Forum Index
Discussions on the TRUE meaning of the U.S. Constitution
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Forum Index -> General Discussions on “True Meaning”
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 18 Feb 2007
Posts: 12
Location: Illinois

PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 3:20 am    Post subject: IS IT TIME FOR THE STATES TO ACT? Reply with quote


Consider the following, which no servant in the Federal government — either in the United States Supreme Court, any inferior court, or any other branch or office — shall dare admit; nor do any of them want this truth to be known:

    Article I, Section 10:

    “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, UNLESS ACTUALLY INVADED, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

So, according to the Constitution, the States have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to defend themselves from invasion!

What you are probably thinking to yourself is that it is too simple — too obvious to be true. But the text is plain — black & white — with no gray. The Constitution literally means exactly what it says.

Not obvious enough? Consider, then, that which was stated, by Mr. Jackson and Mr. M’Gillvary, on August 11, 1789, in the 1st Congress:

    Mr. Jackson, “The deplorable situation of the defenseless and plundered inhabitants of the State of Georgia, requires the exertion of the federal powers; and the fourth section of the fourth article of the constitution obliges us, as we value the preservation of the public faith, to step forward in their behalf.”

    Mr. M’Gillvary “ the constitution, the cause of an invaded State was the cause of the Union,...”

    Mr. Jackson, “Do gentlemen mean that the State shall be destroyed, while they refuse to comply with the most sacred stipulations? The Union is to protect each State from invasion; Georgia is invaded, and requires that protection. She sacredly adheres to her part of the contract [Constitution and Treaty]; she does nothing more than act on the defensive; she does not engage in war, though actually invaded, and in such imminent danger as will hardly admit of delay. WAS IT FOR THIS SHE ADOPTED THIS CONSTITUTION?

Are we not being invaded by criminals that do us harm — as well as those that may not be as notorious, but nevertheless cause us harm: to our local treasuries, our local economies and our neighborhoods? Do they not, like any other kind of invader, disregard the laws of our States that all of its citizens must obey and follow — and, that our invaders only snub and evade while all us law abiding citizens, lawlessly constrained by the Federal government, having no recourse at our disposal? Is there a difference whether the invaders into one State or many come from a reservation or from another country?

If the Congress refuses to do that which is required of them, and the Federal courts choose instead to conspire with the Executive and Congress against the States, then the States certainly have no choice but to exercise their fundamental CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT of self defense and repel the invaders.

Is there anyone that can, with all honesty, say, that these are not invaders onto our soil and into our member States that the Federal government has an obligation to protect and defend under the Constitution? Is being protected from invasion, as such, not one of the motivations for which the States joined this compact?

If the Federal government is going to shirk its responsibilities and duties to the member States, then what choice do the States have but to defend themselves with whatever means that they have at their disposal?

What if these invaders were from Iran or Iraq? Would the States still be somehow obligated to wait for the Federal government to “get around to it?” Are the States, under the Constitution, obliged to simply sit on their hands until the Federal government passes some kind of immigration law — years from now, if ever — that addresses these invaders?

Let’s get one thing perfectly straight! These are not immigrants — they are invaders onto our soil. No matter how you want to spin it, our States are being invaded — PERIOD!

The States have been pleading for years for the Federal government to fulfill their obligations and promises under our compact and act: in protecting the members of our Union from any kind of invasion by repelling and defeating the invaders.

The Federal government has no exclusive jurisdiction here; and, the Constitution clearly reserves, to the States, the express right to repel its invaders with force, if necessary. Yes, the States, too, have rights. Consider what Alexander Hamilton says in Federalist Paper No. 84:

    “The truth is, after all the declamations we have heard, that the Constitution is itself in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS.“

The States have absolutely no obligation to these invaders and there is nothing in the Constitution that can be used against the States to obligate them to provide aid and comfort to invaders onto our soil that are not either citizens of any of the several States or of the United States and does not, nor can, fall under any constitutional treaty of peace or commerce with said invaders. There is no constitutional law that can exist that can bind the hands of the States and deprive them of their fundamental right of self defense — placing them at the mercy of an unconstitutional, lawless and oppressive Federal government that refuses to uphold their side of the bargain and their promises when the Constitution was ratified.

What is the Federal Government waiting for? Is it possible that they have a different definition of what an invasion is? How many will it take? How many must invade us before the Federal government will get off their useless political tails and act?

Are our servants so oblivious and corrupt — concerned with only politics — that they know not, nor even care, for that which they were instituted and entrusted, to wit, to defend, to guard and to protect the Union, the States and the People, their wealth, their commerce, their manufacturers and all commercial and noncommercial interests?

One thing for certain, is that the State need not wait for the Federal government to act — for the Constitution is on their side and reserves to them the express authority and right to act. It is time for the States to take charge and repel these invaders on their own. Every State — Call forth the militia! If the Federal government stands in the way — walk over, walk around, and impeach all servants that interfere, obstruct or attempt to abridge the exercising of any State’s fundamental Right of Self Defense.

On the Right To Keep and Bear Arms, Monday, August, 17, in the 1st Congress:

    “The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr. Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;"

    “Mr. Gerry.-This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to SECURE THE PEOPLE AGAINST THE MAL-ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed."

    “WHAT, SIR, IS THE USE OF A MILITIA? IT IS TO PREVENT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A STANDING ARMY, THE BANE OF LIBERTY. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. WHENEVER GOVERNMENTS MEAN TO INVADE THE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF THE PEOPLE, THEY ALWAYS ATTEMPT TO DESTROY THE MILITIA, IN ORDER TO RAISE AN ARMY UPON THEIR RUINS. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown,"

So, what are the States and the People waiting for?

(This post is protected under the copyright laws of the United States of America. You may not reproduce this post without express written permission from the poster. You may, however, disseminate a link to this post in any electronic communication or web page.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Forum Index -> General Discussions on “True Meaning” All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group