A call to Arms is not sufficientThe suggestion of "a call to arms," is not sufficient to warrant a concern by the government if the lawful process is followed.
The Militia is not a "gun club." The Militia are answerable to civilian authority and cannot exercise military force [a.k.a. "martial power"] without local or State direction [setting aside, here, federal calling].
That the Militia are answerable to civilian authority is older than the country. Author David Hackett Fischer goes deeper into the details on the Militia, in the immediate time frame of the Battle at Lexington, in 1775, in his book, Paul Revere's Ride. [See Chapter "The Muster - The Rising of the Militia," pg. 149.]
Since the formation of the United States from the "united states" in the American Revolution, the level of federal burden or tyranny must affect enough people in a community or State, to compel their elected officials to authorize the Militia to muster for the common defense.
A "well regulated Militia," that is, "well trained to Arms," was an expectation that, when so trained, the Militia's "military discipline" would lend this assembly of able-bodied men to respond to its civilian authorities --- the body of elected law-makers --- the lawful authority to apply force.
Our burden --- seeing as how the socialists certainly do not think it is their burden --- is to make good law [through our duly-chosen representatives] and make it work, and to remind both our neighbors and government of the limits on government.
If we do not understand the Founding Fathers' and Framers' original intent in the construction of our Constitution, nor understand that government's powers are limited by the process of enumerating such powers --- that is, listing such powers --- then our burden is much greater.
These burdens must be addressed, whether or not armed force stikes one as being some sort of solution at this time.
I think that "President" Clinton is a vile creep because he preys upon what the people do not know about the rule of law --- and I hasten to add, he also preys upon what some federal law enforcement agents do not know about the rule of law.
On the side of the people, is the limitation upon government power, by the Founders' and Framers' establishment of the process of enumeration. Government may only do what is specified, i.e. S-P-E-L-L-E-D O-U-T, enumerated, listed.
What too many Americans do not know, is that the reverse is notÝtrue, wherein the people and the rule of law are burdened or threatened by all power being in the hands of government, and government doing anything except for whatever is specifically prohibited ... which would be a state of tyranny, when government fails to adhere to the original intent and process of enumeration laid down by the builders of our Constitution.
We have recently witnessed in "Reno's Raid," that the government acted on the assumption that it could do what was not prohibited by the 11th Cir. Ct. of Appeals decision of April 19, 2000. And we have witnessed that the government placed a burden upon the rule of law, by the striking fact that the Court immediately sought to make itself more clear to the Attorney General.
That event was more telling than much of the hue and cry in the major "liberal media." Because it was a moment we should dread, wherein we witnessed absolute tyranny, when the government takes the stance that it may do what is not prohibited.
The Clinton Administration broke the law, broke the rule of law, and defied the limits binding government to only do what is enumerated. Those U.S. Secret Service Agents, who interviewed [Freepers,] Mr. and Mrs. Grassontop, are only authorized to do "thus and so" by the Constitution and federal statutes and some procedures currently set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court. Otherwise, those U.S. Secret Service Agents have no power other than you or I as American citizens.
In fact, in the United States, there is no "power in title" ... in a government official's title or title of position. That is, no power comes from the title. Statements such as "Well ... she is the Attorney General" do not mean anything other than she has the title.
The power comes from the statutes and from the Constitution. The office holder gains through the office the authority to exercise certain, and only those specified, actions approved by the Congress in statutes.
The punch line being, if you are an official or agent of the federal government, you can only do, in official capacity, what is specifically authorized by the federal statutes and the Constitution. You may not assume any power, no matter what title "graces" your office.
But a lot of people who have seen too much TV and too many movies, do not know this. And armed force will not educate them in this.
We need a new, nationwide "conservative medium" which is in print, is everywhere one finds the New York Times and other socialist standard bearers, and tells what such socialist rags do not, about the rule of law, the original intent of our Founding Fathers and Framers of the Constitution, and the many, many stories of everyday life, where the fruits of conservative ideas are demonstrated.
Even if a two-thirds majority of the States mustered their Militia and affected an arrest of Clintonism, extant, this problem of the people understanding government power, how it is authorized, how it is limited, and how the law works, must still be improved upon, to secure in our American culture, a stronger foundation for preserving our Liberty.
If we review the pain and suffering of war, it may appear that the sacrficies we might make, in establishing an expansion of a well-built "conservative media" support base across the nation, will be less costly, though perhaps, more time consuming.
Unfortunately for us, conservativism's "higher-ups" swim in a sea of information, which make so obvious to them, what is actually not so readily available to the heartland. And without a conservative sustenance in the day to day news --- in print and therefore easily readable within the time and task constraints of many Americans --- then conservatives' and Republicans' statements will continue to land in the "public eye," out of [seeming] context.
The socialist "liberal media" own the context; and so, a "brain blip" from Sen. Ted Kennedy, "fits." Whereas a well thought out argument from Sen. John Ashcroft, is awkward in that "liberal context."
In the absence of a "conservative medium's" establishing the truth about our Constitution and the limits on government power, within the context of Americans' day to day lives, the nationalizing socialists will win. The nationalizing socialist idea that government has all power except where prohibited by polls of public protest, will appear "in context." And federal agents will continue to "just obey orders."
______
See David Barton's Original Intent, The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion.
See Raoul Berger's Government by Judiciary, The Transformation of the Foutheenth Amendment, ©1977.
See FR page, Original Intent and Enumeration of Powers v. Herz:
Much of the public is unaware of the importance of both original intent and enumeration of powers --- and how these basics of American jurisprudence are fundamental to limiting the powers of government. It is unfortunate that these basic concepts are not taught along with the "checks and balances of federalism," in our classrooms. And it is also unfortunate that these basic concepts are not now refreshments to, or included in, articles in the rare and elusive "conservative print media."Because original intent and enumeration of powers are our peaceful checks against the whole of the three parts of the federal government, the legislative, executive and judicial branches --- and against the government becoming corrupt and tyrannical through its failure to adhere.
To make a word mean other than its creator's defined intent, may be used for humor. But to make the language mean other than the Framers' use, is to render the rule of law meaning---less and a path to war.
To have Liberty and a free republic responsive to the rule of law, requires adherence to the law.
But if the law is slippery, because the language suffers (as it has) from "lawyering" such as Mr. Herz's, then the law cannot be adhered to, which in-adherence is the design of authoritarian centrism whereby it achieves ruling power for the ultimate minority --- Clintonism's supremely judgemental committees and their enforcers, the "politically correct 'thought police'" ... and their progeny.*
Then, the protection that is equal for each and all of us before the law, is meaning---less and ignored before such regents of arrogating committees, courtrooms and regimes of socialism.* The scrapped rule of law is replaced by the dialogue, generated in the "politics of the moment," for the benefit of, and by, dialogists such as Mr. Herz, in the model of his worship, William J. Clinton, who "is" our "President."
Furthermore, "to make the language mean other than the Framers' original intent, is to" fabricate a by-pass through "Extra-Constitutional Space" around the right of the people to make the laws through their elected representatives. A right that is obviously at odds with Mr. Herz's allegience to "government by judiciary" and the design of authoritarian centrism.*
From : Government by Judiciary..., by Raoul Berger, pg. 287 ---
Given a Constitution designed to "limit" the exercise of all delegated power ... the admonition contained in the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, drafted by John Adams and paralleled in a number of early State constitutions, [was] that "A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of the constitution ... [is] absolutely necessary to preserve the advantages of liberty and to maintain a free government ... The people ... have a right to require of their law givers and magistrates an exact and constant observance of them."The author of Government by Judiciary, is a retired Harvard Law School professor. Inside the front jacket of the book: "He writes: 'The Fourteenth Amendment is the case study par excellence [on the] continuing revision of the Constitution under the guise of interpretation.'" For more information on Prof. Berger, here on the Internet:
Profile in Constitutional Courage
First_Salute
