by Ed Lewis

December 25, 2001

KeepAndBearArms.com -- Although there are beginning to be increased dissenters against the actions taken by the US Government in regards to �defending� liberty, it has grown increasingly obvious that many of the principles the people of this nation hold dear have been forgotten � if they were ever known, thanks to government controlled education.

Former President Jimmy Carter, in his comments at the opening of The Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice at the University of San Diego, made this statement about military tribunals:

�I believe that we might be partly laying the groundwork to undo what will be an inevitable military victory if we subvert the principles that the United States has always espoused for justice.�

It has also been reported in many sources that Democrats have begun challenging Bush�s orders, calling for hearings on whether the president can establish tribunals without congressional approval. These dissenters are threatening to ban the use of government money to set up the secret courts.�

Attorney General John Ashcroft, in the guise of being the second in command to an imagined tyrant monarch, has been reported as waving a copy of an Al Qaeda terrorism handbook in the faces of the Democrats stating that it is �proof positive� that no restriction of freedom was too severe when considering the enemy he seeks. He made this statement (Testimony to Congress, December 6, 2001):

�To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists � for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve.�

Ashcroft�s stand, along with the members of Congress who passed the anti-terrorism legislation, is that any American who dissents against the government is a terrorist, un-American, and un-patriotic. Such are the labels for exercising one�s right to think and voice his opinions.

Well, Folks, I am going to state without reservation that I vehemently disagree with Ashcroft, Bush, Rumsfeld, and the Congress of the United States. It is clear these people have little or no understanding of the Constitution for the united States of America and cannot possibly be in support of it. Nor can they be in support of the principles this nation of Republics united themselves under.�

Once upon a time before this country became the united Republics we know today as these united States of America, a monarch issued orders. Any order he issued had to be obeyed as King George had plenary power over his subjects, including the colonists in the Americas. Because of the plenary power of a king over his subjects, people were treated as not much more than slaves to the �sovereign�.

But, the people grew tired of having to succumb to the orders of a king far removed from them and clearly violating the principles of a free society. The people stated their reasons (causes) for declaring independence from England and listed those reasons in the Declaration of Independence.

After winning independence, and the sovereignty of the individual, our forefathers took on the job of writing a document that would not only unite the 13 Republics (to be known as States) then in existence, but also assure against further oppression by any level of government. In other words, a document had to be created that would control and limit the authority of governments thereby securing our unalienable rights. The intent and basis for establishing a government is established in the opening statements of the Declaration of Independence:

�WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed��

The framers of the Constitution wanted to protect the people against a government that might assume the authority of a monarch. With this in mind, all legislative authority was removed from both the Executive (the President) and the Judicial branches of government. The former would have the President acting as a sovereign monarch (lawmaker) while the latter would have judges acting as lawmakers. Both would be situations not necessarily in the best interests of the rights of people and, therefore, prohibited.

The very first section of Article I of the Constitution in limiting lawmaking states that:

�All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.�

Then, Article II, Section I, Clause 8, states that before he [the elected President] enters on the Execution of his Office, that he shall take an oath or affirmation to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Thus, only Congress has constitutional authority to make any law and the President upon taking or affirming his oath of office agrees to this and, furthermore, to preserve, protect, and defend the balance of the Constitution.

But, does Congress have the authority to make any law it wishes? Can it make public policy laws that would allow a president to issue orders, which become laws (Executive Orders � EOs) affecting the people of the many States? The answer to this is in Article I, Section 8 that lists the powers of Congress. Since a reading of the section verifies there is not an authorization in the Constitution that allows Congress to make any public policy law affecting the people of the States � even during a declared war � then any �law� made that has allowed EOs has been done contrary to the Constitution.�

A current example that most people know of is military tribunals. Article III establishes our court system. Neither Congress nor the President is given authority to modify this article of the Constitution. Has an amendment been made that would allow the President or Congress to establish what is known as �military tribunals� since any modification to the Constitution requires an amendment? The answer is �NO�.�

The Constitution establishes that Congress may declare war and make the rules for declaring war. Is it stated in the Constitution that under conditions of war, prisoners may be tried, convicted, and executed without due process of law, that the rights of man may be ignored during war? No, it doesn�t. And neither does any treaty made with any country. We must remember - and enforce � that the rights of Man granted by our Creator are the rights of all men and are not �privileges� to be selectively doled out by those in government.

�By the authority vested in me as President and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution (Public Law 107-40, 115 Stat. 224) and sections 821 and 836 of title 10, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:��

This is the opening statement of the executive Military Order. However, since Public Law 107-40, etc. is not within the authority of Congress to make, and since it is not in the Constitution and its amendments, then the President has no authority to issue such a military order. Military force may only be used under specified conditions, those being either in a declared war or carrying out a Letter of Reprisal under agreement with a foreign government. Even if we were in a declared war in which military forces could be constitutionally deployed, there is still not a provision allowing such a law. There simply aren�t any exceptions.�

In regard to the USA Patriot Act, this is an abomination against the rights of Man. Congress does not have the authority to make such a law except in regards to the jurisdiction of the Congress. This jurisdiction does not include the 50 States.

Treason is constitutionally defined as consisting only in levying war against the States, or in adhering to their enemies, and giving enemies aid and comfort. We, the People, clearly have enemies of liberty and our Constitution, enemies that are readily identifiable and others who are not. Acts taken that deprive people of rights and constitutional protection aid enemies of liberty. We do not have to define an enemy to know it exists.

At the present, the greatest enemies to liberty we have are the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government. The President of the United States has historically led the charge with hundreds of unlawful EOs with Congress and corrupted courts supporting the unconstitutional laws. This has resulted in perhaps millions of laws that are null and void in the many States � from those issued by presidents, the many Congresses, and the governments of the States and political subdivisions � but ruled on as if bona fide laws by the courts.

Each official � with his concurrence to unlawful events and edicts � commits treason as surely as the enemy who holds a gun to your head preventing you from exercising a God-given right. Each violates his oath of office. In fact, the President, Congress, Ashcroft, and others are aiding terrorists in the take over of the people of the many States and the destruction of our way of life.

If one wishes to attempt to diminish the crimes being committed against our unalienable rights, one might say each has committed impeachable offenses. Tone it down if you wish but the fact remains that an enemy is being aided and the US Government is providing the aid. In fact, it might be said that our most threatening enemy IS the US and lesser governments.

Folks, freedom is impossible to defend by removing freedoms. Like it or not, terrorism � whether by foreign or domestic organizations � has been the key for the people in government to further circumvent the Constitution and the rights of our people. Will the removal of rights increase the zero effectiveness of the US Government in protecting our shores against terrorism? Emphatically � NO!!!

Unconstitutional measures should be defined as treason against our union of States. At the very least such measures should be defined as terrorism since terrorism does not dictate the tools used to change governments but are based on the intent (see Patriot Act). Think of the threats made by Ashcroft and others made against those who simply voice an opinion and/or facts contrary to actions attributable to the Justice Department, the congress, and the person in the Oval Office. Aren�t the threats made with the intent to make drastic changes in government (removal of First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, along with direct constitutional violations, including much of Articles I, II, III, IV, V, and Article VI)? And, as you know, with all that is being circumvented (essentially done away with), it will not take much to circumvent the Second Amendment.�

The infringement on rights we have seen by past actions of the government is exactly why an American patriot � one who loves and defends his country � should never condone or bow to unconstitutional measures. He should continue to resist right up to the moment of his death. Such are the people who made this country unique and great � not those of the quality now in government.

Besides � logically speaking � if one supports the Constitution and God-given rights, how can this possibly be construed as �unpatriotic?� Conversely, if any persons attempt to remove or circumvent constitutionally secured rights, how can this possibly be construed as �patriotic?� Think about that as you hear or read the ranting of people, such as Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, government controlled media personnel, and � yes � the person placed in the White House not by the people but, instead, by the powers that be.

And, perhaps you will agree � no more negating the Constitution �in the name of Freedom.�