Constitutional Intent of Founders
Limitations to State and Federal Police Powers

Constitutional Debate: Virginia:
MONDAY, June 16, 1788.[1] [Elliot misprinted this as Monday, June 14, 1788.]

 Mr. GEORGE NICHOLAS:  "...But the "common law" is "not excluded". There is "nothing" in that paper (APP note: referring to the US Constitution being considered)  to warrant the assertion. As to the exclusion of a jury from the vicinage, he has mistaken the fact. The legislature may direct a jury to come from the vicinage. But the gentleman says that, by this Constitution, they have power to make laws to define crimes and prescribe punishments; and that, consequently, we are not free from torture. Treason against the United States is defined in the Constitution, and the forfeiture limited to the life of the person attainted. Congress have power to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the laws of nations;

>>>but they cannot define or prescribe the punishment of >>>>>>>"any other crime" "whatever"<<<<<<<, >>>>>>>"without violating the Constitution"<<<<<<<.

 If we had no security against torture but our declaration of rights, we might be tortured to-morrow; for it has been repeatedly infringed and disregarded. A bill of rights is only an acknowledgment of the preexisting claim to rights in the people.

They "belong to us" as much as if they had been inserted in the Constitution."


 

INDEX of ESTABLISHED FOUNDATIONS:
 

1.) Limitation of Federal Policing to not exceed the 10 miles Square of Washington DC, or for Purposes Outside Simple Protection.

Founders referenced statements: [one], [two]
 
       a.) Federal Police or Militia Power Not to Enforce Federal Laws or Laws of the Union within the States.

Founders referenced statements: [one], [two],


2.) Federal Legislative Laws That are Not to Effect the "Union at Large".


3.) Laws that Create "Exclusive Privileges" Prohibited.

Laws that create "Exclusive Privileges" "Nugatory" Outside the 10 miles Square of Washington DC.

As such, and under the definition presented here by the Founders with regard to granting exclusive privileges to those within the 10 miles square of Washington DC, are automatically granted to each citizen without limit.  The Patriot Act is Unconstitutional and a grant of exclusive rights; That it was enacted, the Constitution allows citizens an equal right to tap and invade the privacy of all federal government agencies and employees.


4.) MisUse Federal Powers in "Departments" Warned of; and now MisUsed by the Federal Government to Exceed the "Limits" of the 10 Miles Square of Washington DC

This misuse clearly exercised today by the Federal government expanding its "DEPARTMENTS" within the states, then giving those departments policing powers.


5.) Undelegated powers of bringing the people of the United States into the jurisdiction of the 10 miles square of Washington DC to enforce the laws of the Union either physically or figuratively.

The dangers are compounded by the Federal Government in practice "Bringing people into the jurisdiction of the 10 miles square" through federal courts and administrative DEPARTMENTS set up throughout the states;

If not physically into Washington DC, its despotic principles and design is all the same, as it brings people within the ""UNDELEGATED" "authority" and "power of" "that DISTRICT."

See also Patrick Henry's first warning.


6.) The "One rule law of Justice", is also is corrupted by the federal government when punishments for the crimes against the federal government are not only taken from local jurisdictions, but the punishments are considered greater and elevated in harshness.

See Rights of the Colonists: "There shall be one rule of Justice for rich and poor; for the favorite in Court, and the Countryman at the Plough."7


7.) Plain Sense Intention and Obvious Construction establishing the Intent. Debates and Virginia - Kentucky Resolutions


8.) Individual Powers of Self Preservation and Defense of Property - John Locke and the Founders


9.) Peace Not and Excuse to Step Past the Limits of Authority Granted in the Original Compact


10.) Responsibilities of the Individual Officer.


11.) Quiz


------------------------------
 

Constitutional Debate: Virginia:
MONDAY, June 16, 1788.[1] [Elliot misprinted this as Monday, June 14, 1788.]

The Convention, according to the order of the day, again resolved itself into a committee of the whole Convention, to take into further consideration the proposed plan of government. Mr. WYTHE in the chair.

[The 8th section still under consideration. See page 378.]

Mr. HENRY thought it necessary and proper that they should take a collective view of this whole section, and revert again to the first clause. He adverted to the clause which gives Congress the power of raising armies, and proceeded as follows: To me this appears a very alarming power, when unlimited. They are not only to raise, but to support, armies; and this support is to go to the utmost abilities of the United States. If Congress shall say that the general welfare requires it, they may keep armies continually on foot. There is no control on Congress in raising or stationing them. They may billet them on the people at pleasure. This unlimited authority is a most dangerous power: its principles are despotic. If it be unbounded, it must lead to despotism; for the power of a people in a free government is supposed to be "paramount" to the "existing power".

We shall be told that, in England, the king, lords, and commons, have this power; that armies can be raised by the prince alone, without the "consent" of the people. How does this apply here? Is this government to place us in the situation of the English? Should we suppose this government to resemble king, lords, and commons, we of this state {411} should be like an English county. An English county Cannot control the government. Virginia cannot control the government of Congress any more than the county of Kent can control that of England. Advert to the power thoroughly. One of our first complaints, under the former government, was the quartering of troops upon us. This was one of the principal reasons for dissolving the connection with Great Britain.

Here we may have troops in time of peace. They may be billeted in any manner to tyrannize, oppress, and crush us.

We are told, we are afraid to trust ourselves; that our own representatives Congress will not exercise their powers oppressively; that we shall not enslave ourselves; that the militia cannot enslave themselves, &c. Who has enslaved France, Spain, Germany, Turkey, and other countries which groan under tyranny? They have been enslaved by the hands of their own people. If it will be so in America, it will be only as it has been every where else. I am still persuaded that the power of calling forth the militia, to "execute the laws of the Union", is dangerous. We requested the gentleman to show the cases where the militia would be wanting to execute the laws. Have we received a satisfactory answer? When we consider this part, and compare it to other parts, which declare that Congress may declare war, and that the President shall command the regular troops, militia, and navy, we shall find great danger. Under the order of Congress, they shall suppress insurrections. Under the order of Congress, they shall be called to execute the "laws". It will result, of course, that this is to be a government of force. Look at the part which speaks of excises, and you will recollect that those who are to collect excises and duties are to be aided by military force. They have power to call them out, and to provide for arming, organizing, disciplining, them. Consequently, they are to make militia laws for this state.

The honorable gentleman said that the militia should be called forth to quell riots. Have we not seen this business go on very well to-day without military force? It is a long-established principle of the common law of England, that civil force is sufficient to quell riots. To what length may it not be carried? A law may be made that, if twelve men assemble, if they do not disperse, they may be fired upon. {412} I think it is so in England. Does not this part of the paper bear a strong aspect? The honorable gentleman, from his knowledge, was called upon to show the instances, and he told us the militia may be called out to quell riots. They may make the militia travel, and act under a colonel, or perhaps under a constable.

Who are to determine whether it be a riot or not? Those who are to execute the laws of the Union? If they have power to execute their laws in this manner, in what situation are we placed!

Your men who go to Congress are not restrained by a bill of rights. They are not restrained from inflicting unusual and severe punishments, though the bill of rights of Virginia forbids it. What will be the consequence? They may inflict the most cruel and ignominious punishments on the militia, and they will tell you that it is necessary for their discipline.

Give me leave to ask another thing. Suppose an exciseman will demand leave to enter your cellar, or house, by virtue of his office; perhaps he may call on the militia to enable him to go. If Congress be informed of it, will they give you redress? They will tell you that he is executing the laws under the authority of the continent at large, which must be obeyed, for that the government cannot be carried on without exercising severity. It, without any reservation of rights or control, "you" are contented to give up "your" rights, "I am not". There is no principle to guide the legislature to restrain them from inflicting the utmost severity of punishment. Will gentlemen voluntarily give up their liberty? With respect to calling the militia to enforce every execution indiscriminately, it is unprecedented. Have we ever seen it done in any free country? Was it ever so in the mother country? It never was so in any well-regulated country. It is a government of force, and the genius of despotism expressly. It is not proved that this power is necessary, and if it be unnecessary, shall we give it up?

Mr. JAMES MADISON. Mr. Chairman, I will endeavor to follow the rule of the house, but must pay due attention to the observations which fell from the gentleman. I should conclude, from abstracted reasoning, that they were ill founded I should think that, if there were any object which the general government ought to command, it would be the direction of the national forces. And as the force which lies in militia is most safe, the direction of that part ought to be {413} submitted to, in order to render another force unnecessary. The power objected to is necessary, because it is to be employed for "national" purposes. It is necessary to be given to every government. This is not opinion, but fact. The highest authority may be given, that the want of such authority in the government protracted the late war, and prolonged its calamities.

He says that one ground of complaint, at the beginning of the revolution, was, that a standing army was quartered upon us. This was not the whole complaint. We complained because it was done without the >>>local<<< authority of this country without the consent of the people of America. As to the exclusion of standing armies in the bill of rights of the states, we shall find that though, in one or two of them, there is something like a prohibition, yet, in most of them, it is only provided that no armies shall be kept without the legislative authority; that is, without the consent of the community itself. Where is the impropriety of saying that we shall have all army, if necessary? Does not the notoriety of this constitute security? If inimical nations were to fall upon us when defenceless, what would be the consequence? Would it be wise to say, that we should have no defence? Give me leave to say, that the only possible way to provide against standing armies is to make them unnecessary.

The way to do this is to organize and discipline our militia, so as to render them capable of defending the country against external invasions and internal insurrections. But it is urged that abuses may happen. How is it possible to answer objections against the possibility of abuses? It must strike every logical reasoner, that these cannot be entirely provided against. I really thought that the objection in the militia was at an end. Was there ever a constitution, in which if authority was vested, it must not have been executed by force, if resisted? Was it not in the contemplation of this state, when contemptuous proceedings were expected, to recur to something of this kind? How is it possible to have a more proper resource than this? That the laws of every country ought to be executed, cannot be denied. That force must be used if necessary, cannot be denied. Can any government be established, that will answer any put, pose whatever, unless force be provided for executing its {414} laws?

 The Constitution does >>>"not say"<<< that a standing army shall be called out to execute the laws.

Is not this a more proper way?

APP Note:  Here James Madison establishes, as do others in the debate, that the constitution is limited to the delegated powers given it, if the Constitution does not expicitly describe a power, the federal government cannot arrogate or create any new powers, nor from "any implication", nor can it create powers of or from  "general phrases" - See The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions..

Mr. HENRY replied that, if Congress were vested with "supreme power of legislation", paramount to the constitution and laws of the states, the dangers he had described >>>might happen<<<;

for that Congress would not be confined to the enumerated powers.

This construction was warranted, in his opinion,

by the addition of the word >>>>"DEPARTMENT"<<<<, at the end of the clause, and that they could make any laws which they might think necessary to execute the powers of any department or officer of the government.

APP Note: As warned here by Patrick Henry, The Federal Government has and presently misuses its powers by exceeding its limited delegated powers and expanding its powers of policing outside the intended limitation of the 10 miles square boundaries of Washington DC by the use of "DEPARTMENTS"

Below, Edmond Pendleton illustrates that the federal governments policing powers are to be limited to simply protecting legislators while they are serving their public duties.

Mr. EDMOND PENDLETON. Mr. Chairman, this clause does not give Congress power to impede the operation of any part of the Constitution, or to make any regulation that may affect the interests of the "citizens of the Union at large".

But it gives them power over the local "police of the place", so as to be secured from any interruption in their proceedings.

Notwithstanding the violent attack upon it, I believe, sir, this is the fair construction of the clause.

It gives them power of "exclusive legislation" in any case within "that district". What is the meaning of this? What is it opposed to? Is it opposed to the general powers of the federal legislature, or to those of the state legislatures?

I understand it as opposed to the legislative power of that state where it shall be.

What, then, is the power?

It is, that Congress shall exclusively legislate there, in order to preserve {440} serve the police of the place and their own personal independence,

that they may not be overawed or insulted, and of course to preserve them in opposition to any attempt by the state "where it shall be"

this is the >>>>>fair construction<<<<<."

Can we suppose that, in order to effect these salutary ends, Congress will make it an asylum for villains and the vilest characters from all parts of the world? Will it not degrade their own dignity to make it a sanctuary for villains? I hope that no man that will ever "compose" that Congress will associate with the most profligate characters." ...

 (APP: If this last statement was not such a sad statement, it would be funny)

Why oppose this power? Suppose it was contrary to the sense of their constituents to grant "exclusive privileges" to citizens residing within that place; the effect would be directly in opposition to what he says. It could have "no operation" without the "limits" of that district.

Were Congress to make a law granting them an exclusive privilege of trading to the East Indies, it could have "no effect" the "moment" it would go without that place; for their "exclusive power" is "confined" to "that district".

Were they to pass such a law, it would be "nugatory";

and every member of the "community at large" could trade to the East Indies as well as the citizens of that district.

This exclusive power is limited to "that place solely", for their own preservation, which all gentlemen allow to be necessary.

Will you pardon me when I observe that their construction of the preceding clause does not appear to me to be natural, or warranted by the words.

They say that the state governments have no power at all over the militia. The power of the general government to provide for arming and organizing the militia is to introduce a uniform system of discipline to pervade the United States of America. But the power of governing the militia, so far as it is in Congress, extends only to such parts of them as may be employed in the service of the United States.

When not in their service, Congress has no power to govern them. The states then have the "sole" government of them;

and though Congress "may" provide for arming them, and prescribe the "mode" of discipline, yet the states have the authority of training them, according to the uniform discipline prescribed by Congress.

But there is nothing to preclude them from arming and disciplining them, should Congress neglect to, do it.

 As to calling the militia to execute the laws of the {441} Union, I think the fair construction is directly opposite to what the honorable member says. The 4th section of the 4th article contains nothing to warrant the supposition that the states cannot call them forth to suppress domestic insurrections. [Here he read the section.] All the restraint here contained is, that Congress may, at their pleasure, on "application" of the state legislature, or "(in vacation)" of the executive, protect each of the states against domestic violence.

 This is a restraint on the general government not to interpose.

The state is in "full possession of the power of using its own militia" to protect itself against domestic violence; and the power in the general government "cannot be exercised, or interposed", "without the "application of the state itself".

This appears to me to be the obvious and fair construction.

With respect to the necessity of the ten miles square being superseded by the subsequent clause, which gives them power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof, I understand that clause as not going a single step beyond the delegated powers. What can it act upon? Some power given by this Constitution. If they should be about to pass a law in consequence of this clause, they must pursue some of the delegated powers, but can by "no means" depart from them, or arrogate "any new" powers; for the plain language of the clause is, to give them power to pass laws in order to give "effect" to the "delegated powers".

Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, gentlemen say there is no new power given by this clause. Is there any thing in this Constitution which secures to the states the powers which are said to be retained? Will powers remain to the states which are not expressly guarded and reserved? I will suppose a case. Gentlemen may call it an impossible case, and "suppose" that Congress will act with wisdom and integrity. Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the "sweeping clause") they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions {442} should arise under "this" government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of "those" powers; could not Congress, under the "idea" of providing for the general welfare, and under their "own" construction, say that this was destroying the "general peace", encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press?

Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it?

Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury? Would they not extend their implication?

 It appears to me that they may and "will".

And shall the support of our rights depend on the bounty of men "whose interest it may be to oppress us"? That Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant.

But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states.

Otherwise, the power of providing for the "general welfare"

may be "perverted to its destruction".

Many gentlemen, whom I respect, take different sides of this question. We wish this amendment to be introduced, to remove our apprehensions. There was a clause in the Confederation reserving to the states respectively every power, jurisdiction, and right, not expressly delegated to the United States. This clause has never been complained of, but approved by all Why not, then, have a similar clause in this Constitution, in which it is the more indispensably necessary than in the Confederation, because of the great augmentation of power vested in the former? In my humble apprehension, unless there be some such clear and finite expression, this clause now under consideration will go to any thing our rulers may think proper.

Unless there be some express declaration that every thing not given is retained, it will be carried to any power Congress may please."

Mr. HENRY moved to read from the 8th to the 13th article of the declaration of rights; which was done.

Mr. GEORGE NICHOLAS, in reply to the gentlemen opposed to the clause under debate, went over the same grounds, and developed the same principles, which Mr. Pendleton and Mr. Madison had done. The opposers of the {443} clause, which gave the power of providing for the general welfare, supposed its dangers to result from its connection with, and extension of, the powers granted in the other clauses. He endeavored to show the committee that it only empowered Congress to make such laws as would be necessary to enable them to pay the public debts and provide for the common defence; >>> that this "general welfare" was united, "not" to "the general power of legislation", but to the >>>particular power<<< of laying and collecting taxes, imposts, and excises, for the purpose of paying the debts and providing for the "common defence", that is, that they could raise as much money as would pay the debts and provide for the common defence, in consequence of this power.

The clause which was affectedly called the sweeping clause contained "no new" "grant of power".

To illustrate this position, he observed that, if it had been added at the end of every one of the enumerated powers, instead of being inserted at the end of all, it would be obvious to any one that it was "no" augmentation of power. If, for instance, at the end of the clause granting power to lay and collect taxes, it had been added that they should have power to make necessary and proper laws to lay and collect taxes, who could suspect it to be an addition of power? As it would grant no new power if inserted at the end of each clause, it could not when subjoined to the whole.

He then proceeded thus: But, says he, who is to determine the extent of such powers? I say, the same power which, in all well-regulated communities, determines the "extent" of "legislative" powers.

If they "exceed" these powers, the judiciary >>>>"will"<<<< declare it void, or else "the people" will have a ">>>>right<<<< to declare it void".

Is this depending on any man? But, says the gentleman, it may go to any thing. It may destroy the trial by jury; and they may say it is necessary for providing for the general defence.

The power of providing for the general defence only extends to raise any sum of money they may think necessary, by taxes, imposts, But, says he, our only defence against oppressive laws consists in the virtue of our representatives. This was misrepresented.

If I understand it right, no "new" power can be exercised. As to those which are actually granted, we trust to the fellow-feelings of our representatives; and if we are deceived, we then "trust to altering our {444} government".



State Police, CDF Education on Law, Police, FBI, CIA, Military, Law Enforcement,
Freedom and the Declaration of Independence, Police Academy, Freedom Rights Education:

The critical line between

1.)  Freedom, Justice, Mercy  (which are Freedom and American Patriotism)  and

2.) Those of Law, Order, Peace (tools used of Nationalism, Socialism, Tyranny).


To define the difference for this discussion, we will first present Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson: 

--------------

On Freedom Read:

Patrick Henry's Speech:

``Is Life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?"



On Law, Thomas Jefferson:

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.

I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. ~~"


--------------
 

Police Responsibility within the United States:

Knowing exactly what, you as a police officer, is there for, is a subject so important within these free United States that it must involve more than "keeping the peace".

If this is all that an officer in these Free states represents, then he has taken the position of a mindless killer who wishes to quiet his pray;

... or an attack dog that sets upon anyone at the command of his master, no matter who his master is;

He has become no different than a police officer in Russia, Britain, China or any other Such Socialist Countries whose masters they blindly obey are professionals of "peace" by control and subjugation;

Such a peace is not true peace, but subjugated peace.

Which is not peace, nor freedom, but a state of slavery, see

John Locke on Civil Government # 23. "...This is the perfect condition of slavery, which is nothing else but the state of war continued between a lawful conqueror and a captive, for if once compact enter between them, and make an agreement for a limited power on the one side, and obedience on the other, the state of war and slavery ceases as long as the compact endures; for, as has been said, >>> "no man can by "agreement" pass over to another that which he hath not in himself -- "a power" over his own life."<<<

The Original Compact defines the law.

Exceeding the Original Compact, exceeds the authority.

If any officer blindly obeys a superior without knowing the Compact and his limitations of authority through that Compact, it is impossible for him to uphold the Just law with regard to the Compact.

The Officer cannot use the excuse of "let the courts" figure it out; especially when his own actions may be carried out without authority.

If the superior does not obey the Compact, then it is up to the officer to know and realize this, refuse the order and appeal to a higher superior or court until the unauthorized action is altered to comply with the Compact or removed.

This is before any such unauthorized action ever reaches the citizen.


Virginia Resolution of 1798

Author of the Constitution - James Madison:

RESOLVED, That the General Assembly of Virginia, doth unequivocably express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, against every aggression either foreign or domestic, and that they will support "the government" of the United States in all measures "warranted" by "the former".

That this assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the Union of the "States", to maintain which it pledges all its powers; and that for this end, it is their duty to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the "only basis" of that Union, because a faithful observance of them, can alone secure it's existence and the public happiness.

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the "plain sense and intention" of the instrument constituting the "compact"; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants "enumerated" in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.



The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

Author of the Declaration of Independence - Thomas Jefferson:

1. Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.


-----------


We present here a definition of freedom Samuel Adams and John Adams:


Samuel Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772:

"If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave."


John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776:

"Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it.".


-----------


Laws come about in all countries from many different ways, that they come about, and are proclaimed, does not make them good, practical or right.

Someone in each country must determine whether or not they are truly laws that are good,  in this country someone must determine whether they are based on freedom's laws from the "Original Compact, which was established on the laws of God and Nature".

In this free country, it is the duty of each man to uphold freedoms based on certain, inalienable, rights; as freedom in this country is a "defined" freedom; Not a vague or ever changing one. (See the 40 Grievances)

This is, each of us, our right and duty and responsibility as a Patriot and and American.  

There is nothing lower than a man who uses the excuse ``I'm just doing my job" as an excuse to ignore your duty to your country as outlined in the Declaration of Independence;

If you don't know what your ``Right and Duty" is,... read the Declaration of Independence, it is very clear and uses these exact words.

When you have read and understand and are willing to place those rights and duties over all opposing ideas and ideals and sworn commitments (because you are first sworn and bound to these; being a free American) then, and only then, can you carry out your true duties as a law officer.

Lets see how you do.

------------------- American or Socialist Police Sample Quiz ---------------------

When no physical crimes have occurred:

Question 1.)  If you stop a car for a traffic violation, and you find a pistol inside. Do you arrest the individual? (see also 12th Grievance of the Declaration of Independence and Patrick Henry's poem above)

Answer _______________________________________ Then read:


George Washington January 7, 1790 : "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence.

From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable.

The very atmosphere of firearms "everywhere" restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

In response to a proposal for gun registration George Washington said:

"Absolutely not. If the people are armed and the "federalists" do not know where the arms are, there can never be an oppressive government."

George Mason when the Constitution was being debated:

"To disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

------------------------

George Washington says 4 things here defining inalienable rights of a free people:


1.) It is an inalienable right to have a unregistered firearm.

2.) The Federal government has no right to know where they are.

3.) The Right to conceal weapons is an inalienable right....

For the right simply to conceal; and for the purpose of putting down their own oppressive governments, as George Washington and James Madison clearly defines in their definitions to that inalienable right.

4.) It separates the meaning, and draws a solid line between the Free Citizens and the Federal Government.

-----------------------


Question 2.)  If you find what is termed an "assault weapon" in a persons possession. Do you arrest the individual?

Answer:________________________________________ Then read:


12th Grievance of the Declaration of Independence:

(Defining Tyranny):

"He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power".


Notice the type of weapons are not mentioned;

Cannons that could level city blocks were owned by free merchant men, so there was no question as to the ability at that time for individuals to own greater fire power.

The definition is regarding levels of greater or lesser strengths and power.

One must also note that civil power at that time was small localized citizenry often one person on a farm, or a few in a town.

Only 34 colonists stood in the breach against the 200 British Regulars at Lexington.

Do not address or limit civilian rights and ability of decision; or rights to equal or greater strength and powers; as any where greater than this number, nor even more than one.

The "definition" is regarding levels of greater or lesser strengths and power of ordinary civilians powers over that of their own standing military.



Question 3.) Is peace and serenity more important than the protection Liberty of the Bill of Rights?

Answer ___________________________________Then read:


See Patrick Henry:

``Is Life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?"

 ... to what the Patriots of freedom inspired themselves with while preparing to fight for YOUR freedom.

it is not peace or life, but freedom.

SEE ALSO JOHN LOCKE 222-228

228. But if they who say it lays a foundation for rebellion mean that it may occasion civil wars or intestine broils to tell the people they are absolved from obedience when illegal attempts are made upon their liberties or properties, and may oppose the unlawful violence of those who were their magistrates when they invade their properties, contrary to the trust put in them, and that, therefore, this doctrine is not to be allowed, being 'so destructive to the "peace" of the world';

>>> they may as well say, upon the same ground, that honest men may not oppose robbers or pirates<<<,

 because this may occasion disorder or bloodshed.

If any mischief come in such cases,

 >>> it is not to be charged upon him who defends his own right, but "on him" that "invades his neighbour's".

If the innocent honest man must quietly quit all he has for peace sake to him who will lay violent hands upon it, I desire it may be considered what kind of a peace there will be in the world which consists only in violence and rapine,

and which is to be maintained only for the benefit of robbers and oppressors.

Who would not think it an admirable peace betwixt the mighty and the mean, when the lamb, without resistance, yielded his throat to be torn by the imperious wolf?"






Question 4.) When State or Federal "Laws" are contrary to the Declaration of Independence or Bill of Rights, do you uphold them?


Answer __________________________________Then read:


Thomas Jefferson:

 "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits
drawn around us by the equal rights of others.

I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will,

and "always so" when it violates the rights of the individual. ~~"

-------------


If you answered yes to any of these, your answers do not represent freedom, but socialism, and other forms of tyrannical government systems who rule with subjugated peace, which is not peace at all.

Hopefully these founding fathers statements address the intent of true freedom.

It is this mind set of peace by control reflected in other countries Tyrannical Rulers, and the blind obeying of "Laws" without question that in the past our armed Service men and Patriots had to kill and be killed in great numbers during wars simply to stop them from doing these same criminal acts of control against the world and our free society.



The Declaration of Independence outlines 40 definitions of a Tyrannical government and what your first right and duty is;  Read Them!

And then think on this when making decisions while a law officer in a truly free country.

The ability to understand and discern the differences between True freedoms and what are real crimes defines the difference of our law officers and that of the socialistic world that surrounds us.

Common Law, Reserved by the People
within all Constitutions, State or Federal.

Constitutional Debate: Virginia:
MONDAY, June 16, 1788.[1] [Elliot misprinted this as Monday, June 14, 1788.]

Mr. GEORGE NICHOLAS:  "...But the "common law" is "not excluded". There is "nothing" in that paper (APP note: referring to the US Constitution being considered)  to warrant the assertion. As to the exclusion of a jury from the vicinage, he has mistaken the fact. The legislature may direct a jury to come from the vicinage. But the gentleman says that, by this Constitution, they have power to make laws to define crimes and prescribe punishments; and that, consequently, we are not free from torture. Treason against the United States is defined in the Constitution, and the forfeiture limited to the life of the person attainted. Congress have power to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the laws of nations;

but they cannot define or prescribe the punishment of "any other crime whatever", without violating the Constitution.

If we had no security against torture but our declaration of rights, we might be tortured to-morrow; for it has been repeatedly infringed and disregarded. A bill of rights is only an acknowledgment of the preexisting claim to rights in the people.

>>>>>>>They belong to us as much as if they had been inserted in the Constitution.<<<<<<<



APP Note: This purposely repeated statement by George Nicholas, underscores the retained rights of the people that are not given to any free government.

The issue is not even debatable but for the assertion of government tyranny.



There are two established parameters to the rights possessed of freedom:

1.) Rights not given away are retained.

2.) Essential Rights (and the means to them) cannot even be given away voluntarily.


With regard to (1) We will present one statement by:

Mr. George Nicholas: "...But why were the articles of the bill of rights read? Let him show us that those rights are given up by the Constitution. Let him prove them to be violated. He tells us that the most worthy characters of the country differ as to the necessity of a bill of rights. It is a simple and plain proposition. It is agreed upon by all that the people have all power. If they part with any of it, is it necessary to declare that they retain the rest? Liken it to any similar case. If I have one thousand acres of land, and I grant five hundred acres of it, must I declare that I retain the other five hundred? Do I grant the whole thousand acres, when I grant five hundred, unless I declare that the five hundred I do not give belong to me still? It is so in this case. After granting some powers,

the "rest" must "remain with the people"."


With regard to (2) We will present two established foundations, one by John Locke on Civil Government and one by Samuel Adams presented in the "Absolute Rights of the Colonists".

John Locke 6. But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence; though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by His order and about His business; they are His property, whose workmanship they are made to last during His, not one another's pleasure.

John Locke 23. This is the perfect condition of slavery, which is nothing else but the state of war continued between a lawful conqueror and a captive, for if once compact enter between them, and make an agreement for a limited power on the one side, and obedience on the other, the state of war and slavery ceases as long as the compact endures; for, as has been said, no man can by agreement pass over to another that which he hath not in himself -- a power over his own life.

John Locke 135. Though the legislative, whether placed in one or more, whether it be always in being or only by intervals, though it be the supreme power in every commonwealth, yet, first, it is not, nor can possibly be, absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people. For it being but the joint power of every member of the society given up to that person or assembly which is legislator, it can be no more than those persons had in a state of Nature before they entered into society, and gave it up to the community. For nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life or property of another. A man, as has been proved, cannot subject himself to the arbitrary power of another; and having, in the state of Nature, no arbitrary power over the life, liberty, or possession of another, but only so much as the law of Nature gave him for the preservation of himself and the rest of mankind, this is all he doth, or can give up to the commonwealth, and by it to the legislative power, so that the legislative can have "no more than this". Their power in the utmost bounds of it is limited to the public good of the society.10 It is a power that hath no other end but preservation, and therefore can never have a right to destroy, enslave, or designedly to impoverish the subjects; the obligations of the law of Nature cease not in society, but only in many cases are drawn closer, and have, by human laws, known penalties annexed to them to enforce their observation. Thus the law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for, other men's actions must, as well as their own and other men's actions, be conformable to the law of Nature -- i.e., to the will of God, of which that is a declaration, and the fundamental law of Nature being the preservation of mankind, no human sanction can be good or valid against it.

John Locke 172. Thirdly, despotical power is an absolute, arbitrary power "one man has over another", to take away his life whenever he pleases;

APP Note: This is attempted by governments and police acting outside the law of nature and thereby acting without authority, for neither law, nor compact can condone, as Locke clearly establishes...

and this is a power which neither Nature gives, for it has made no such distinction between one man and another, "nor compact can convey".

For man, not having such an arbitrary power over his own life, cannot give another man such a power over it, but it is the effect only of forfeiture which the aggressor makes of his "own life" when he puts himself into the "state of war" with another.

For having quitted reason, which God hath given to be the rule betwixt man and man, and the peaceable ways which that teaches, and made use of force to compass his unjust ends upon another where he has no right, he renders himself liable to be destroyed by his adversary whenever he can, as any other noxious and brutish creature that is destructive to his being.

And thus captives, taken in a just and lawful war, and such only, are subject to a despotical power, which, as it arises not from compact, so neither is it capable of any, but is the state of war continued. For what compact can be made with a man that is not master of his own life? What condition can he perform? And if he be once allowed to be master of his own life, the despotical, arbitrary power of his master ceases.

He that is master of himself and his own life

 >>>>>>>"has a right, "too", to the "means" of preserving it<<<<<<<;

so that as soon as compact enters, slavery ceases, and he so far quits his absolute power and puts an end to the state of war who enters into conditions with his captive."


These established facts were summarized by Samuel Adams in the Absolute Rights of the Colonists.


Samuel Adams - Absolute Rights of the Colonists 1772:

"...In short it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one or any number of men at the entering into society, to renounce their "essential natural rights", or the means of preserving those rights when the great end of civil government from the very nature of its institution is for the support, protection and defence of those very rights: the principal of which as is before observed, are life liberty and property.

 If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in "terms" renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the [Volume 5, Page 396] right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is "not in the power of Man" to "alienate this gift", and "voluntarily become a slave"--



So here it establishes the essential rights to life liberty and property cannot be voluntarily given away, even by compact;

Nor the "means" of the individual to preserve those rights.

These rights are not given up to the legislative of any government;

The legislative is there to protect the individuals rights and the right of the individual to possess the means in preserving those rights.

The legislative has no power to take, limit or define the individuals means to protect his own essential natural rights and protect him solely under their own arbitrary power;

Such which would be arbitrary, when the legislative "by compact" accepts relinquishment of any essential natural right, or "means" to protect them, which the individual has no power in himself to relinquish;

 Which occurs when the legislative arbitrarily declares a legislative right in acting on an individual's behalf without allowing him to act on his own.

This is a too often occurrence in our present government as it invades the rights of the citizens and enforces unjust enacted  "laws" from the citizens relinquishing rights they have no right to relinquish and legislatures that have no right to accept such relinquishment.

Further injustice is compounded when those upholding laws, police and judges, authorized by the state or federal governments, when those governments have not been delegated, nor can they ever be delegated powers to authorize any such laws.

Where then is the responsibility?

It is in the judicial, the law officer, and the people to void that law.

Where does it say this?

In the Constitutional Debates that define the intents of the law, and the founders James Madison and Thomas Jefferson in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions that define this action.

George Nicholas: "...But, says he, who is to determine the extent of such powers? I say, the same power which, in all well-regulated communities, determines the "extent" of "legislative" powers.

 If they exceed these powers, the judiciary will declare it void,

or else "the people" will have "a right to declare it void"..."



This intent was also established by Thomas Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolution 1798:

8th: "... that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the "rightful remedy":

that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to nullify of their "own authority" all assumptions of power by others within their limits:

that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them:


That the first steps of understanding how to change the current misuse of powers, is to have a firm knowledge of Common Law, and to where the powers and responsibilities lay; Which is clearly defined as being in each individual, law officer, judge, legislator, and to act; whether it is to ignore, nullify, to void or change.

Simply obeying, or worse, enforcing blindly "the law", is a ingredient to socialism, not freedom; and shows a lack of a responsibility in he who follows this type of willing ignorance.