Lies of Omission

Monday, March 10, 2014

Ours To Defend

There are some hard truths to be faced in the coming weeks. Ukraine is instructive to people who will go to the barricades and face down a tyrant. Connecticut is instructive to people who will stand before the blue line of the tyrant's muscle and give themselves to expose the demon's face. Ruby Ridge and Waco are instructive to people who will hunker down and separate themselves from society in order to survive.

Then, there are those who will wait on the Supreme Court to rule that all of the Second Amendment infringements are unconstitutional and make the government forces stand down. They will wait for the Supreme Court to rule that the NSA spying is unconstitutional and make the government stop it. They will wait for the Supreme Court to rule that Obamacare violates the First Amendment rights to freedom of religion and the "free exercise thereof" clause.

The trouble with all of the above is that it requires a Supreme Court to act as a neutral and honest advocate for the Constitution, which it is not. In ruling after ruling it has arrived at the point of Constitutional decision and has chosen again and again to rule, not in accordance with the language and intent of the Constitution, but by how that ruling will affect society and whether they (the justices) want society to move in that direction or not. It is evident from their often twisted logic in written decisions that these "decisions" are mere justifications for their political viewpoint. Then, they rule to their political convictions. If the Supreme Court had ever been an honest advocate of the Constitution and the supreme rights of the people none of the issues before us today would exist.

In Connecticut the people are faced with a decision much the same as the Supreme Court is occasionally faced with a decision. Since I hold that the Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of Constitutionality, but that determination always lies with the people themselves, it is incumbent upon those citizens of Connecticut whose rights and liberties are today infringed and damaged to decide what is and what is not Constitutional.

The Constitutional legitimacy for the citizens to regard this law as null and void is simple. The Connecticut law ironically called Gun Violence Prevention and Children's Safety Act, falls down on a few different Constitutionally protected rights, first and foremost is freedom from "ex post facto" laws, creating felons of people who acted lawfully (prior to the signing of the bill) by owning the firearms the state has now decided to confiscate. It also creates felons of innocent persons without due process of law. Simply passing a law is not due process, especially where it is an "ex post facto" law. Due process for criminality to be established requires intent, accusation, trial, legal defense, judgment and sentence (but Connecticut is often vague on the law as it has so many cases challenged on the "ex post facto" clause). That the act violates the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is obvious.

Where the Supreme Court addresses the Second Amendment, it usually hinges its justifications for violations of the Constitution on a few precepts that: 1) militia is defined by congress as the people whom the state might keep in reserve to protect the laws and integrity of the Constitution; 2) that when the Constitution refers to "people" it does not mean people, other than those people who belong to the militia.

What the Supreme Court does not address (conveniently) is that it was never the intent of the founders to allow a standing army among the people in the form the modern police force. It anticipated that the people themselves, being so armed and organized under the Constitution and constituting a militia as a consequence of citizenship, would protect their own liberties against tyranny; they would defend the laws passed by themselves as citizens. No law would have been enforced that went against the liberty of the individual. Certainly, no law infringing the right of the people (militia) to keep and bear arms would be enforced by those who would have to enforce it through possession of those very arms.

Had the court always ruled correctly there would not be a police force as we know it today: as a standing army among the people. Rather, one might draw police duty as one draws jury duty. To that extent one would not be willing to violate another's rights for fear of the other, or a relative, drawing police duty at some time in the future. Had American society always been based on the concept of an actual militia, there is not one crime that might be committed that any citizen, having drawn "police duty" at some point in the past, would not be trained and knowledgeable enough to prevent or empowered to interdict.

A modern police force is nothing if not a standing army among the people who today protect the tyrants from the consequences of their illegal and unconstitutional actions.  

How the citizens of Connecticut go about enforcing the rights they have might be chosen from any of the above options, i.e. direct confrontation via protest; standing in front of the blue line of tyranny; hunkering down in their homes and waiting for the authorities to breach the front door; or waiting for the Supreme Court to decide their rights. The only caveat being that since the violation is of a national nature and can set precedent for other states to follow suit, it is also incumbent upon any whose rights might be violated to also stand with their brothers in Connecticut to decide the issue. 

When a government, of whatever form, has so devolved from its origins, with representatives and justices unloosed from obedience to their oaths, that it has become hostile to its own stated intent it gives license to the people to act in whatever manner which is most likely to secure to themselves the rights and liberties promised, in simple language, to the free citizens of the United States and Connecticut.

To that purpose, the first act needs to be intelligence.

It is vitally important for those in Connecticut to know where the first assault of the state against the the people will occur and to give warning to patriots, just as it was important for the Minutemen to know when the British soldiers would march against the liberties of the citizens of that age.

It is important to inform other citizens, whose rights are offended by the actions of the Connecticut legislature and its standing army, of those violations of the Constitution which might be video-taped, or recorded in one way or another. It is critical to expose the State of Connecticut's intent to deprive their citizens of life, liberty or property without due process of law and to use deadly force against those who would defend those rights. To whatever degree the members of a police force might agree with these views, it is their obligation to assist their fellow citizens in obtaining this information.

We live in a different age, an age of technology that the government has come to use against its citizens, but it does not own this technology. It is the duty of the patriot to use technology to secure their rights, expose tyranny and justify the actions of resistance. Intelligence is power.

Today, we are faced with having to overcome centuries of dishonest rulings of the Supreme Court; of unfair bureaucratic tyranny with the powers of a police state; of local governments drunk with dictatorial excess; of corporations and special interests turning the law to its own ends and against the powerlessness of the individual.

We are given the rights of liberty by God, not some piece of paper. The Constitution merely acknowledges what the founders knew as inviolable rights of the people, but they are always ours to defend and protect as we see fit. Since force is the method of government to take these rights, force is available to retain them.

(Will I go to Connecticut? It is my duty

7 comments:

  1. Excellent logical progression of argument

    ReplyDelete
  2. We, as Patriots should ALL go to Connecticut and stop these tyrants cold in their tracks.
    We are prolonging the inevitable to allow this to continue, let it happen on our watch so that we might rid the ship of the rats sooner rather than later.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Patriots should all convene in Connecticut, not as individuals, but as the militia our Founders envisioned when creating our nation. Intelligence, therefore, is critical for us to be successful in securing our unalienable rights. Keep your powder dry, and God bless.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Perhaps the finest article ever written on this subject, the best I've seen anyway. It is up to all of us to convey what Mr Davis has written unto every outlet that we can find.
    Sure we all have militias in our states, they should see this. In addition however, it needs to go viral. Will my brothers in arms help get it done?

    ReplyDelete
  5. ex post facto only means you cannot be prosecuted for action contrary to a statute which was taken prior to the enactment of that statute; if guns are outlawed you cannot be prosecuted for PRIOR ownership of a firearm. It does NOT mean that someone CURRENTLY in contravention of a statute for action that was legal before the enactment of that statute cannot be prosecuted; if the guns are outlawed and you still retain one, you can be prosecuted....the argument needs to hinge on the legitimacy of the law itself viz a viz 2A

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that was my point. The CT law outlawed guns already possessed, making their possession a felony, so they either had to turn them in or face felony charges. I believe it is common in law that one has to take an action, one cannot generally be idle and commit a crime.

      From Justice Rehnquist's decision in Collins v Youngblood:

      As early opinions in this Court explained, "ex post facto law" was a term of art with an established meaning at the time of the framing of the Constitution. Calder, 3 Dall., at 391 (opinion of Chase, J.); id., at 396 (opinion of Paterson, J.). Justice Chase's now familiar opinion in Calder expounded those legislative Acts which in his view implicated the core concern of the Ex Post Facto Clause:

      "1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender." Id., at 390 (emphasis in original).

      Delete
  6. T.L.Get behind the OperationAmericanSpring.ning.com patriotsforamerica.ning.com
    10,000,000 million Americans in DC on May 10, and as many staying as can to shut the government down.
    This is the big move necessary to have Obama, Biden, Boehner, Reid, McConnell, Pelosi and Holder arrested and removed form office
    This is a peaceful movement. For Now.

    ReplyDelete

About Me

My photo
I am a published and produced writer, a novelist, a freelance writer, a playwright and blogger.