About Our Guns…

Let’s get something straight about the 2^nd Amendment that has little to do with personal protection or fighting off an ungoverned government:

The second amendment is about citizens taking PERSONAL responsibility for violence!  Citizen militias are much, much less likely to reelect warmongers and meddle with other people’s countries.  And we willingly, anti-constitutionally, surrendered our militia system in 1903 to build a professional, global, war machine.   …Just what our founders warned us to never, ever do.

The USA Constitution‘s Article I, Section 8:15 does grant Congress the rather scary authority, “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”

Politicians (including judges) apparently stop reading here, thinking this grants the federal government essentially total military power and authority over everything, including you; you uppity citizen.

Article I, Section 8:16 further grants Congress authority “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

This is considerable power over militias, but look at the delimiter, “…governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States…” (bold is my added emphasis)

That should make us think about what the state constitutions say about the “Part of them” not governed by the feds, but we’ll get to that shortly.

Article I, Section 10:3 provides enough confusion in today’s context that, without the state constitutions, you might get the wrong idea about militias: “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress… keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace …or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
If you can’t “keep Troops” in peace time, how could a state respond to invasion or other imminent danger?

Article II Section 2 should provoke some thought, though: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”

So, the POTUS is NOT the CIC of the militias until an actual declaration of war by the US Congress.  The militias aren’t “federalized” until an actual declaration of war by the US Congress.   And  an actual declaration of war by the US Congress hasn’t happened since WWII.

Again, this won’t make proper sense without state constitution context.

So, for Indiana, for example, the Indiana Constitution’s Article 5, Section 12 is where things ought to start coming together: “The Governor shall be commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and may call out such forces, to execute the laws, or to suppress insurrection, or to repel invasion.” (again, boldface is my emphasis, but you really ought to be raising your eyebrows now. This is even as amended in 1984. This is still law!)

Here’s Article 12, Section 1 of the Indiana Constitution, which was amended as recently as 1974:

“A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law.”

OK, there it is, Hoosiers. I’m supposed to be in the militia, arthritis and all. So are you. Anybody over 17, unless a conscientious objector or otherwise excluded by law, is the militia. We are constitutionally to be more like Switzerland, where kids learn gun safety early on, and everybody plays a part in the defense of the Canton/County, state and nation.  And we used to be until around 1903.  Even more recently, kids still learned gun safety…in public schools!

So, now, still, by law, you are supposed to be trained in the use of weapons, as a militia member, including the sort of weapons that’d make Nancy Pelosi scream, as in Indiana’s Article I Section 32, “…for the defense of themselves and the State.”

(This is why, dammit, you have to read both your state and federal constitutions to get the whole picture when it comes to anything having to do with politics.)

There’s more, of course, but I need to get to the point:
We’re not doing any of this at all, and we need to. Pronto.  

…Why, you may ask?

I’ll repeat this because it’s important:

The second amendment is about citizens taking PERSONAL responsibility for violence!  Citizen militias are much, much less likely to reelect warmongers and meddle with other people’s countries.

Without going into how, why or when we became a global empire of fear and aggression, I want to as quickly as possible, and by big steps, nullify this self-destructive mess, and enforce/invoke/do the constitutions, as written; to restore our freedom, prosperity, opportunity, justice and security, for all.

I want to stand down our professional, global, permanent war industry.  That would not only reduce the obvious blowback of constantly blowing up other people’s countries and people and wedding parties, it would make us more secure here at home.

And a lot richer!

We could afford to actually keep the promises we make to our soldiers in both regular and “National Guard” ranks. We’ve currently no way to keep up with the escalating costs of medical care and pensions. Not until we massively cut our global monstrosity of destruction, and return our military to its proper role and structure in national defense. Real national defense.

I want kids to learn about both the danger and proper use of weapons. That would not only raise up a nation better able to defend itself, it would also greatly reduce the irresponsible, stupid accidents, and unchecked violence in places like Chicago (where guns are essentially illegal and therefore ubiquitous in all the wrong hands) we now suffer.

And I want our armies out of the control of all the wrong people. You know that our government sold out. If you’re reading this, you probably know a good part of our global weaponry is unleashed in service to our financial sector’s fiat currency scams, the “petrodollar” scheme, the CIA (which I’d like to kill, gut and mount on the wall as a warning to future generations that we must never allow such a thing again) and the military industrialists we were warned about by a dozen USA Presidents.

There’s nothing civilized about delegating away all our violence and acting like it’s right. The damage we do to our own children’s lives, minds, bodies, careers and family lives, just to soothe our trembling nerves, is both embarrassing, and sin.

Putting this right would be a major part of making our government go legit, at long last, with world peace a possible side effect.
Would that be so bad?

It’s our decision. We can make this next Election Day a peaceful revolution to finally make good on the dreams of 1776. Please think on it.

The Governor can, indeed, fix it all

I’ve often been asked, “Andy, things have gotten too far out of control.  How can just the Governor enforce the constitution?”

 

Well, it’s not only the Governor’s job to enforce the constitution; it is even more significant that it is nobody else’s job.  And while it’s true that politicians have stolen power that doesn’t belong to them, the Governor has far more legal, appropriate power than you’ve been lead to believe.

 

A good part of what the Indiana Governor does these days (taking people’s homes, deciding which businesses thrive, and which die) is unconstitutional, of course. Here is an excellent description of the economics of the problem. And I’ve already written about several breaches of the Indiana Constitution (requires free signup; article starts on page 17). But I bet a lot of people would be surprised by what actually is constitutional.  

 

Indiana Constitution:

ARTICLE 3., Section 12. The Governor shall be commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and may call out such forces, to execute the laws, or to suppress insurrection, or to repel invasion.

ARTICLE 12., Section 2. The Governor is Commander-in-Chief of the militia and other military forces of this state.

 

That, fellow citizens, is the law; as amended in 1974 and not changed since. It was amended to include “other military forces of this state,” because there didn’t used to be anything but the militia. And what is the militia? The Indiana National Guard, you may think? No, it is not:

 

ARTICLE 12., Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law.

 

This was amended in 1974 and not changed since. It is the law. The National Guard, or indeed the national standing army, does not exist by any constitutional authority. Our founders were bitterly opposed to standing, professional armies, as they are the root and seed of foreign war and authoritarian rule.

 

But so badly and far have we departed from the law, that it now seems inconceivable that a state could have so much sovereign power that we now ascribe only to the “federal” (hardly federal; actually, it’s unitary) government. Now it must seem perfectly fine that the President can “federalize” the state militias and deny Governors authority even in state emergencies (e.g., constitutional disasters such as happened in Waco, Texas).  

 

This was supposed to be a nation that wouldn’t go to war at the drop of a pin. We were to be a defensive fighting force, not a global aggressor. Of course, we were to be a nation of free citizens, not a nation of serfs.

 

Oh my how times have changed…

 

Well, it’s up to you.  What do you want?  Do you want failure, or the constitutions that proved to work better than anything else ever tried?

A Declaration of Rights

I’m a little up-to-here with those who deify Thomas Jefferson, and who’ve never even heard of George Mason.  Without Mason, American may have never had the three-branched and separated federal powers; and there’d have certainly been no Bill of Rights. 

George Mason was a prominent (and phenomenally prescient) anti-federalist, which propels him to the top of my short list of history’s People We Should Have Listened To. 

Yes, the Declaration of Independence is wonderful.  But it’s really not as good as the work that preceded and inspired it, George Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights.

 So here, in its entirety, is that Virginia Declaration of Rights.  I’ll try to shut up and let the words speak for themselves, but whenever I interrupt, it’ll be in blue: 

A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the Representatives of the good people of VIRGINIA, assembled in full and free Convention; which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of Government.

1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

This is a much more clear, understandable and sensible statement than Jefferson’s admittedly more poetic “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”  John Locke coined the phrase “life, liberty and the pursuit of property,” but it was Mason who first made it law. (While George Mason never freed his slaves, he hated slavery and argued and wrote against it often)

2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the People; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.

3. That Government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community;–of all the various modes and forms of Government that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of mal-administration;–and that, whenever any Government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right, to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the publick weal.

4. That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments and privileges from the community, but in consideration of publick services; which, not being descendible, neither ought the offices of Magistrate, Legislator, or Judge, to be hereditary.

5. That the Legislative and Executive powers of the State should be separate and distinct from the Judicative; and, that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the burdens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections, in which all, or any part of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the law shall direct.

Please read that again.  Particularly the part starting with “they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station…”  If only we took this to heart!

6. That elections of members to serve as Representatives of the people, in Assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for publick uses without their own consent or that of their Representative so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the publick good.

7. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without consent of the Representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised.

8. That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favour, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty, nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land, or the judgment of his peers.

9. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

10. That general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offence is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive, and ought not to be granted.  

Oh my.  If only…

11. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by Jury is preferable to any other, and ought to be held sacred.

12. That the freedom of the Press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotick Governments.

13. That a well-regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that Standing Armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Is this clear enough?  People defend their own lands.  Professional, permanent standing armies are dangerous.  Is this brilliant, or what?

14. That the people have a right to uniform Government; and, therefore, that no Government separate from, or independent of, the Government of Virginia, ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.

15. That no free Government, or the blessing of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

16. That Religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity, towards each other.

These last two are woefully missing from our U.S. Constitution.  This is brilliant. 

George Mason, I tip my hat to you, sir.  We owe you much.