Last Updated on October 3, 2021 by Constitutional Militia
If any combination of words sounds as a leitmotif throughout the political tone-poems being played in âthe alternative mediaâ today, it is that America is inevitably, inexorably, irretrievably, and even already âdoomedâ: âThe Constitution is dead.â âMartial law and the confiscation of firearms is just around the corner.â âSurveillance cameras…â; âconstant NSA, CIA, and FBI surveillance…â; âFEMA camps…â; âdrone strikes…â; âblah, blah, blah…â ad nauseum. And worst of all: âThere is nothing common Americans can do to stop it.â
This discordant theme is being performed with such overdone fortissimo in âthe alternative mediaâ that, on the subject of Americaâs imminent demise, âthe alternative mediaâ are no longer âalternativeâ at all, but merely a set of echo-chambers for the big âmainstreamâ mediaâs dirge that even those patriots who are not half-witted âextremistsâ and rustic buffoons are still helpless, hapless, and hopeless in their opposition to the fascistic police state now being erected at breakneck speed in the Disgrace of Columbia. It is not enough that the âmainstreamâ media are overrun with well-coiffed reincarnations of Josef Goebbels, in the viewersâ choice of sexes. The likes of Lord Haw-Haw, Axis Sally, and Tokyo Rose are over-represented in âthe alternative mediaâ, too.
This is just too much. But what can American patriots who refuse to resign themselves to unconditional surrender do about this situation? First and foremost, they can recall that âGod helps those who help themselvesâ. They can stop complaining about their weaknesses and start taking an inventory of their strengths. They can stop whining that nothing can be done to save this country and what used to be called âthe American way of lifeâ, and instead figure out what they can accomplish with the moral, political, and especially legal resources at hand.
As regular readers of my commentaries at NewsWithViews.com are aware, for many years I have repetitively drawn Americansâ attention to the absolute and pressing need to revitalize the institutions which the Constitution itself declares to be ânecessary to the security of a free Stateâ: namely, âthe Militia of the several Statesâ. But apparently these many years of effort have not been enough, because the message is not sinking inâindeed, water off a duckâs back seems to have more chance of being soaked up. Some within âthe patriot communityâ advocate electing better ârepresentativesâ to public office; others promote petitioning the government for a redress of grievances; still others champion free speech and a truly free press; many harp on the supposedly âindividualâ âright of the people to keep and bear Armsâ, guaranteed by the Second Amendment; increasing numbers of them urge enforcement of the Tenth Amendment and âStatesâ rightsâ; and a few go so far as to call for a new constitutional convention, or even outright âsecessionâ. But next to none of them says anything at all about the Militia. After a while, I have come to wonder whether these people are wearing the mental equivalent of tin-foil (or perhaps lead-foil) hats, through which ideas of this kind simply cannot penetrate; or whether they have had a probe implanted in their brains by a certain âpovertyâ law center, so that whenever a synapse threatens to fire over the concept âmilitiaâ they receive a warning shock that short-circuits their thinking.
Nonetheless, being a firm believer in the principle that âit is a poor workman who blames his toolsâ, I intend to persevere, as irksome as it may be to me and to my readers. To that end, in addition to the two books on the Militia which I have already contributed to âthe marketplace of ideasâânamely, Constitutional âHomeland Securityâ, Volume One, The Nation in Arms (2007) and Constitutional âHomeland Securityâ, Volume Two, The Sword and Sovereignty (2012)âI am preparing a further series which includes:
âą Thirteen Words (2013)âa study of the most important thirteen words in the Constitution.
âą Three Rights (almost ready to go to press)âan exposition which examines the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as a single, completely integrated and mutually coherent âForm of Governmentâ based upon popular sovereignty, popular self-government, and the means to preserve them in the hands of WE THE PEOPLE themselves. And,
âą The Bastardy of âMartial Lawâ (a work in progress)âa demolition of the current theory of âmartial lawâ which is giving so many patriots sleepless nights.
As each of these books comes off the presses, it will be made available at Amazon (as well as whatever other outlets may choose to carry them).
These books are addressed to a general audience, and designed to render it impossible for anyone to contend with a straight face and even a soupçon of credibility that âthe Militia of the several Statesâ are not ânecessary to the security of a free Stateâ, today more than ever before.
One proof of this is to be found in what are probably the most glaring and palpable manifestations in common Americansâ lives of the national police state now being erected in this country: namely, the para-militarization of State and Local âlaw-enforcement agenciesâ.
Anyone who searches the Internet under the rubrics âpolice brutalityâ, ârogue copsâ, and so on will find literally hundreds of videos documenting in the most graphic, disturbing, disgraceful, and disgusting fashion that the personnel in State and Local âlaw-enforcement agenciesâ are, both literally and legally, themselves out of control as well as out of WE THE PEOPLEâS control. The âlaw-enforcement offendersâ (for that is a far more accurate description than âlaw-enforcement officersâ) who appear as the villains in these videos expose themselves as thoroughly conscienceless barbarians.
As individuals, they are apparently constantly looking to set up situations of traumatic stress and disorder so that they can act out their personal pathologies on the claim that somehow âthey feared for their safetyââas if their own safety, rather than the safety of the members of the community with whom they interact and whom they are sworn to protect even at the risk of their own lives, were the paramount consideration. They expect each and every citizen to comply without demur with whatever arbitrary commands they choose to give, simply because they have given them; and to non- compliance, even in the face of an obviously illegal order, they regularly respond with threats, violence, and false arrest on even falser charges. They demand ârespectâ, when what they deserve in every one of these cases is resistance on the ground, followed by at least a serious reprimand from their superiors, and in most of these incidents removal from the force sine die.
Sometimes their arrogance extends even to claiming a right to be addressed as âSirâ, forgetting that, inasmuch as â[n]o State shall * * * grant any Title of Nobilityâ and â[n]o Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United Statesâ [see U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 1 and § 9, cl. 8], no American could possibly labor under any such supposed duty towards any public official. (Actually, the appropriate âsâ word descriptive of these individuals, or at least the one fit for public consumption, would be âsavagesââand if a layman may venture a psychological diagnosis, âsociopathsâ.)
Taken collectively, their misbehavior reflects an institutional cultureâor perhaps âcultâ is the more descriptive termâwhich has taken hold in âpolice forcesâ throughout this country, and which not only tolerates, but even encourages and rewards: (i) open defiance of and contempt for the law, public officialsâ duties towards society, and the basic humanity of others; (ii) individual and collective violence, quite often gratuitously brutal and pitiless, and all too often carried to a homicidal conclusion; (iii) routine and systematic falsification of official documents and perjury, as if truth counted for nothing in comparison to a misbegotten âloyaltyâ to âthe forceâ; and (iv) a stubborn refusal on the part of the offenders and their superiors to accept responsibility for their actions, or to show remorse, no matter how much utterly damning evidence is marshaled against them.
Apologists for âlaw-enforcement agenciesâ assure whomever they can cajole into listening to them that the uniformed barbarians these videos have caught red-handed are simply a few âbad applesâ, and that âthe good copsâ doubtlessly outnumber them. However, the very notoriety of the video record, exposing as it does shocking and inexcusable incidents which have occurred all across this country, from rustic village to mighty city, proves the contrary: namely, that very, very few âgood copsâ actually exist, because âthe good copsâ would know even more about these events than the ordinary Americans who watch them on the Internetââthe good copsâ would (or should) be even more incensed over these occurrences than the average American, inasmuch as such goings-on besmirch the honor of âlaw-enforcement agenciesâ everywhereâand therefore âthe good copsâ would demand that âthe bad copsâ be systematically and ruthlessly weeded out of their departments, would not stand by and watch âthe bad copsâ perpetrate their outrages, would not cover up for them, would not abide by the code of omertaÌ and refuse to speak out, and would not persecute the few officers with consciences (such as Serpico and Schoolcraft) who at great cost to themselves sometimes do âblow the whistleâ on criminality, corruption, careerism, and incompetence within the ranks of âlaw enforcementâ.
Moreover, to rebut in a decisive manner the âmost-cops-are-good-copsâ defense, Americans need only review the best-publicized of the mass deployments of âlaw-enforcement agenciesâ in recent years, during which numerous episodes of police brutality and similar Gestapo tactics occurred, without any significant number of âgood copsâ standing up for the public against the misbehavior of their co-workers. For example, almost everyone is familiar with how, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, squads of storm troopers descended on the region to confiscate firearms from innocent citizens, in one horrific instance even invading a little old womanâs own kitchen, brutally assaulting her, and confiscating her small-caliber revolver. To be sure, in an excess of charity some observers might excuse or explain away this misbehavior as stimulated by the severe stresses the situation imposed on all public officialsâalthough the hurricane had been expected, the extent of the damage it caused had been anticipated, the social dislocations in its aftermath had or should have been predicted, and âlaw-enforcement personnelâ (including members of the National Guard) in particular were supposedly properly trained to deal with those conditions in conformity with constitutional requirements.
What occurred in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing, however, cannot be so easily whitewashed. The immediate environs of Boston were put on âlockdownâ. Thousands of para-military foot-soldiers, each better equipped than the infantry of both sides which fought the battle of Stalingrad, were deployed in the streets. Innocent and peaceful citizens were rousted from their residences at gunpoint, with their hands up, as if they were common criminals or prisoners of war. Houses were invaded without reasonable suspicion, let alone âWarrants * ** issue[d] * * * upon probable cause, supported by Oath of affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seizedâ (as the Fourth Amendment requires). And, as far as the present author has been able to determine, no one among the ranks of âlaw enforcementâ remonstrated, no one refused to participate, no one evidenced reluctance to lend his hand to these outrages, no one resigned after the fact, no one later recanted the propriety of his involvement, and no one even expressed remorse, let alone offered to make restitution, for his contribution to this gargantuan and grotesque affront to the Constitution. They all simply followed orders, in the manner of SS SturmmaÌnner.
In the light of this sorry parade of excesses by âlaw enforcementâ, now what? What remedies can common Americans invoke against the repetition of these assaults on their freedoms? To be sure, with the advent of the Internet and the ubiquity of video-recording devices in the hands of common citizens, episodes of these kinds can be fully documented as they occur, and then exposed to a huge audienceâwhich is surely a signal advantage, as years ago no foolproof way existed to secure evidence that could prove exactly what had transpired over the contrary assertions of the perpetrators. Nonetheless, even with the benefit of such technological tools, the question remains: âSo what?â When these videos surface, what actually happens to the thugs depicted in them? A claim of police brutality may be filed with the departmentâs office of âinternal affairsââwhich investigates the charge while the offending officers relax on paid âadministrative leaveâ; and which all too often then âfindsâ the episode to âfully justifiedâ within the departmentâs âproceduresâ and âguidelinesâ. Local prosecutors refuse to bring the matter to the attention of a grand jury. And civil-rights lawsuits consume years to completeâand if they eventually succeed simply impose the cost of police misconduct on the innocent taxpayers, hardly ever applying the full weight of damages to the guilty parties and their protectors in public office.
This is why revitalization of the Militia is so important. Revitalization of the Militia will provide for: (i) direct control of State and Local âlaw-enforcement personnelâ by WE THE PEOPLE themselves; and (ii) no control of such personnel by the national police-state apparatus building in the Disgrace of Columbia. Specificallyâ
(i) When the Militia are fully revitalized, every able-bodied adult citizen, from (say) sixteen to sixty years of age, will be enrolled in a Militia Company in the locality in which he resides. Typically, these Companies will include somewhere between (say) fifty to one hundred individuals who live in immediate proximity to one another, so that they can easily be equipped, trained, and called forth in an emergency. A member of one of these Companies with particular skills could be transferred by higher authority to a specialized Company; or he could choose to join an Independent Company with its own peculiar duties; or he could opt for service in an âeÌliteâ Company, such as one delegated responsibilities for âlaw enforcementâ or âemergency responseâ. (Upon revitalization of the Militia, all âpolice forcesâ, Sheriffsâ departments, and other âlaw-enforcementâ and âemergency-responseâ agencies will become subsets of the Militia, akin to the Rangers, Minutemen, and like units during the pre-constitutional era.) In any such case, that individual would be granted an exemption from his duty to serve in the ordinary Militia Company to which he had been automatically assigned. So, for example, Bob Smith might originally have been enrolled in Militia Company No. 43 in Front Royal, Virginia. Smith might then volunteer for Militia Police Company No. 1 in that Town. If accepted, he might receive an exemption from MC-43 for as long as he fully and faithfully performed his duties in MPC-1. (Smith might also be denied an exemption, if his service were necessary in MC-43.) Performance of his duties in MPC-1 would be the condition sine qua non for Smithâs exemption from MC-43. If Smith resigned from MPC-1 for personal reasons, or was discharged (perhaps because some physical injury disqualified him for that service), or was expelled for misconduct, he would immediately revert to full membership in MC-43. And at all times MC-43 could monitor, and when necessary inquire into, Smithâs performance of duty in MPC-1, because his exemption from MC-43 would always depend upon his timely and proper performance that duty to the satisfaction of MC-43, which would always retain the original claim to his service (unless he moved out of the jurisdiction, at which point the original claim would be transferred to another ordinary Militia Company in his new area of residence).
Suppose, then, that Smith committed an alleged act of police brutality under color of his authority in MPC-1. Depending upon the procedures established by the Militia Code, the victim could file a charge with MPC-1, or with MC-43, the latter being the preferred venue if the victim believed that some âgood old boyâ network in MPC-1 were likely to cover up for Smith. Because of his exemption, Smithâs alleged misbehavior in MPC-1 would simultaneously constitute alleged misconduct with respect to MC-43. Not being members of MPC-1, the members of MC-43 would have no reason to whitewash Smithâs misconduct, and every incentive to investigate his alleged wrongdoing, as part of their supervision of the terms of his exemption from their own Company. Under these circumstances, THE PEOPLE themselves in MC-43, not a possibly tight-knit and corrupt group in MPC-1, would supervise MPC-1 (in the person of Smith), thus providing an independent âcheck and balanceâ against wrongdoing in that unit. And so for all of the other members of MPC-1 with respect to the several ordinary Militia Companies which had granted them exemptions. So, in Smithâs case, the alleged misconduct in MPC-1 would occur on Monday, the charge would be filed with MC-43 on Tuesday, the court-martial would be held on Wednesday, an appeal (if any) would be allowed on Thursday, and punishment would be inflicted on Friday. True enough, perhaps not that quicklyâbut surely more quickly, and with more certainty of a just result, than what typically transpires under present conditions.
(ii) A nationwide para-military police-state apparatus controlled from the District of Columbia can never be constructed unless State and Local âlaw- enforcementâ and âemergency-responseâ agencies are somehow brought under the control of the Department of Homeland Security. To be brought under true control, however, the personnel in these agencies must come under the actual command of officials of the General Government who are authorized to give them orders which must be obeyed. Other than the President of the United States as âCommander in Chief * * * of the Militia of the several Statesâ, and then only when the Militia are âcall[ed] forthâ âin the actual Service of the United Statesâ âto execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasionsâ, though, no member of the Militia can come under the command of any official of the General Government, because âthe Appointment of the Officersâ in the Militia is constitutionally âreserv[ed] to the States respectivelyâ. [See U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 15 and 16, and art. II, § 2, cl. 1.] No officials in the Department of Homeland Security, the Armed Forces, or any other Department, branch, agency, or bureau of the General Government can ever be appointed by the States to positions of command in their Militia, because to do so would effectively transfer control over the Militia from the States to the General Government, in direct contradiction of the Statesâ explicitly reserved constitutional authority in that particular, as well as making such appointees simultaneously officials of the States as well as of the General Government, which would contradict the first principle of the federal system, and inevitably lead to chaos if the States issued one set of directives to such officers while the General Government issued another. Note that no appeal to the Supremacy Clause [U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2] can preclude this result (because that clause does not override the specific reservation of State authority in the body of the Constitution), and that the Second and the Tenth Amendments need not be invoked in order to achieve that result (although, of course, their authority confirms and amplifies it). This is a matter neither of ânullificationâ, nor even of âinterpositionâ, but simply of the constitutional irrelevance of the General Government to the Militia when the Militia are performing duties for their States, such as State and Local âpoliceâ functions, as opposed to one or more of the three specific duties which can be required of the Militia âin the actual Service of the United Statesâ.
This is all so obviousâas a matter of American history, of constitutional law, and of the precepts and operating principles of popular sovereignty, popular self-government, and what the Second Amendment denotes as âa free Stateââthat to explain it again and again becomes tiresome in the extreme. The Constitution was not written in such abstruse terms that only graduates of Harvard Law School can parse and understand it. It does require, however, that Americans actually take the time to read it. The question then arises: âFor what are WE THE PEOPLE waiting? Until it is too late to do anything effective? Be forewarned. That day will dawn only too soon.
©2013 Edwin Vieira, Jr. â All Rights Reserved.