It was a distinct honor, as well as my pleasure, to serve my country for more than twenty years. I love my country, but sometimes I'm not too happy with its leaders. I'm working to change that, and I could use your help. Please join me!
Thanks. : )
A recent article asked, “Is martial law justified if ISIS attacks?”
Ben Carson has repeatedly stated that he believes there is a chance that the 2016 elections may not be held at all. Widespread anarchy gripping the country could be reason enough for the Obama administration to announce the implementation of martial law and the suspension of some, if not all, of Americans’ constitutionally protected rights — including the right to vote and hold national elections.
Obama himself has stated he believes that he can legally institute martial law throughout America.
He’s wrong. Not only is federally-implemented martial law not justified in that situation, it’s not justified in any situation. In fact, it’s patently illegal.
For all our sakes, if not for the sake of our entire country, let’s examine why federally-implemented martial law is illegal in these United States of America:
1. The U.S. Constitution is “the supreme Law of the Land.” – Article IV of the U.S. Constitution.
There is no higher law or authority save that of God himself, even those Obama would like to think so. No legislation, actions, or executive orders which violate our Constitution will stand up in court, much less the court of public opinion. Furthermore, all sworn military, civil, and law enforcement officers throughout America are under oath to refuse any law or edict which violates the Constitution. In fact, every U.S. Citizen shares this responsibility, if not duty, to oppose even the mere mention of federally-imposed martial law.
This is perhaps one of the most powerful checks against tyranny We the People have out our disposal. If our government is not authorized to do something, We the People absolutely must be willing to stand up against them, en masse.
2. Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution gives Congress (not the President) the power “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” It also gives Congress (again, not the President), the power “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 brings up the question as to what is meant by the term “militia?”
“…the Framers used the term “militia” to relate to every citizen capable of bearing arms, and that Congress has established the present National Guard under its power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia.”
They also stated, “The modern National Guard was specifically intended to avoid status as the constitutional militia, a distinction
recognized by 10 U.S.C. Sec 311(a)” (p. 17)
So, when it comes to the need to “suppress insurrections and repel invasions,” that responsibility is given to the militia, which is “every citizen capable of bearing arms.” This is precisely why our Second Amendment specifically 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.”
We the People are that well regulated Militia, and we provide that security on the authority given us by our Constitution, backed up by our Constitution’s prohibition against infringing on our right to keep and bear arms.
Checking with our Constitution, we find another quote relating to protecting our union against invasion or domestic violence like the Ferguson, Baltimore, or L.A. riots: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.” – Article IV, Section 4, U.S. Constitution.
While this does authorize federal intervention to deal with invasion and domestic violence (riots), it does not authorize the use of martial law, and Obama cannot arbitrarily decide otherwise or act in any manner whatsoever that infringes upon our rights. Our Constitutional rights trump whatever cockamamie justifications he may invent, and the Constitution wins each and every time.
There may come a time, however, when We the People, including every civil, military, and law enforcement officer in the land may have to stand firm against Obama’s or the federal government’s attempt to implement martial law. It is my sincere hope that everyone who took an oath of office to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic” will stand firm and refuse to follow orders that are patently un-Constitutional, regardless of the reason.
3. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Clearly, if martial law isn’t a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution, and not prohibited by it to the States, it’s a power reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
In fact, in 1943, following several years of unrest in Detroit, Michigan, that culminated into widespread riots, then Governor Kelly implemented martial law in Detroit as a means of last resort. As the governor of a state, he had the authority to implement martial law. Being at the federal level, however, Obama does not have that authority, because it was “not delegated to the United States by the Constitution.” It’s a power “reserved to the States.”
4. In summary, while the States do have Constitutional authority to implement martial law, neither Obama nor anyone else in the federal government has any such authority
5. Finally, we need to remember the U.S. Supreme Court has made some key decisions surrounding this issue, decisions that We the People should keep firmly in mind, let any wayward individual in a position of authority get the wrong idea:
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton vs Shelby County118 US 425 p.442.
“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177, late 2nd, Section 256
It’s that simple, folks. If you swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, here’s your chance. Do what this fella is doing:
Note 1: “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms” — Report of the Subcommittee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-Seventh Congress, Second Session, February, 1982.
Listing: U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, 88-618 O WASHINGTON : 1982
WASHINGTON (AP) — As Vice President Joe Biden finalizes a package of recommendations for the president to curb gun violence, the National Rifle Association predicted that Congress is likely to block any new laws that would ban assault weapons.
The NRA has so far prevented passage of another assault weapons ban like the one that expired in 2004. But some lawmakers say the December massacre in Newtown, Conn., where a gunman slaughtered 20 young children and six adults, has transformed the country, and Americans are ready for stricter gun laws.
Still, the NRA says it thinks Congress would likely prevent a new assault weapons ban.
“When a president takes all the power of his office, if he’s willing to expend political capital, you don’t want to make predictions,” NRA president David Keene told CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday. “You don’t want to bet your house on the outcome. But I would say that the likelihood is that they are not going to be able to get an assault weapons ban through this Congress.”
Biden is to meet Monday with House members to discuss ways to reduce gun violence. He is expected to give President Barack Obama a comprehensive package of recommendations Tuesday.
Senators plan to introduce a bill that would ban assault weapons and limit the size of ammunition magazines, like the equipment used in the Newton shooting where 20 children were shot multiple times with a high-powered rifle. Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California has promised to make a renewed push for a ban on assault weapons.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., responded with a flat-out “no” when asked Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation” whether Congress would pass a ban on assault weapons.
Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, a lifelong member of the NRA, has said everything should be on the table to prevent another tragedy like Newtown. But he assured gun owners he would fight for gun rights at the same time.
“I would tell all of my friends in NRA, I will work extremely hard and I will guarantee you there will not be an encroachment on your Second Amendment rights,” Manchin said on ABC’s “This Week.”
The NRA’s deep pockets help bolster allies and punish lawmakers who buck the powerful weapons lobby.
The group spent at least $24 million in the 2012 elections — $16.8 million through its political action committee and nearly $7.5 million through its affiliated Institute for Legislative Action. Separately, the NRA spent some $4.4 million through July 1 to lobby Congress. Keene insists the group represents its members and not just the gun manufacturers, though he said the NRA would like industry to contribute more money to the association.
“We know what works and what doesn’t work,” Keene said. “And we’re not willing to compromise on people’s rights when there is no evidence that doing so is going to accomplish the purpose.”
The NRA, instead, is pushing for measures that would keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, until a person gets better.
“If they are cured, there ought to be a way out of it,” Keene said.
Currently, a person is banned from buying a gun from a licensed dealer if the person is a fugitive, a felon, convicted of substance abuse, convicted of domestic violence, living in the U.S. illegally or someone who “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”
States, however, are inconsistent in providing information about mentally ill residents to the federal government for background checks. And, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said some 40 percent of gun sales happen with no background checks, often at gun shows or through private sellers over the Internet or in classified ads.
Follow Eileen Sullivan on Twitter: http://twitter.com/esullivanap
Several decades ago, the United Kingdom caved in to political correctness and passed rights-robbing gun control laws which made it almost completely impossible for the average UK citizen to purchase or keep a firearm of any kind. Did it work? No. In fact, it had the exact opposite effect on crime than what was intended.
At the time, their crime statistics were similar to those here in America. Since establishing strict gun control laws, however, their crime rates have soared well beyond our own, as indicated by NationMaster, a wonderful and easy to use online database which allows you to compare many different statistics between countries.
Don’t make the mistake of comparing raw numbers, however. Remember that the U.S. population numbers some 315,108,000. That’s 4.62 times the 68,181,775-strong U.K. Thus, the U.S. has 11.9 Million total crimes compared to the U.K.’s 6.5 On a per-capita basis, however, The only valid way of comparing data between to countries of different sizes, however, is on a per-capita basis. When stats are low in number, it’s done on a per-100,000 basis.
Thus, while the U.K. has half our crimes, they only have one-fifth our population. On a per-capita basis, their crime rate is 252% higher than here in the U.S.
Since implementing their own gun confiscations a couple of years ago, Australia has seen a shocking 69% increase in violent crime:
Other countries who’ve tried to implement similar feel-good, do-nothing (usually do-worse) programs have experienced the same sharp rises in crime.
There is one country, however, that did something very interesting: The United States. Between 20 and 30 years ago, various states began relaxing their gun control laws, making it easier for honest, law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. As a result, crime throughout America has dropped more than 35%.
So, does gun control work? Only when it’s reduced. Increasing gun control has NEVER worked. That’s the reality of gun control.
How many times have I said, “Grow a brain.” It doesn’t mean “think about it.” It means “seriously reconsider your entire realm of existential thought, as what you’re thinking now is ridiculously fantastic NUTS.” In short, you’ve been hijaacked.
I dunno… Too subtle? I really don’t know how to get through to those who Obama abused/used. Most people aren’t willing to accept they’ve been misused, abused, flamboozled and hoodwinking, especially when it comes to their Presidential vote. “OMG! I did due diligence! I reviewed all the mainstream media reports!” I…
…I failed to separate myself from the brain-sucking mainstream media and start thinking for myself instead of allowing Brian Williams and the other mainstream mantras to think for me.
Uh, DUH! gah… GROW UP, America. You’ve been hijaacked.
Point 1: If Obama was a “Foreign Student” in 1981, he was most certainly not an American citizen in 1981.
Point 2: If he was not an American citizen in 1981, then he was not a natural born citizen at all.
Point 3: If he was not a natural born citizen, then he is ineligible to be President.
Point 4: If he is ineligible to be President, then he is NOT our President.
Our Constitution is crystal clear on this matter, folks:
Article II, Section 1: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
As per this evidence, as well as the as yet unsettled evidence involving his birth certificate forgeries, Sheriff Arpaio’s volumes of evidence, as well as Dr. Taitz’ case before the Supreme Court, Obama is NOT a natural born Citizen. Unless he’s 236 years old, he wasn’t a citizen of the U.S. at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, either.
We thus return to reexamine points 1 through 4, above, and, since Obama fails every test, the only logically conclusion is that Barack Hussein Obama IS NOT OUR PRESIDENT.
Since that is the case, the following actions also apply:
1. All generals relieved of their command under Obama should be reinstated, effective immediately.
2. Each and every one of Obama’s “Executive Orders” should be declared null and void, effective immediately.
3. Each and every bill signed into law should be returned to both the House as well as the Senate for full review and consideration under the first LEGITIMATE President of the United States of America.
4. Since Obama and Biden ran on a ticket together, and Obama was ineligible to be President and therefore ineligible to run for president, their ticket should be declared null and void effective immediately, with the Romney-Ryan ticket declared the winners by default, again, effective immediately.
5. Any an all legislation that was either requested, proposed by, modified by, or influenced by Obama or his 2008/2012 running mate, Joe Biden, should be declared null and void effective immediately.
Yes, folks. It is a mess. However, it is far less of a mess than America will find herself in if we allow this fiasco to continue.
STOP THE LIES. STOP THE DECEPTION.
At the very least, Obama is an ignorant pawn in global conspiracy to instill a puppet of a sinister group into the office of the Presidency of the United States of America.
At worst, however, he is a willing participant, a liar to the American people, and perpetrator of countless scandals, lies, deceits, corruption, usurpation, espionage, and traitorism. If it’s discovered this is the case, he should be impeached, tried as a traitor, and sentenced to either death (maximum penalty) or life in prison.
Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear at least Dr. Taitz’ arguements: SCOTUS Schedules Obama Eligibility Case To Be Heard In Conference. I sincerely hope they bump the hearing up to prior to the swearing in, and postpone the swearing in if there’s any evidence which requires further discovery and examination.
America deserves better from the U.S. Supreme Court than a delay which will lead to far more hassle and consternation than is necessary.