Replies

” Even if it can be known that he is Joseph Stalin, a foreign enemy of the US Constitution?”

I said:

“If Joseph Stalin was elected to the Presidency by the majority of voters of the USA, IAW the Electoral College, and approved and accepted as such by Congress, and took an oath from the CJ of the Supreme Court,

and if he had gone to Congress and been given approval for combat operations, and Congress funded the costs of the war, then...”

Now, would America vote for someone who lived in Moscow, spoke no English, and ruled a foreign country? Don’t you think SOMEONE would notice during the election? Do you think no one in the Electoral College would notice? Do you think there would be no one in Congress who would notice?

Bill Ayers is an enemy of the US Constitution. Is there anything in the Constitution that prevents Ayers from becoming President?

If Congress thought you were right, they could remove Obama this afternoon. But ZERO of 535 members of Congress agree with you. ZERO of 50 states agree with you. The state of Hawaii says Obama was born in Hawaii. The term ‘natural born citizen’, as used at the time the Constitution was written, allowed for the child of aliens to be pone. But you want the US military to determine if Obama was born in the USA and eligible to be President. You want the US military to overturn the election and use whatever force is needed to remove someone who received a majority of votes, with no objection from anyone in Congress, in two elections.

What were the Founders more afraid of - someone fooling everyone and getting into office when born overseas, or the danger of a standing, professional army?

The Anti-Federalist who signed his 1788 essays in the Baltimore Maryland Gazette “A Farmer” gave historical examples in his second essay to show that “both political and civil liberty have long since ceased to exist in almost all the countries that now employ standing troops, and that their slavery has in every instance been effected and maintained by the instrumentality and invariable obedience of these living machines to their chief.” He mentions not only that in England “a standing army is declared to be contrary to their constitution, and a militia the only natural and safe defense of a free people,” but also that in America “the constitutions of all the States positively forbid any standing troops at all, much less laws for them.” For example:

Massachusetts: “And as in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature.”

Pennsylvania & North Carolina: “And as standing armies in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up.”

Maryland & Delaware: “That standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised or kept without consent of the legislature.”

“A Farmer” also mused in this essay: “I was persuaded that the grave would have closed on my bones, before this question would be publicly proposed in America. — Are we then to look up to a standing army for the defence of this soil from foreign invasion?” In his sixth essay, he included as a “great and manifest” defect in the proposed government “the manifest danger to public liberty from a standing army, without limitation of number, in time of peace.”

The Anti-Federalist who used the name of “John DeWitt” wrote extensively about the evils of standing armies in a series of essays published in the Boston American Herald in late 1787:

They shall have also the power of raising, supporting and establishing a standing army in time of peace in your several towns, and I see not why in your several houses.”

Where lies the security of the people? What assurances have they that either their taxes will not be exacted but in the greatest emergencies, and then sparingly, or that standing armies will be raised and supported for the very plausible purpose only of cantoning them upon their frontiers? There is but one answer to these questions. — They have none.

The advocates at the present day, for a standing army in the New Congress pretend it is necessary for the respectability of government. I defy them to produce an instance in any country, in the Old or New World, where they have not finally done away the liberties of the people. — Every writer upon government, — Lock, Sidney, Hamden, and a list of other have uniformly asserted, that standing armies are a solecism in any government; that no nation ever supported them, that did not resort to, rely upon, and finally become a prey to them.

It is universally agreed, that a militia and a standing body of troops never yet flourished in the same soil. Tyrants have uniformly depended upon the latter, at the expense of the former. Experience has taught them, that a standing body of regular forces, where ever they can be completely introduced, are always efficacious in enforcing their edicts, however arbitrary.

There is no instance of any government being reduced to a confirmed tyranny without military oppression; and the first policy of tyrants has been to annihilate all other means of national activity and defence, and to rely solely upon standing troops.

It is very true, that the celebrated Mr. Wilson, a member of the Convention, and who we may suppose breathes, in some measure, the spirit of that body, tells you, it [a standing army] is for the purpose of forming cantonments upon your frontiers, and for the dignity and safety of your country, as it respects foreign nations. No man that loves his country could object to their being raised for the first of these causes, but for the last it cannot be necessary. GOD has so separated us by an extensive ocean from the rest of mankind, he hath so liberally endowed us with privileges, and so abundantly taught us to esteem them precious, it would be impossible, while we retain our integrity and advert to first principles, for any nation whatever to subdue us.

DeWitt also equated the “revenue, excise, impost and stamp officers” that would be introduced under the new Constitution with a standing army.

Patrick Henry (1736—1799), in his June 5 speech in the Virginia ratifying convention against adopting the Constitution, likewise denigrated standing armies: “A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?”

“Brutus” wrote more about the evils of standing armies than any other Anti-Federalist. Sixteen of his essays were published in the New York Journal from October 1787 to April 1788. In four of these essays (numbers 1, 8, 9, 10), he explains how the establishment and maintenance of standing armies breeds fear, is destructive to liberty, and should be viewed as a scourge to a country instead of a benefit. Since I have already explored at length the opinions of “Brutus” on this subject in a previous article (”Brutus on the Evils of Standing Armies”), I only present here something he said in his ninth essay on this subject:

That standing armies are dangerous to the liberties of a people was proved in my last number — If it was necessary, the truth of the position might be confirmed by the history of almost every nation in the world. A cloud of the most illustrious patriots of every age and country, where freedom has been enjoyed, might be adduced as witnesses in support of the sentiment. But I presume it would be useless, to enter into a laboured argument, to prove to the people of America, a position, which has so long and so generally been received by them as a kind of axiom.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance110.html

What do you think would have been the opinion of any Founder on the idea that the military gets to choose who is or is not President?