Militia: A Sovereign Entity
Largely Outside the Jurisdiction of Congress
  • THE PEOPLE are not necessarily legally bound by every act that individuals who may happen to be Members of Congress may perpetrate. ‘Congress’ enjoys no authority—indeed, has no legal existence—outside of, let alone contrary to, the Constitution.

    THE PEOPLE are not necessarily legally bound by every act that individuals who may happen to be Members of Congress may perpetrate. Whether an action taken by such individuals is entitled to be denoted an action “of Congress” depends, not upon its mere occurrence in the Capitol, but upon its strict congruence with the Constitution, because “Congress” enjoys no authority—indeed, has no legal existence—outside of, let alone contrary to, the Constitution. So, that Members of Congress may have purported to enact some statute, although necessary for that statute’s bare existence, is not sufficient for its validity. “Illegality cannot attain legitimacy through practice.”2559 Moreover, if (as no one doubts) “a bold and daring usurpation might be resisted, after * * * [long and complete] acquiescence”(footnote 1) then surely a mindless [g]eneral acquiescence cannot justify departure from the law”, (footnote 2) no matter how long it may have continued. [N]either the antiquity of a practice nor * * * steadfast legislative and judicial adherence to it through the centuries insulates it from constitutional attack”. (footnote 3) “[N]o one acquires a vested or protected right in violation of the Constitution by long use, even when that span of time covers our entire national existence and indeed predates it.” (footnote 4) Rather, “when the meaning and scope of a constitutional provision are clear, it cannot be overthrown by legislative action, although several times repeated and never before challenged”. (footnote 5) Constitutional questions “must be resolved not by past uncertainties, assumptions or arguments, but by the application of the controlling principles of constitutional interpretation”. (footnote 6)

    Since at least 1874 there has been “legislative * * * adherence” to the notion that Congress may prohibit the States from forming new Independent Companies. No occasion has arisen for “judicial adherence”, however, because the issue has never come before the Supreme Court—and if it had, the Court’s decision would hardly be conclusive, inasmuch as the Court has admitted error and reversed itself numerous times on constitutional questions. (footnote 7)  True enough, to one extent or another, the claim of Congressional power to prohibit the States from creating Independent Companies has persisted during a “span of time [that] covers [a large part of America’s] national existence”, arguably since 1874 and certainly since 1903. But such “[g]eneral acquiescence” in this claim as has festered among the public has manifested itself not as vocal approval but as ignorant silence, both because vanishingly few individuals have bothered to ponder the matter seriously as an abstract question, and because the dangers to America’s “homeland security” have never heretofore risen to such an acute level as to render a thoroughgoing inquiry imperative. (footnote 8)

    Footnotes:

    1.) McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheaton) 316, 401 (1819).

    2.) Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, 369 (1932).

    3.) Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 239 (1970), quoted in Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1, 18 (1991).

    4.) Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664, 678 (1970).

    5.) Fairbank v. United States, 181 U.S. 283, 311 (1901).

    6.) Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583, 597-598 (1938).

    7.) See, e.g., Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 828-830 & note 1 (1991). Indeed, various Justices have often candidly admitted their duty to correct the Court’s misreadings of the Constitution. See, e.g., Mitchell v. W.T. Grant Company, 416 U.S. 600, 627-628 (1974) (Powell, J., concurring) (“especially with respect to matters of constitutional interpretation * * * if the precedent or its rationale is of doubtful validity, then it should not stand”); Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1, 22-23 (1970) (Burger, C.J., dissenting) (denying “that what the Court said lately controls over the Constitution”); United Gas Improvement Company v. Continental Oil Company, 381 U.S. 392, 406 (1965) (Douglas, J., dissenting) (“issues of [constitutional] magnitude are always open for re-examination”); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 346 (1963) (opinion of Douglas, J.) (“all constitutional questions are always open”); Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Company, 158 U.S. 601, 663 (1895) (Harlan, J., dissenting) (“in a large sense, constitutional questions may not be considered as finally settled, until settled rightly”). This is why the Supreme Court is an especially weak reed on which to lean when inquiring into the true meaning of the Constitution. Yes, the Court can set aside an incorrect opinion for a correct one. But until that happens, most public officials will treat the incorrect opinion as a valid “precedent” under the doctrine of stare decisis. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 854-869 (1992) (opinion of O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter, JJ.). Worse yet, being always subject to the fallibility of human reasoning, the Justices can arrive at an incorrect opinion in the first place, and even set aside a correct opinion for an incorrect one, and never hear another case that raises the issue on which they erred. Thus, a decision of the Supreme Court, by itself, can never answer a constitutional question definitively. Rather, each decision of the Court on such a question always poses the further conundrums of (i) whether the Justices have actually answered the original question sub judice, and if so (ii) whether what they have opined about that question is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, decisions of the Court are obviously correct, or can easily be proven to be so. In that eventuality, they can be cited as prima facie evidence on the points at issue. But more than that cannot be attributed to them.

    8.) See The Sword and Sovereignty: The Constitutional Principles of “the Militia of the several States”, Front Royal, Virginia CD ROM Edition 2012, by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., page 1251, “D. Indpendent Companies the best means to begin revitalization of the Militia”.

    1259-60.

Also see: Militia: Unconstitutionally Disestablished by Congress •  Oxymoronic “Unorganized” Militia National Guard: Not a MilitiaMilitia: Not Part of the Regular Armed Forces of the Union or of the States Militia: Permanent Constitutional Institutions • Silver and Gold as “Money” Implemented by the States Not Congress • Misconstrued Role of Congress

 

Militia Structures Enforce State Implementation of Constitutional “Money”—Silver and Gold—No Consent From Congress is Necessary

The State as a sovereign entity, as one of the constituent parts of the federal system under the Constitution, has legal immunity from any Congressional dictate as to what it must use as money. The State cannot coin money, it cannot emit bills of credit (i.e., paper currency), but it can adopt for its own purposes anything it wants to use as money. And the only limitation is that when a State adopts something that it’s going to make a legal tender in payment of debts (i.e., require people to take) it must be gold and silver coin. So any State can adopt United States gold and silver coin—old or new. It could adopt foreign gold or silver coin, it could adopt private coinage if it wanted as its own money.

Militia Structures Enforce Individual Immunity From Contemporary “Gun Control”

As State government institutions, Militia Structures are largely outside the jurisdiction of the General government (what many mistakenly refer to as the “Federal” government—see analysis here). A properly revitalized constitutional Militia would be immune from all contemporary forms of “gun control”. Why? Because Militia are State government institutions consisting of every “able-bodied” adult, and Congress cannot prevent any government institution from performing their constitutional duties. The “power of the purse” and the “power of the sword” are lodged with the authors and inheritors of the Constitution— We the People.

  • Private citizens are not immune from congressional mandates—’The Supremacy Clause’.

    The problem with the average American citizen in the “private economy” is that these people do not have immunity as private citizens from what Congress purports to “legislate”. This is because the legitimate powers of Congress (and according to the way Congress thinks, the illegitimate powers too) can reach down into any State and go after the individual person or the individual private company or other entity because those things do not have the sovereign immunity the States have. To make the alternative constitutional currency ultimately work, these people in the private economy in the State, must share in the protection of the State’s immunity from Congressional interference in this new money system. How do we accomplish this? It’s difficult if these people remain private citizens. The State does not have the ability to pass any law that says, “With respect to our citizens, a law of Congress doesn’t apply.” The “Supremacy Clause” in the Constitution, Article 6 Clause 2, states that no state law can override the U.S. Constitution or legitimate law passed by Congress. So a State cannot really nullify some action that Congress legitimately takes to control the “private economy”:

    “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding” (footnote 1)

    Footnotes:

    1.) U. S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2 (referred to as “The Supremacy Clause”).

  • Militia are State institutions and part of the State government, immune from Congressional interference.

    If this group, “the private economy”, becomes part of the group “the Militia”, all of those people are now part of the State government, the way it is supposed to be constitutionally as part of the federal structure. As Militia, those citizens in the private sector are now participants in an institution of the State, one of the 50 “Militia of the several States“. As soon as the constitutional Militia comes back into effect all of the members of that group participate in the State’s immunity against Congress’s interference. All of the members of that group are primarily all members of the private economy, other than the children, who are subject to their parents. This essentially takes this “private economy” out of the equation entirely. It all becomes a State institution.

  • The Supreme Court has previously ruled on State’s immunity from what Congress has declared to be legal tender currency—Lane County v. Oregon.

    The Supreme Court has already ruled that the State is immune from what Congress has declared to be legal tender currency in the matter of Lane County vs. Oregon. It’s already done, foreclosed, finished, ended. The court can change their minds as sometimes they do. But from a political point of view it’s a strong argument to say, “Not only can we do this because the Constitution says we can do it, but this case actually arose in the 1860′s and it was decided by the Supreme Court that a State is immune from what Congress had declared to be legal tender currency.” End of discussion. And if it’s not the end of discussion, it’s certainly the beginning of a real political brouhaha. At that point you’re going to have a lot of conflict because obviously the State government with a thoroughly organized Militia Structure, which is the vast majority of the actual people in that state is taking action to protect the people of the State and the State government against the collapse of the present faulty monetary system. Where are the sympathies of the vast majority of people going to lie? On which side? Are they going to side with Congress and the Federal Reserve System? Not likely. Also, the first State that does this will be the exemplar for all the other States. Every other State will see how to do it – there is a working template to follow. There is an old expression – “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” That’s exactly what we’re talking about here – teach him how to fish, and you’ll probably save his life. So the first State that implements the alternative constitutional currency, will likely be the catalyst for every other State to follow because it is in the interest of their economic survival.

As State government institutions revitalized Militia Structures would be immune from all contemporary forms of “gun control”. Under the Constitution—the supreme Law— every “able-bodied” adult is required to possess Arms and accoutrements at least as good for military purposes as the “Arms” carried by equivalent troops in this country’s regular Armed Forces to perform their Militia service for “the security of a free State” (Second Amendment).

States have the constitutional duty and sovereignty to implement the alternative constitutional currency—silver and gold based upon the U.S. money “Unit” the “dollar”. The people through a revitalized constitutional Militia Structure can oversee and enforce their immunity from any unconstitutional dictates from Congress as to what they must use as “Money”.