The recent passage of NDAA has caused suspicion for liberty groups as to the intent of the bill with Section 1301 not specifically exempting American citizens from possible incarceration by the military and prosecution by court-martial. A handful of Republicans and Democrats attempted amendments to the bill to correct the language. All of them failed to pass the Senate. Montana has recently launched recall efforts against their representatives who voted for the bill.
Opponents of the legislation are jumping on the recently announced plans by the Los Angeles police department for a “routine training” exercise conducted by military personnel similar to on held in Boston last year (See video below). The brief press release reads:
Los Angeles: Multi-agency tactical exercises are to be conducted during evening hours around the downtown area January 22-26, 2012.
The Los Angeles Police Department will be providing support for a joint military training exercise in and around the great Los Angeles area. This will be routine training conducted by military personnel, designed to ensure the military’s ability to operate in urban environments, prepare forces for upcoming overseas deployments, and meet mandatory training certification requirements.
This training has been coordinated with local authorities and owners of the training sites. The training sites have been carefully selected to ensure the event does not negatively impact the citizens of Los Angeles and their daily routines.
Lastly, safety precautions have been taken to prevent risk to the general public and the military personnel involved.
As such, this training is not open to the public.
Liberty proponents contend that the NDAA makes void the nearly 134-year old Posse Comitatus act passed by Congress on June 18, 1878. Major Craig T. Trebilcock claims that it should not present a significant barrier to utilizing the military in “law enforcement” anyway. He notes, “In the past five years, the erosion of the Posse Comitatus Act has continued with the increasingly common use of military forces as security for essentially civilian events. During the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, over ten thousand U.S. troops were deployed under the partial rationale that they were present to deter terrorism.”
The training exercises in Boston, of course, occurred before NDAA passed and shows that exercises of this sort has been going on for some time.
Even if the exercises have nothing to do with the passage of NDAA with the controversial Section 1301, it certainly should evoke Orwellian images of police looking inside your apartment. This concept was used in the movie Blue Thunder. In the 1983 movie about a high-tech helicopter, the officers were upset when an official call interrupted their viewing of a woman undressing. Ironically, over LA.
I have been following the formation of the Arizona State Guard since I read that Governor Jan Brewer authorized its formation. I support it fully.
As I read the current submitted legislation—SB 1083—I understand the guard to be part State Defense Force and part law enforcement. However, it is under the umbrella of the militia.
Much of the legislation does comply with a Constitutional militia. On lengthier review, however, I find that it uses too much military and not enough militia. I sent my concerns in this area to the Governor and Senator Sylvia Allen.
One concern I have is the use of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Judge Advocate General of the National Guard. It could be that they are trying to avoid the government objections to this project to prevent a law suit similar to that of SB 1070.
It should be remembered that the Second Amendment was added for a very specific reason. 1st, the militia are NOT TROOPS in the sense of Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution.
In Perpich v. DOD of 1990, Mr. Justice Stevens noted, “It is undisputed that Congress was acting pursuant to the Militia Clauses of the Constitution in passing the Dick Act. Moreover, the legislative history of that Act indicates that Congress contemplated that the services of the organized militia would ‘be rendered only upon the soil of the United States or of its Territories.’ H.R.Rep.No. 1094, 57th Cong., 1st Sess., 22 (1902).”
The Dick Act is the act that formed the National Guard. That act was amended in 1908 to include service within and without the territories of the United States. The National Guard takes a dual oath to the United States and the State. When they are “federalized,” they are relieved of duty in the National Guard and a part of the army. It is a complex system which basically eliminates their character as “militia.” The District court rejected the claim of Governor Perpich, “holding that the federal Guard was created pursuant to Congress’ Article I, § 8, power to raise and support armies.” They are a branch of the standing army. Continue reading “On further consideration of SB 1083” »
The Arizona Senate has introduced S.B. 1083 to form the Arizona State Guard after the authorization passed last year. Senate President Pro Tempore Sylvia Allen, and republicans Steve Smith, Gail Griffin, Lori Klein, Al Melvin, Rick Murphy introduced the bill. Republican representative David Gowan and Terri Proud added their names to the legislation.
Title 26-174 subsection A of the Arizona Revise Statute—originally amended to authorize a guard—would be replaced with Subsections A and B to read:
A. An armed force, known as the Arizona state guard, is established for the purpose of securing the safety and protection of the lives and property of the citizens of this state. The intent of the Arizona state guard is to provide a mission-ready volunteer military force for use by this state in homeland security and community service activities as a supplement to the national guard of Arizona and state and local law enforcement agencies. The Arizona state guard exists as part of the militia under article XVI, section 2, Constitution of Arizona, and a defense force under 32 United States Code section 109.
B. The mission of the state guard is:
1. To support this state in securing the border with Mexico and supplement the efforts of law enforcement and state agencies.
2. Augment the national guard.
3. Support county and municipal leaders in combating international criminal activity.
4. Respond to natural and manmade disasters.
5. Search and rescue efforts.
6. Support community activities.
7. Other missions directed by the governor.
There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia.—Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No. 29, Concerning the Militia
In a 2008 article at the RAW Story web site, Craig Johnson, an associate professor at Point Loma Nazarene University, took place in a demonstration against expanding the border fence. He alleged that the border patrol was taking license plate numbers more than a mile away from the border.
Johnson said that he traveled to Mexico about a week after the protest and when he returned, he was handcuffed when his name came up as armed and dangerous.
The ACLU web site has an interactive map display the 100-mile border area which they call “Constitution-Free” zones in which the Department of Homeland Security, apparently, reserves the right to stop and search any vehicles for any reason. They are apparently taking intelligence on American citizens, as well.
Are you ready? Your government wants to know. Why? During Katrina, FEMA was rounding up private food, generators and other items from citizens who stored them becoming guilty of significant Fourth and Ninth Amendment violations of the Bill of Rights. Now the Oath Keepers learned that they spit on the Fourth, again, by targeting the organization that provides foods for emergencies by taking a fishing trip through their records. It is no secret that the Supreme Court has twisted the Fourth Amendment far afield from what the “founding fathers” intended. But, at least, they say that police powers have to have reasonable cause to believe that a crime has been committed to conduct a search. That is why TSA searches are unconstitutional. Wanting to fly is not reasonable cause to believe that a four-year old girl needs to be fondled in public.
Oath Keepers has learned that federal agents recently visited a Latter Day Saints (Mormon) Church food storage cannery in Tennessee, demanding customer lists, wanting to know the identity of Americans who are purchasing food storage from the Mormons.
This incident was confirmed, in person, by Oath Keepers Tennessee Chapter President, Rand Cardwell. Here is Rand’s report:
“A fellow veteran contacted me concerning a new and disturbing development. He had been utilizing a Mormon cannery near his home to purchase bulk food supplies. The man that manages the facility relayed to him that federal agents had visited the facility and demanded a list of individuals that had been purchasing bulk food. The manager informed the agents that the facility kept no such records and that all transactions were conducted on a cash-and-carry basis. The agents pressed for any record of personal checks, credit card transactions, etc., but the manager could provide no such record. The agents appeared to become very agitated and after several minutes of questioning finally left with no information. I contacted the manager and personally confirmed this information.
The Desert Freedom Press Publisher Jennifer Jones was arrested Friday afternoon in the Quartzsite Post Office by Sergeant Xavier Frausto and Police Chief Jeff Gilbert. Jones states that she repeatedly asked them what the charge was, but they refused to tell her. Later, she finally learned that she had been charged with felony witness tampering, over an unsubstantiated allegation made by a woman named Denise Florian.
Florian, who admits to having a drug and alchohol problem moved to Quartzsite over the summer and was almost immediately appointed to the town personnel board to oversee the appeal hearings of the Quartzsite police officers wrongfully terminated over the summer. She was subsequently appointed to the town Health and Development Board which then made recommendations to the council about how much money to give the Senior Center, Museum, and Chamber of Commerce.
Americans completely stripped of all rights under Section 1031
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Friday, December 2, 2011
The Senate last night codified into law the power of the U.S. military to indefinitely detain an American citizen with no charge, no trial and no oversight whatsoever with the passage of S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act.
One amendment that would have specifically blocked the measures from being used against U.S. citizens was voted down and the final bill was passed 93-7.
Another amendment introduced by Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein that attempted to bar the provision from being used on American soil, an effort to ensure “the military won’t be roaming our streets looking for suspected terrorists,” also failed, although Feinstein voted in favor of the bill anyway.
Fellow entrepreneurs, Americans, anyone who still cares about this country at all — this is a must read: By the end of this week, the US government very likely will have the power to lock up US citizens for life at Guantanamo Bay or other military prisons — without charge and without trial. This means that, in the near future, a controversial Twitter post, attending a peaceful protest, or publishing an anti-Congress critique or anti-TSA rant on Google+ could land you “indefinite detention” for life, in the wording of the bill. No access to a lawyer, no access to trial.
Yes, you read that right. This would target American citizens, on American soil. Military personnel would be able to come into your house like something out of a Tom Clancy novel and chopper your innocent self down to Guantanamo Bay for life.
The question in the political arena, today, seems to be whether or not Ron Paul is “electable” in his occupy White House campaign. Let us examine the mechanics of an election in our Republic.
During an election, people are supposed to cast a ballot for whom they consider the best candidate for the job of President. The people are you. If you can look beyond political partisanship, as George Washington suggested, and are not dependent on welfare, corporate bailouts, “green” technology handouts to build wind generators that destroy wildlife and are not part of the Federal Reserve system, you might want to vote for him. So you go in and cast your ballot marking the block for Ron Paul.
In an election, if Ron Paul receives a whole lot of votes—preferably more than the opponents—he is electable. If more of the people on the above list vote than thinking people, then he will not receive more votes than his opponent and will be unelectable.
Go figure.
The caveat, of course, is the Electoral College—a group of individuals who do not have to cast their ballots in the manner that the popular vote dictates. If they decide to vote their own way against him, again he is unelectable. Most seem to forget that the Electoral College still exists and they can vote anyway they desire. If the Federal Reserve doesn’t want him elected, it’s a simple matter to buy off those voters.
WILLIAMS, AZ—Constitution Day is September 17th–a day to celebrate the ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America. Including the Bill of Rights which were ratified some months later. There were no fireworks, of course, over Washington and the United Nations building where the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are viewed with disdain.
There were fireworks on September 17th over the City of Williams in Arizona. In July, the fireworks are usually cancelled on Independence Day because of the dryness of the season and illegal dictates of the unconstitutional “National Forest Service.” It was good to see a thirty-minute display on the day that we celebrate the ratification of the “Law of the Land.”
On this occasion, we note that it is the law of the land and any laws that conflict with it are called “Unconstitutional” and do not have to be obeyed. After all, in Massachusetts, Federalist letters signed by Cassius (attributed to James Sullivan) expressed the opinion that:
You certainly cannot harbour an idea so derogatory to reason and the nature of things, as that men, who, for eight years, have fought and struggled, to obtain and secure to you freedom and independence, should now be engaged in a design to subvert your liberties and reduce you to a state of servitude. Reason revolts at the thought, … and none but the infamous incendiary, or the unprincipled monster, would insinuate a thing so vile.
Manassas, VA --(Ammoland.com)- On August 24, 2011, federal agents of the Fish and Wildlife Service raided offices and production facilities of the Gibson Guitar company.
They sent workers home and confiscated several pallets of wood along with computer files and numerous guitars (amounting to about $2 million in lost production and property).
This was the second raid on Gibson in as many years over questions about some of the wood the legendary guitar makers use in their products. The timing of the latest raid is convenient for the government as they are currently trying to convince a federal judge to indefinitely delay a lawsuit from Gibson demanding the return of some half-million dollars worth of ebony wood seized by federal agents back in 2009. No charges have ever been filed against the company regarding that raid, but the government has continued to refuse to return the seized wood which they suspected might have been illegally harvested in Madagascar.
The object of the August 24 raid appears to have been wood imported from India. Gibson says that they have been extra careful to document all of the wood they import since the 2009 federal assault and that the particular wood in question was acquired from a supplier certified by the Forrest Stewardship Council, an environmental organization set up to protect endangered trees by identifying legally harvested wood and closing markets to illegally cut products. The particular wood in question was purchased and imported from India with an extensive paper-trail from the Indian government and the US Customs Service. According to Gibson, the Fish and Wildlife Service is claiming that the wood violates an Indian requirement that wood exported from the country must be processed to a certain degree by Indian craftsmen prior to export. Gibson says this requirement was either met or waived by the Indian government as demonstrated by India’s export authorizations. The Indian government did not sanction or participate in the August raid.
The filming of government officials while on duty is protected by the First Amendment, said the Court
The First Circuit Court of Appeals reached a crucial decision last Friday allowing the public to videotape police officers while they’re on the clock.
The decision comes after a string of incidents where individuals have videotaped police officers and were arrested. Police officers across the United States believed citizens didn’t have the right to videotape them as they conducted official duties, but issues like police brutality put the issue up for debate.
One instance where a citizen was arrested for videotaping an officer was when Khaliah Fitchette, a law-abiding teenager from New Jersey, boarded a bus in Newark. Two police officers boarded the bus as well to remove a drunken man. Fitchette began taping the police officers because of how they were handling the man, and a police officer instructed her to stop recording them. When Fitchette refused, she was arrested and placed in the back of a cop car for two hours while the officers took her phone to delete the video. Fitchette was then released, but she and her mother then filed suit against the Newark Police Department with the New Jersey chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
Another example involves Simon Glik, a passerby on the Boston Common. He used his cell phone to tape police officers when the Boston police were punching a man. Citizens surrounding the scene were saying, “You’re hurting him.” Glik never interfered with the police officers’ actions, but recorded the entire incident. The police officers ended up charging Glik with violating a wiretap statute that prohibits secret recording, even though the police officers admitted that they knew Glik was recording them. He was also charged with disturbing the peace and aiding the escape of a prisoner.
QUARTZSITE, AZ—Saturday’s Quartzsite Liberty Festival made its mark on Quartzsite Saturday as planned, despite temperatures of 114 to 117 degrees.
The rally was arranged to protest the actions of the town’s council and police chief, most conspicuously the treatment of Quartzsite police officers who were suspended or fired in what the protestors say was retaliation for bringing formal allegations against Chief Jeff Gilbert.
Marchers chanted “Quartzsite Ten, oath-keeping men” as they walked over 2.5 miles from an RV park south of I-10, over the freeway bridge and along the streets of Quartzsite to Town Hall.
Several politically active groups were in attendance, including Oath Keepers, the Tea Party Patriots, the Sons of Liberty Riders and campaigners for Ron Paul for President 2012.
Many attendees carried flags, banners and signs. Some were armed with pistols or rifles, and cameras of all sorts. Law enforcement and other authorities were largely absent from the demonstration.
When first I began this intellectual exercise, I did not anticipate being deluged by information concerning the topic. Particularly recent SCOTUS decisions. On June 16th, the SCOTUS returned their surprising decision in the case of Carol Anne Bond v. United States (564 U.S.______(2011)). This case seems to be a significant departure in the thought of the Supreme Court of the United States, as I read it. We will explore that later in this article.
The main purpose for the addition of these few introductory lines is simply to let you know that I will endeavor to be as accurate and coherent as possible for the purposes of this article despite this deluge. Yet mistakes may creep in. In addition, I continue to caution that I am not a lawyer, but a scholar seeking some truth to this particular Constitutional division of power.
In this article I reference the USC or United States Code. The USC is the actual book of federal laws as passed by Congress. These are not to be confused with the Federal Register which is a list of “regulations” or “laws” set forth by people whom you did not vote for. These are usually based on the desires of corporate entities. Sounds somewhat “undemocratic” for such a “democratic” society.
February 22, 2012 1732 George Washington 1857 Lord Baden Powell 1926 Kenneth Williams 1928 Bruce Forsyth 1933 Sheila Hancock 1933 The Duchess of Kent 1949 Niki Lauda 1950 Julie Walters 1974 Drew Barrymore
Have a question concerning the Constitution and your rights? You can try our U.S. Succinct Court Office.. WE ARE NOT LAWYERS and we CANNOT GIVE ADVISE on any case that may be pending for or against you. We can, however, provide links to resources that might answer your questions. Feel free to use our Contact Form.
The Constitutional Republic Party web site is NOT a non-profit organization for tax purposes. We do not provide candidates for office, but we support candidates with Constitutional views. Our current purpose is to provide education about the true purpose of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and other historic documents. We do provide information and news which may have an impact on your Constitutional rights.
We will publish almost any, intelligent articles and opinions that do not contain cursing and do not advocate physical violence against an individual or group of individuals---even if they are belligerent. Those opinions expressed and comments in reply to such opinions are solely those of the authors.
Loading ...
