1819) in which the court stated: “ The Constitution orders an enumeration of free persons in the different states every ten years. The direction extends no further Yet Congress has repeatedly directed an enumeration not only for free person in the States but for free persons in the Territories, and not only an enumeration of persons but the collection of statistics respecting age, sex, and production. Who questions the power to do this?”

It is amazing to me that the Supreme Court flat out admits that Congress is acting outside the constitution when they state “The direction extends no further Yet Congress has repeatedly directed…”  A clear example of Congress acting as it wants regardless of the Constitution solely because they want it and the Constitution be damned! We will see more of this shortly.

The Morales case goes even further by citing United States V. Moriarity (1901) stating: “This does not prohibit the gathering of other statistics, if ‘necessary and proper,’ for the intelligent exercise of other powers enumerated in the constitution… For the national government to know something, if not everything, beyond the fact that the population of each stated reaches a certain limit, is apparent, when it is considered what is the dependence of this population upon the intelligent action of the general government.”

I don’t know about you but when I read the foregoing utterance by a justice of our government I could only think “What Arrogance.” They wish us to believe that they can do anything under any pretense if they can tie one action with a separate power. With that logic why not have the IRS collect and determine postage rates. After all they deal with money, our money, but money none the less. And the audacity to think that the federal government has the authority to not only know anything about you but EVERYTHING because we are all just a bunch of serf dependents waiting to be told what to do by our intelligent general government. Do you wonder now why we have so many Big Brother conspiracies out there? Makes you wonder if they are really conspiracies or maybe finders of the truth when our own government speaks of the people this way.

The Morales case argued that many of the questions go beyond the enumeration of states inhabitants to areas that are not part of the powers of Congress. The government responded that the courts in Wisconsin V. New York (1996) “makes it clear that the Constitution has given to Congress very broad discretion in conducting the census.”  Really, maybe they read a different Constitution from the one I have? It seemed pretty cut and dry to me – count the number of people to determine representation and direct tax apportionment. Where is the broad discretion listed in the Constitution if not only in the minds of those that want it that way? A typical tactic of the left is to read the Constitution for what it can do for them not for what is says.

Morales goes on to explain further citing “Department of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (1999), notes that the census as mandated by the Constitution is for enumeration so that congressional districts may be established, but that the census-taking process has a long history of including much more than a simple headcount.”

So now we actually have a little truth streaming through the clouds of government obfuscation; “the census-taking process has a long history of including much more than a simple headcount.”

So you see asking for more than just a head count is beyond the constitutional power of the Congress BUT we’ve been doing it this way for such a long time and the stupid dependents have given us the information so we keep on doing it.

The Morales case goes on to argue that because of the historical fact that the Census has always asked questions that apparently any question may be asked when it stated: “The Census Bureau points out that from the very first census, performed in 1790, Congress authorized questions pertaining to age, gender, and race. It also points out that the Supreme Court defers to the statutes of the First Congress because so many Framers of the Constitution were members of that congress. The fact that the First Congress included questions in addition to the head count is strong support for the constitutionality of additional questions as a general proposition.”

And though technically correct, they did asl questions pertaining to race and gender due to the apportionment rules within the Constitution that required it. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, prior to what was mentioned above states: “…Which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons…”  So you can see that in order to determine the correct number for apportionment/representation they needed to establish the separation of these numbers and it was not JUST to gain more statistical data.

You can read the history of the First Census from the Census Bureau’s own report archived at their web site. Contained within this archive is the pertinent information gathered which states: “The schedules which these officials prepared consist of lists of names of heads of families; each name appears in a stub, or first column, which is followed by five columns, giving details of the family. These columns are headed as follows:

• Free white males of 16 years and upward, including heads of families.
• Free white males under 16 years.
• Free white females, including heads of families.
• All other free persons.
• Slaves.”

So even though they may have “asked” or counted based on family names it was at its basis solely an enumeration of the population garnering the numbers within a household and nothing more. The justices use of this as a basis for the full expansion of “knowing everything” is a far cry from the purpose and intent of the enumeration clause.

What I find very interesting is the government’s assurance in the Morales case that we can trust the government to do what they say. In particular they stated: “the Census Bureau assures him and the court that the law forbids the Bureau from attributing Van Fleet’s answers to Van Fleet.” (Van Fleet was a codefendant on the case) So if the Census Bureau does not attribute our answers to our names then why do they need our names? After all the majority of the census is based upon place of residence, to include unusual places such as college, nursing homes, etc, and with the exception of the homeless which is also discussed in the census documents. So why connect all this data to individuals if there is no intent to tie that information to the individual?

The answer will surprise most of you but it is for historical reasons. From the very first census the data has been made available to certain groups such as genealogical societies, veteran groups, and others. In fact the very first census, under President Washington, Congress passed an amendment to the bill to provide for selling the data to genealogical and patriotic groups to assist in the recovery of funds. Again we are asking more and more questions because that’s the way we’ve always done it, but it is not constitutional.

The final argument by the court was:  “Applying the Wyoming v. Houghton analysis, it is clear that the degree to which these questions intrude upon an individual’s privacy is limited, given the methods used to collect the census data and the statutory assurance that the answers and attribution to an individual will remain confidential. The degree to which the information is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests has been found to be significant.”

So again we see their logic; the government wants the data so they pass the questions to the Census Bureau and have them add it to the census and make it a crime not to answer the question. And if anyone dares question their authority they risk thousands of dollars in fines. And of course they ask us to trust them because they have done so well in the past like with social security.

The bottom line is that under the strict interpretation of the wording of the Constitution the expanded questions, like “do you rent, mortgage, or own your home outright,” are outside the constitutional authority of the government. But they have passed the law, constitutional or not, that empowers them to do so. Again, it doesn’t make them right it just makes them wrong with a gun and for most in this country that is enough to get them to comply and that is just what they expect from this dependant population.

Today, however, we have “evolved” to a state of legal confusion and intentional obfuscation of our rights. We are supposed to have the right to free travel without harassment from government. That our property and our persons were to be free from searches and seizures unless, under due process (a judge says so), the person doing the searching must have “probable cause” that a crime has been committed. But what if they do not have probable cause, hmmm, how about if we change that to just having “reasonable suspicion.”

What is the difference, you might ask? Here it is, according to Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition Probable Cause is defined as: “Under the Fourth Amendment, probable cause – which amounts to more than a bare suspicion but less than evidence that would justify a conviction – must be shown before an arrest warrant or search warrant may be issued.” (emphasis added)  The lesser legally allowable phrase of reasonable suspicion, though not grounded in Constitutional Authority, is stated as: “A particularized and objective basis, supported by specific and articulable facts, for suspecting a person of criminal activity.”  So as we can see by the two definitions, the former (grounded in the Constitution), mandates a court order before a person can be searched or arrested. The latter allows for only suspicion, which any person with half a brain could articulate suspicion about anyone, leaving the Constitution in the dust; and now the legislative branch of the government has raised itself above the Constitution by making the rule of law (statute) greater than the Constitution.

In the case of Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada; Mr. Hiibel was arrested for not providing his identification when asked to do so by a police officer. He was later found guilty of a misdemeanor and fined $250.00, which he appealed. The appeal ended up at the Supreme Court where the court ruled that the providing of identification did not infringe upon the defendant’s Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights and the charge was upheld.

This logic seems to fit the pattern of government’s gradual infringement on citizen’s rights. In a previous case, Terry V. Ohio, the court upheld the “stop and frisk” rule that is so prevalent today.  This allows an officer to stop a person and physically frisk an individual for merely a “reasonable suspicion” and your rights be damned. The court knew full well that this was an encroachment of the rights of the defendant as their supporting statement argued that because the “stop and frisk” action was of a lesser forfeiture of the defendants liberty, as compared to what is required to demand a warrant, it could be justified by a lesser burden of proof, therefore, the action of the officer was upheld as lawful.

What makes the Terry case so interesting, as it relates to the Hiibel case, is that in the Terry case the court ruled that the defendant was “not obliged to respond” to the police. The exact charge which Hiibel was convicted of was upheld in Terry as being unlawful.

To further emphasize the point of how twisted the logic of the Supreme Court can get. The decision of the Court that the lesser incursion of liberty demanded a lesser requirement of suspicion resulted in a situation where any person on the street will now have to worry that they are in jeopardy of going to jail if they dared to demand their rights and not provide identification.  If they invoke their Fifth Amendment right to not answer questions then they can be arrested and taken to jail. In essence the court has overruled the Constitution by statute.

On the Fifth Amendment, the Miranda case brought about the Miranda warning that is read when any suspect is arrested. The courts have determined that the Fifth Amendment right is not just a court right but also pertains to the jail or the street. The logic here is that if the Fifth Amendment applies at a Terry stop then, by definition, there is suspicion of a crime. If there is suspicion of a crime then the officers are investigating a criminal activity and the asking of the name or any other information is in relation to that investigation. This places a suspect in a predicament that if he does NOT answer the officer then he may be arrested and taken to jail. If he does answer the officer he has abrogated his Fifth Amendment rights and may be forced to incriminate himself. So now citizens may actually be arrested for utilizing a right.

If the Constitution is the basis for all law in the United States and if the Constitution prohibits the government from infringing upon the rights of the citizens; what recourse does the citizenry have when the courts that are in place to protect the Constitution refuse to do so?

Now with the looming national ID Act, the Homeland Defense strategy, and the illegal immigration issues; it is only a small step to rationalize that because it is now a law that you must identify yourself to police officers when they ask; the government may mandate that the government ID card be carried at all times to be presented to law enforcement when asked.

I can hear the echo now that will ring in the streets of America, as they did in Europe in ages past, “PAPERS, PAPERS PLEASE.”

P.S. In my article on Bio-Metrics in Republic Magazine; one of the current projects of the FBI is to gather data to seed the bio-metric database, such as facial features. Part of the Real-ID act establishes the following under SEC. 202. MINIMUM DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS: “(d) Other Requirements- To meet the requirements of this section, a State shall adopt the following practices in the issuance of drivers’ licenses and identification cards: (3) Subject each person applying for a driver’s license or identification card to mandatory facial image capture.”  (Emphasis added)

Just a coincidence? I don’t think so!

Michael LeMieux is retired from the U.S. Army. He has worked as an intelligence and imagery analyst, and has served combat tours in Kuwait and Afghanistan with the 19th Special Forces. He is a Purple Heart recipient for injuries received in Afghanistan. Mr. LeMieux is the author of Unalienable Rights and the denial of the U.S. Constitution, published by Publish America. You can contact Mr. LeMieux via his website at www.constitutiondenied.com.

On the Friday prior to voting on the PATRIOT Act, the Judiciary Committee passed a bipartisan version of the bill that did not have the broad sweeping powers wanted by  Attorney General Ashcroft and the White House. At 3:45 am on Sunday the bill was printed; but it had been modified to include all the items of the original bill which, according to Rep. DeFazio from Oregon, were a direct challenge to our civil liberties. These same items had been rejected by congress even before 9/11 occurred.

According to Rep. Barr, the PATRIOT Act was a device, under the guise of fighting terrorism, to expand federal police power. When we look at who attacked us, we see no U.S. citizens. Yet when we look at the PATRIOT Act, time and time again it provides the federal government with mechanisms to spy on the citizens of the United States not on foreign terrorists. The purpose of the PATRIOT Act is to aid in fighting the enemy, this has to make any rational person think, “who do they think is the enemy?” Obviously the government believes it is their own citizens. We have met the enemy, and it is us.

Many of today’s Citizens, who are acting in the best tradition of our founding fathers, are being accused of being naive, misinformed, and even ignorant. My experience has been just the opposite. There has been a deeper awakening and understanding within the American citizenry of what liberty and freedom is supposed to mean, and it is an understanding in line with the ideals of those who penned the Constitution, I find many of the supporters of liberty to be remarkably well informed. Today’s patriot movement is based upon knowledge, not ignorance.

With the emergence of the PATRIOT Act, the federal government now has statutory authority to get a court order to come into your home without your knowledge; and may even remove (steal) property without notifying you until weeks or months later. The PATRIOT Act also allows the federal government to obtain detailed records about you to include “library and bookstore records, financial and medical records, and Internet communications,” all without judicial review, by providing a “national security letter.”

The PATRIOT Act has also allowed a more broadly defined term for “enemy combatant” (including American citizens) which the President claims allows for indefinite detention without any criminal charges. In fact, according to a New York Times article from November 2003, the FBI was to receive massive expansion of its’ powers to obtain records without any judicial review, as cited in the Intelligence Authorization Act (PATRIOT Act II).

The government claimed that prior to 9/11 it did not have the ability to share the intelligence it acquired due to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and, therefore, it needed to expand its capability to prosecute the war on terror. In fact, it always had the ability to share the information with proper judicial oversight. The PATRIOT Act simply provided a means to circumvent that process.

Personal privacy may now be a thing of the past. Under the PATRIOT Act (Section 215), the government, through the FISA court, may obtain any and all personal records regardless of their sensitivity. The FBI, however, was given even broader powers under section 505 through the use of “national security letters.” These letters, which they produce themselves, allow them to obtain records from financial institutions, credit reports, and billing records for telephone and internet companies all WITHOUT a court order. Nor do they require proof of any criminal wrongdoing.

Through Section 213 of the PATRIOT Act, the government has admitted to invading dozens of homes and businesses using what are called “sneak and peek” warrants. They have also sought to delay notification of these intrusions, in some cases, over 200 times.

On November 18, 2003, in ACLU testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the ACLU listed case after case in which American Citizens, had found themselves on the wrong side of the PATRIOT Ac; and none of the cases involved terrorism.

One of the main problems with broad sweeping powers, as are found in the PATRIOT Act, is the ability to use them against those to whom it was not intended. Because of the ATRIOT Act there have been individuals who have found themselves arrested, placed on suspected terrorist watch lists, and detained for long periods of time without access to family or attorney. This is all reminiscent of the cold war KGB tactics made famous in many of Hollywood’s movies; but this is not make believe.

These “anti-terrorists legislation,” which is supposed to be used to capture terrorists, is being used to watch and control the American population. Citizens are monitored on the number of times they move, change telephone numbers, open bank accounts, move money between accounts. Or as one Seattle resident found out you can even be denied the ability to open a retirement fund just because he moved too many times.

PATRIOT Act II, Section 802, expands the government’s definition of “enemy combatant” to any American citizen who “may” have violated the act by “any action that endangers human life that is a violation of any Federal or State law.” Under this act, as an enemy combatant, you can be detained indefinitely without the right of habeas corpus, without notification to the press, and without notification of your family. You just simply disappear.

The PATRIOT Act flies in the face of current whistle-blower laws by making it a federal offense for any government employee or civilian to divulge the whereabouts of any detainee. Even if massive abuse of detained persons is known to be committed by the government, few would be willing to risk federal prison time by releasing such information.

When reading the PATRIOT Act II I feel like I’m caught between a terrorist bill and the RICO Act, which was used to rein in organized crime. The justification for this is that because terrorists fund themselves, most often by criminal enterprises; and terrorists can be anyone (international or domestic), then in order to protect the rights and lives of the citizens of the United States, the government feels it needs to know what everyone is doing, even our own citizens.

The government must then gather data from all sources to feed the massive computer systems which then try to match behavior to people. If your behavior pattern is deemed abnormal or suspicious, then you will be targeted. If they deem it necessary, you will be labeled an enemy combatant, shoved into a van, and will never be seen again. This does not sound like freedom to me.

But in all fairness and honesty, this type of draconian response by government is not new.  Governments have used the excuse of “emergency” to steal power and freedom throughout history, even in America.

During the great depression, Franklin Delano Roosevelt asked congress for “emergency” power to “wage war against the emergency” of the banking collapse. Power grabbers tend to use the term “wage war” when they want to take power away from the people.  We have the “War” on drugs which gave additional “police powers” to allow property to be taken without a court order or due process; we have the “War on Crime” to make us all safer, yet the courts have told us time and time again the police have no responsibility to protect any particular citizen. Police are a general deterrence of crime, and they cannot be sued if they don’t do anything to assist you.

Prior to FDR’s “emergency” act, there was an act entitled the “Trading with the Enemy Act,” enacted in 1917, to preclude doing business with the enemy of the “real” war.  Section two of the Act states: “That the word “enemy,” as used herein, shall be deemed to mean, for the purposes of such trading and of this act—.”  Within the definitions that follow was the term “other than citizens of the United States.” In FDR’s 1933 act to “wage war” against the depression was an amendment to the “Trading with the Enemy Act” which deleted the phrase “Citizens of the United States,” thus converting all citizens to the status of enemies of the state. Since the state of emergency has never been rescinded and new emergencies have been invoked, such as the War on Terrorism, to this day we are still deemed enemies of the government. Is it any wonder they feel their actions are justified when placed in this context?

I find it amazing how quickly the government was able to place so many laws, programs, and new departments into action within months following 9/11, when normally any governmental action takes months or years to happen. Seemingly overnight the President came up with the marvelous plan to create the Department of Homeland Security and place it into action. Most people think this came about because of 9/11, however, the government had been planning to put the Department of Homeland Security into place for years.

In January 2001, after two years in the making, and a full 10 months before 9/11, the United States Commission on National Security/21st Century delivered its Phase III report, which states: “  We therefore recommend the creation of a new independent National Homeland Security Agency (NHSA) with responsibility for planning, coordinating, and integrating various U.S. government activities involved in homeland security.”

As nothing happens in Washington by accident, you can rest assured that every bill passed, and every encroachment upon the freedoms and liberties of the American national has been planned that way. But it is not hopeless; we have a chance to take our country back from those who are hell bent on enslaving us. But it will require US to do it. The government will not go peacefully in the night and give up the powers it has amassed over the past hundred or so years.

Educate yourself, educate others, be prepared; and above all else, be diligent in the works of patriotism.

Michael LeMieux is a retired U.S. Army intelligence and imagery analyst, and has served combat tours in Kuwait and Afghanistan with the 19th Special Forces. He is a Purple Heart recipient for injuries received in Afghanistan. Mr. LeMieux is the author of Unalienable Rights and the denial of the U.S. Constitution, published by Publish America and a regular writer for Republic Magazine. You can contact Mr. LeMieux via his website at www.constitutiondenied.com.