1) The Legislative Branch has neglected its Constitutional authority to enact Legislation and specify consequences as outlined in Article 1 Section 7 of the US Constitution, which requires all laws, rules, and regulations to pass both Houses of Congress and be signed by the President, or pass both houses by 2/3 majority to override a Presidential veto to become law:
a) The Legislative Branch has allowed passage and enforcement of pseudo-laws by regulation within the Executive Branch and court decision. Therefore, all so-called laws, rules and regulations created by executive office or agency administrators and/or court ruling by definition cannot be deemed law of the land, and in fact and reality, subjects the Country to acts of false laws.
This grievance focuses on the use of Federal agencies and Judicial rulings to create de-facto laws. These two paths currently utilized to bypass Legislative responsibility and impose regulations upon the citizenry without direct votes or even knowledge of their passing. Each area will be discussed in their own section, with brief discussion linking the explanation to the examples.
The use of agencies as a proxy for proper Legislation represents a couple of Constitutional violations. It violates the premise of Separation of Powers embedded within the Constitution and the requirement that the laws be passed according to Article 1. A common retort is that the agency was created by Legislation, which then all regulations are “ok” or face occasional review. But this slight-of-hand trades indirect concurrence with legislative responsibility. The retort also implicitly accepts the violation for Separation of powers as those agencies are placed under the Executive Branch. Another retort is that the agencies cannot pass criminal penalties, so Legislation is not needed. This retort also accepts the breech of Separation of Powers and ignores the Legislative prescribed manner in which ALL laws, not just criminal, must be passed. This includes the non-judicial legislation for intrastate commerce, raising and sustainment of military units, and other provisions within Article 1. Both retorts accept Constitutional violations as acceptable and rely upon a general lack of knowledge of the prescriptions of Article 1 while establishing a pseudo-legal order outside of the legitimate constitutional government and use this illegitimate order to push agendas that are politically untenable upon the populace. The EPA has been used to push environmental agendas using the “Clean Air Act” to set expansive regulations without Congressional legislative action. The Affordable Care Act, or “Obamacare,” sets health industry regulations arbitrarily or through Executive Order without Congress. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) sets arbitrary regulations without regard to restrictions to ex post facto that are enforced at the borders (international trade) and interstate levels without legislation or Constitutional authority to do so, restricting the rights recognized by the Second Amendment. This is adequate to provide the contextual basis for the use of governmental agencies to circumvent Legislative responsibility and Constitutional Requirements.
Judicial action being treated as law relates to the extension of a ruling to fit political aims. This is generally embodied as a ruling on a particular case being called and acted as “law of the land” when in fact it was an opinion on a court case. A process based on the judicial heritage and Constitutional limitations is required to preserve the distinction between law and judicial opinion. The proper process starts when a case relating to a law and particular circumstances is brought before a judge. The judge weighs the merits of the case and related local, state, and Federal laws. The judge then issues an opinion on the case based on the circumstances and the laws. The opinion only relates to that case. If it is a Constitutional question, then the application of the Constitution reflects only on the case and the circumstances of it. Assuming the Constitutional question is ruled as correct, then the law ruled unconstitutional in that case is questionable. The Legislative and/or Executive responsible for the law in question can then review the opinion and determine if the law should be altered or removed. If they decide to do so, they are agreeing with the court opinion on the case. If not, the responsible government is effectively questioning the opinion as not applicable to the law. This is the proper mechanism to check the capacity of the judicial to create binding rules and laws without passage in Congress. When this process is not followed, judicial rulings take on a political nature and effect legal consequences without recourse. This violates due process within the 14th Amendment. It also removes Representation of the populace by placing political and legal power in non-representative parties, violating the Separation of Powers. This is clearly seen in the latest ruling by the Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges which was hailed as a rejection of all categorically similar bans and created an environment where clerks claiming refusal due to conscience are jailed for not following a judicial opinion.
- EPA pushing “Clean Air Act” extensions that impact industry
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) regulations that impact every US Citizen which are set by Health and Human Services (HHS)
- Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) arbitrary rulings based on “sporting purposes” or arbitrary decisions on law applicability without clear distinction.
- Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges which added to the meaning of Due Process (Fifth Amendment) and the Equal Protection Clause (Fourteenth Amendment) which deal with criminal courts and loss of rights due to felonious proceedings and not inalienable rights nor personal choice.
1) The Legislative Branch has neglected its Constitutional authority to enact Legislation and specify consequences as outlined in Article 1 Section 7 of the US Constitution, which requires all laws, rules, and regulations to pass both Houses of Congress and be signed by the President, or pass both houses by 2/3 majority to override a Presidential veto to become law:
b) The Legislative Branch has abused rules and conventions intended for good order to pass or substantially change laws outside the Constitutional mandate as stated in Article I, Section 7.
Discussion and meetings between the Houses is an important aspect of the Legislative process to ensure the best possible legislation is passed. While this process can be used to create poor legislation, this grievance is specific to the use of the rules to change laws and regulations substantially in order to provide Legislative cover for the law. The most egregious of this is the Affordable Care Act, which utilized the framework of a law passed by the House, but changed the text in totality before being passed in the Senate. There was no second vote in the House to approve the substantial changes. Congressional rules allow for changes but do not specify what “substantial” means. Part of the definition of substantial is, in part, “basic or essential; fundamental; relating to the substance matter or material of a thing; existing as or being a substance.” Changing the complete text clearly violates this definition and requires the House vote on the new bill. The House, instead, deemed the ACA as “passed” to avoid the expected failure in the House. The bill was then sent to the President, who signed the bill without regard to the use of procedure to circumvent rules intended for good order to deprive the populace of Representation within the House.
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA)
2) The Legislative Branch has neglected its Constitutional duty to censure, impeach and remove those who violate the Constitution and the Law of this Land. Due to this neglect, the Executive Branch, its Agencies, and Judiciary decisions have usurped lawmaking authority and executed unconstitutional penalties upon the people. These abuses and derelictions violate Article 1 Section 2 Clause 5, Article 1 Section 3 Clause 6 & 7, Article 1 Section 7, Article 1 Section 8, and Article 2 Section 4 altogether.
The Constitution sets up a series of checks and balances between the Branches. Congress has the power to impeach the President and Justices to remove them from office. It also retains the capability to expel members who are derelict in their duty. Dereliction is considered violating their Oath of Office, which has in part an oath to the Constitution as required in Article VI. Violating a legal oath is perjury, which is a serious offense in the context of governing a country or in cases where a miscarriage of justice will result. Congress itself fails its Oath when it does not provide prompt appropriate punishment for government officials who usurp the separations of powers. This includes members of Congress declaring Constitutional articles as illegitimate or working to overthrow the Constitution or its provisions regarding the rights of the people. Congressional review is necessary and appropriate when the President fails to uphold the law, including the Constitution, and when a judge goes beyond the law or proscribes law outside their duties. Congress should assign punishment when appropriate, including removal from office. Congress must follow Rule of Law, just as every Executive and Judiciary member. Congressional failure to do this works directly against the Constitution, which is the embodiment of the Supreme Law and Government of the United States. By definition, this also describes an act of treason by undermining the just and legal government, which provides support to those who would overthrow it.
3) The Legislative branch has ignored the Constitutional restraint on Federal Government in purchasing, procuring, and seizing lands for purposes outside of provision for national war-making and defensive purposes as outlined in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution.
The Legislative Branch has passed legislation to allocate and purchase land for the place of government (the District of Columbia) and for lands for the erection of forts, magazines (ammunition storage), arsenals (weapons storage), dock-yards, and other needful buildings. This allows the government to procure land and build structures for governance and proper defense. However, Congress has also purchased lands for parks and non-necessary buildings in violation of this clause. The Constitution is written as a restrictive Constitution, which is clearly annotated in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. This means whatever is not explicitly stated is prohibited from governmental control or action. In the case of National Park lands, there is no military or governance needfulness for these lands. As such, those lands should have been turned over to their respective States for use within the State or disbursement and sale to its citizens. Government retention of these lands is in violation of Constitutional limitations and must be released from Federal control.
4) Legislative Branch has empowered the Executive Branch through civil forfeiture laws to seize monies and private property without due process. Forfeiture laws violate citizen’s rights to trial, private property, and unreasonable seizure recognized by Amendment 4, Amendment 5, and Amendment 8 as fundamental principles of free government.
Civil Forfeiture allows the government to confiscate property based on suspicion only. While the original intent might have been to target organized crime, the law is used in multiple ways to forfeit personal property without a warrant, charges, or conviction. Property that has been seized can only be recovered through a lengthy legal process, often worth more than the goods seized without due process. Probable suspicion in this case can be as little as the person carrying a “substantial” amount of cash. The definition of “substantial” is not clear which allows a rent payment to be seized with no real recourse by the individual. This law has been used to seize firearms, vehicles, private property, and money only on the claimed suspicion of law enforcement. Those impacted have had lengthy processes to retrieve their property and had personal damages due to the seizure that are not reimbursed. Often the legal battle is too much of a financial burden, leaving the victimized citizens deprived of property with no real way to recover what was seized.
5) Legislative branch has imperiled the proper, safe and natural defense of a Free State by permitting the Executive branch to execute, without Legislative Constraint, the use of War powers. These include the power to declare, instigate and initiate military aggression at its discretion. The Legislature allows the expenditure of funds for the purposes of invasion, attack or defense through military means without Declaration of War or Letters of Marque and Reprisal. This violates the vested Legislative power through Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11.
The requirement of Congressional approval to declare war or use Letters of Marquee ensures a President cannot engage in military actions solely of their choosing. This is required, even if a treaty has been signed, in order to safeguard against foolish military entanglements. The use of US military forces against the forces of or within a sovereign country without the country’s permission should require a Declaration of War. The use of US forces to invade Iraq, for example, should have required a Declaration of War and specific allocations and directions by Congress related to the seizure of land from the Iraqi government. This was not done as the action was deemed “under the war powers act” without specific declaration. There is no check against Executive overreach if the President can order attacks on foreign countries and their territories without a reasonable, emergent cause. The prohibition against action would include the use of any armed forces or military equipment in the manner to disrupt a sovereign state.
- Invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan
- Air operations against ISIS within Syria without approval from the sovereign Syrian government
6) Legislative branch has neglected its constitutional duty to provide for the speedy trial of the accused through a lack of judges and courts. This scarcity causes undue delay and strips due process for an accused to be tried in order to prove or absolve guilt in a crime. Lack of speedy trials violates Amendment 6 and Amendment 8 and provides further injustice to the injured parties.
The Legislative provides funds for the support of the legal system, including judges, courthouses, and all the supporting structure for the preservation of a just legal system. When the system is working properly, someone accused of a crime can have a trail within a short period of time (within a year) to force the legal system to prove their accusation. Unfortunately, many court dates take years to bring to the courts due to an insufficient court system. The fault lies with the Legislature’s failure to provide sufficient resources for the collection and analysis of evidence, insufficient judges per capita, and other necessary, but improperly managed, legal necessities. This forces an innocent person to suffer long term effects of being accused of a crime with no recourse to remove that charge until the court date. They might suffer financial difficulties, legal hardships, and loss of reputation for which the Federal Court System does not, or cannot, issue compensation.
7) Legislative branch has created novel and non-Constitutional departments and organizations under the Executive Branch in violation of Article 1 Section 8.
A distinction must be made first. The creation of non-regulatory bodies to aid the Executive is not unconstitutional. The non-Constitutional departments have regulatory powers, their own judicial system requiring the accused to prove their innocence to the body that is charging them, and/or the ability to suspend rights without due process. These regulations directly impact individuals even though the Constitution specifies the Federal government is to work with the States on State level issues. The impact of these bodies is plainly evident. News reports of individuals having to fight bodies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in their own courts to avoid fines provide clear evidence of the degradation of the separation of powers. Constitutional rights of Due Process and Trial by Jury are not protected within these agencies. These agencies can act without the consent of Representation within Congress and the Judiciary.
Further compounding this egregious over-reach is the fact that Congress does not even have the power to create such bodies. These bodies should not exist within the Constitutional framework. Their existence threatens the construct of divided and balanced power between the Branches to provide the necessary checks and balances. The damage each Agency can and does accomplish has no legal or representative recourse available other than dissolution of the Agency and the arrest of responsible parties. Congress continually turns a blind eye to the overreach because it provides useful political cover in the event of a catastrophe. Congress must adhere to its Oath of Office and remove these unconstitutional agencies from the Federal Government immediately.
See this HUGE list of Agencies
From the list:
- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
- Department of Education
- Department of the Interior
1) The Judicial Branch has failed to declare null and void all decisions and laws incompatible with the Constitution, correct erroneous rulings that result in loss of Constitutional rights of Individuals and States, and interpret law and rule to maintain Constitutional restraints and limitations on all governmental branches and agencies. It is necessary for the Rule of Law that the Judiciary act not only to rule equitably, but also to ensure that itself maintains that equity to avoid the failure of due process and equal treatment under the law. The Judiciary violates Article 3, Section 1 and Section 2.
This grievance covers a wide array of law, regulation, and judicial discipline. The essence, however, is simple- the Judiciary is empowered to ensure the Rule of Law and the adherence to the Constitution, as Supreme Law of the Land, is maintained in all aspects. The practice of this empowering is, however, very complex as it touches all aspects of the operation of a constitutionally limited, representative Republic.
This means that any Judicial ruling that is contrary to the Constitution, either clearly within the ruling or after review, should be nullified by the higher courts without a request for review. It is time consuming to do so. It is, however, necessary to ensure the rights of individuals and States are not slowly stripped away through negligence. The Judiciary system is set up with the premise of precedent, where the rulings before influence rulings that follow. Lack of proper judicial discipline allows poor judgements to be perpetuated until a stronger precedent is set. Often this is years in the making, creating a wake of marginalized rights and bad laws. This corrupts the Rule of Law by allowing the Law to drift away from its source and purpose and undercutting the confidence in the Justice provided by the system.
This also extends to laws passed by Congress and any regulations provided by bodies within either the Executive and Legislative branches. These are especially broad and lengthy with some major laws as of late being in the thousands of pages. Laws are passed generally on a frequent basis and sometimes would exclude the ability of the Judiciary to look at all aspects. If there was proper judicial discipline, the laws would be challenged and overturned with a fairly frequent regularity and this would not pose a problem. The inability of the Judicial System in processing what cases it does receive currently precludes proper review, compounding the lack of discipline and Rule of Law.
This grievance also addresses the lack of the Judiciary to declare the rulings and regulations generated without representation by Executive agencies and departments as void. The separation of powers is a unique stance within the Constitution and one that has provided remarkable stability. That stability is threatened when the Executive (or any branch) has the capability to generate its own legally binding rules, regulations and laws and then carry out those regulations with itself as the arbiter of violations. This is identical to the conditions the Colonies found themselves with the British Crown in the late 1700’s. These violations should be countered early by the Judiciary, but have not been properly countered so that the errors have compounded and Rule of Law is weakened.
2) Judicial Branch has extended its rulings to exceed the merit of the case thereby causing Judicial alterations to properly passed law. These changes are reflected in Executive enforcement of the rulings as with “Force of Law.” These changes are without Legislative and Executive Branch involvement, which is in violation of Constitutional Separation of Powers enumerated in Articles 1, 2 and 3.
This grievance might sound a little odd to many, but it is an important one. The base decision on whether the application or content of a law is Constitutional can only rule that it was or was not unconstitutional. The means that a judge cannot find a law unconstitutional in a situation not covered by the case or that it is unconstitutional as a whole. For an example, it is permissible to forbid possession of arms to felons because of their felony convictions, but it is not permissible to forbid possession by race, creed or gender. These would be considerations taking into account the law and its application. The problem faced is that the law might stipulate a condition, and the judicial ruling includes additions or subtractions not listed within the law. Sometimes these stipulations come in from outside sources, personal opinions, and even foreign laws and cases not even applicable within the United States. The source isn’t really relevant as the ruling creates a de-facto addition or subtraction from the law. This adds uncertainty to the law itself, plus creates additional factors within the law that were not passed by Congress. A law might be fairly clear as written. But the judicial system changes the law in an ad hoc and unconstitutional manner at the ruling. It undercuts the limitations inherent within the Constitution as well as the Rule of Law and Justice.
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA)
3) The Judicial Branch is neglecting its Constitutional Duty by incorporating laws foreign to the Law of the Land, substandard regulations, and personal opinion in the Judicial Record and in Judicial Opinion. This violates Article 3, Section 2 and also Article 6, Paragraph 2, which states “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 Judges in every State shall be bound to the Constitution and laws of the United States.
Judicial rulings are predicated on the laws of the land. According to the Constitutional requirements for the Judicial Branch, the Law means the Constitution, followed by legislation and then treaties. It is a violation of the Constitutional requirements to utilize the laws of foreign countries, unratified treaties, and personal opinion or whim. The reason for this limitation is not because there might not be value in judicial discourse or personal experience. It is an issue of the Supremacy of the Constitution and the instituted processes, namely the Rule of Law. Any law that can be altered by Judicial ruling based on foreign or non-legal sources weakens the ability of the proper laws to govern.
Unfortunately, the ability for judges to use foreign laws as justification for legal precedence has been unimpeded. Furthermore, rulings based on the judge’s personal opinions have set precedents that have sweeping ramifications. Rulings such as these should result in the appropriate Legislative branch (if the court is a state court) moving to impeach the offending judge. It should also result in the next higher court to intervene and overturn the erroneous ruling. In this way, both the unfaithful judge and their inappropriate ruling are both removed from the judicial process to ensure the Judicial Branch retains the faith of the people and the Rule of Law.
1) The Executive Branch has neglected to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” in violation of Article 2, Section 3.
The President, as Chief Executive, swears that they will “…preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” and are bound that “…shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This means the President must first adhere to the Supreme Law, the Constitution, and ensure it and all subordinate laws are kept. There is no provision for laws the President does not agree with or thinks is unconstitutional. The President is bound by oath to preserve the Constitution which requires the President to uphold all laws. If the law is unconstitutional, bring it before the Supreme Court for review or veto, using the powers already provided within the Constitution. The use of signing statements to declare a lack of enactment of a law undercuts the Legislative Branch’s authority and does not exercise proper Presidential powers. The President sets the tone for the Rule of Law by enforcing all laws equally and seeking to nullify any laws that are unconstitutional or unnecessary. Presidents that do not uphold all laws undercut their authority and create conditions that reduce the Rule of Law. When Rule of Law is compromised, unjust laws increase and the opportunity for justice decreases. In general, behavior of the populace will become less restrained when the application of Law is subjective and open to interpretation.
- Executive Orders that mandate the lack of enforcement of passed law without a corresponding Judicial ruling
- Writing statements on passed laws that indicate a lack of enforcement or altering the meaning of the law
2) Executive and Legislative Branches established the Federal Reserve and have failed to protect value of currency by purchasing debt-based funds through the private Federal Bank. This financial maneuver has destabilized the national currency to the detriment of commerce and funds the General Government outside of Constitutional Limitations found in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 2 and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7.
This grievance primarily is within the Executive branch through the operation of the financial systems within the US. The Federal Reserve is an executive agency with the sole purpose of adjusting the monetary system to ensure a stable currency. This agency, however, directly establishes the accepted value of the dollar through adjustment of interest rates and loan strategies within the banking system. The only branch given the power to set the value of currency is the Legislature in Article 1, Section 8 where it specifies “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof,” as a power of the Legislature. This power was separated because the executive branch can cause untold damage with the ability to regulate the value of currency. It also creates the likelihood of erratic prices and/or economic conditions. An Executive with the ability to regulate funds can also cause economic collapses to incentivize consolidation of power.
The Federal Reserve gives preferential treatment to the private Federal Bank entity. This private entity has no oversight and provides a significant source of loans for the Federal government. These direct connections circumvent Congressional control of the appropriation of funds by providing debt-derived monies for Federal use.
The current Federal Reserve has not been able to stabilize the economy in the long term as evidenced by the regular economic collapses and contractions that are linked with interest rate and banking preferences.
The monies required to keep the Federal government operating while the debt ceiling is maxed illustrates how the interaction between Federal Reserve and the Federal Bank covers up the appropriations issues without oversight.
3) Executive branch has appointed consul to the President without authorization from the Legislative Branch in violation of Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2.
There are legitimate consuls to the President as specified by the Constitution and law through the Cabinet. However, the appointment of oft named “czars” outside of the legitimate Cabinet violates the Constitution by placing advisers with rule and policy setting capacity in positions not authorized by law. The Cabinet originally was related to Constitutional duties of the Executive Branch. That has since expanded through laws passed through Congress. The Executive Branch’s establishment of “czars” for areas outside those created by law expands the Executive unconstitutionally. These advisers have received official duties, titles, offices and staff paid for through the executive branch. Their positions are approved by confirming the appropriation request within the budget by a complicit Congress, eager to gain power the next time their party owns the Executive Office. The use of Executive appointment to create agencies and official positions unilaterally adds to the extra-constitutional Executive powers, usurping the rights of the Congress, States, and people. These advisers are not answerable to the populace, which damages the ability of the people to exercise their rights.
For clarity, the word “czar” is written as “tsar” in Anglicized Russian and means “king” or “emperor.” This is often how the “adviser” acts, without requiring an answer to Congress or the American people for their actions.
4) Executive Branch for assuming unconstitutionally delegated powers from the Legislative Branch to seize, devalue, or cause monetary or other harm to assets and property without due process of law through civil forfeiture. Executive Branch liquidates such seizures prior to release of the person in court, further depriving the individual of their property without just compensation. This is in violation of Amendment 5 and Amendment 8.
The Constitution is designed as the functions and limits of the Federal government and requires each branch police the other two branches to ensure power is not consolidated. However, human nature and history shows that people in political positions rarely reject the reins of power when handed to them. Often it has the best of intentions and is written in a wholly positive light. The end result, however, is usurpation of the rights of the States and citizens with expansion of the power retained within the Executive Branch. The majority of the blame for the Civil Forfeiture laws resides in the Legislative branch. However, the Executive seems to have ignored the peril Civil Forfeiture embodies and uses civil forfeiture for whatever means it deems. This concept has spread from just confiscating the property of suspected, but not convicted, drug dealers to the IRS using the same net to unilaterally confiscate money deposited in banks from innocent people and never charging them with a crime. Often the cost to recover the confiscated property exceeds its worth. It often takes years, and at the end of the ordeal, the property is repaid at a reduced and non-inflation adjusted rate, if at all. The property of all citizens is theirs to do with as they please and the government cannot seize it without proper cause or due process. Seizing property outside of due process injures the individual as they are unable to recover their goods or clear their reputation. It attacks the essence of their life both in reputation, which is hard to earn, and property, which they spent their time and talents acquiring. The Executive branch bears the blame for using an illegitimate power as if it was proper and must cease this overreach of their ability to confiscate property without due process.
1) Adherence to, and defense of, the Rule of Law as an essential principle of the Republic of the United States of America. All Branches have failed to uphold the obligation of the Oath of Office according to Article 6, Clause 3 to support the whole of the Constitution. This oath is violated when Legislators, Judiciary, and the Executive have spoken, funded efforts against, and worked to subvert Constitutional Rights and Limitations.
This grievance is fairly clear. Article 6 Clause 3 includes the words:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;”
This oath is undercut when those who take it work to remove key provisions. There are reasons to adapt and modify, but recognized rights such as speech and the bearing of arms require no adaptation as they represent natural rights. They are inalienable and thus their mention in the Constitution is a prohibition against modification of the rights of the citizens. This Oath is violated members of the Legislature, Executive, or Judicial publically decry a right or a prohibition of the Constitution put in place to limit the power of the Republic. They seek to strip public support and nullify those provisions they find distasteful, “archaic”, or otherwise bothersome. The oath is also violated when they create and/or affirm unconstitutional overreach and extension of powers not granted to them by the States. Even if the speech and its patron is of good standing, it is the speech and work of tyranny. This oath is also violated when the Executive refuses to execute Constitutional laws of the Legislature or to bring them to task for said violations.
The Judicial has an obligation to review the laws put in place to ensure the citizenry is properly protected against unconstitutional rules and laws. It has violated its oath by ignoring the misapplication of laws, precedent, and opinion in the replacement of Constitutional standing. This oath is violated in spirit, if not the letter, when the Judiciary finds a lack of standing in clear cases or narrows the standing for a particular case so small as to prevent the likelihood of any case withstanding any scrutiny.
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. It is not likely that an occupant of an office within the General Government will follow lesser laws if they will not follow the Supreme Law of the land. They diminish the Rule of Law by providing examples of corruption for the populace to follow and despise. This leads them to question the government and its actors as a whole, bringing conflict and unrest to an otherwise peaceful country.
2) Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches for exceeding the Legislative authority to regulate interstate and international commerce by imposing restrictions and bans on personal and intrastate commerce. These usurpations extend to decisions to refrain from commerce. General Government is in violation of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3; Article 1, Section 9, Clause 5; Amendment 9; and Amendment 10.
Constitutional provision for governmental control of trade is for the interstate (between states) and international arenas only. This was to keep the peace between states after the Articles of Confederation did not address these issues, which had become a serious point of conflict between the States. The focus on interstate trade is apparent as the Legislature sets the value of currency, the standards for weights and measures, and regulation of commerce between sovereign bodies. Extension into the internal workings of a state or to the individual was not part of the Republic’s purview as specified within the Constitution. The empowerment for setting standards and commerce regulation clearly extend only in keeping the trading process orderly. It doesn’t extend to regulating options and the choices for individuals or altering the workings within a state. The Revolution was started in part by England regulating the trade of the colonies to only England. It would have not been an objective of the Constitution for a similar power to be given to the Republic where economic choice is limited at the behest of the central government. It is not regulation of commerce when a particular good is excluded, included, or when the choice to engage in commerce is specified from the General Government. It is the selection of what property the people can possess, and ultimately impacts the remainder of the rights of the individual. This can be seen by the limitations of purchasing to empower a particular speech, enabling access to private communications through encryption back doors, or limiting the arms available to the populace to preserve an imbalance. All of these were seen to greater and lesser degrees prior to the Constitution, and represent an unlawful appropriation of power within the General Government.
Supreme Court ruling on Wickard v. Filburn where it was ruled that the Commerce Clause allowed the Federal Government to regulate the use of private land for personal production of wheat, forcing the purchase of wheat for personal use even if wheat was what the land actually grew. This effectively allows the use of the argument that any decision or private property use influences in some way a market and can be regulated by the Federal Government. The essence is the loss of private property rights and private choice.
3) The Legislative Body has passed laws that have stripped citizens of their right to proper self-defense against all tyranny, including prohibiting arms to the people equivalent to those issued to the Executive agencies’ militarized police forces. The Judicial has failed to rule as unconstitutional any laws that deprive citizens of the full exercise of their right to bear arms. These arrogations are in clear violation of the 2nd Amendment provision “right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” and in violation of Article 1, Section 8.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution has been the subject of many laws, debates, court cases and continues to create discussion as to the purpose of arms. The purpose of the Amendment and the context surrounding it are critical to understanding its role in society. Historically the amendment was created to protect the rights of the individual as part of the Bill of Rights. The preamble to the Bill of Rights starts with:
“The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”
The preamble makes it clear that the reason for the Bill of Rights was not to limit the individual or State but the Federal government. This significant clarification indicates that these are rights that are recognized by, but not created from, the federal government. The adopted 10th Amendment states:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
This leaves one with the question of whether this is the right of a State or an individual. The Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 recognized the individual right to own arms for self-defense. Furthermore, Article 1, Section 10 expressly prohibits states from keeping troops, with the limit for military force for the state being the militia. The term militia has several uses, but the one clearly intended is in response to uprising or invasion where the populace is pressed into service in repelling the assault. This conclusion was pointed out in the majority brief in District of Columbia v. Heller and referenced the constitutional amendments and conditions in the states around the same time. The logical conclusion is the right to maintain arms is an individual right, as specified in the Amendment with the phrase “…the right of the people.” The conclusion has to be an individual right, so the discussion pivots to the question of what types of arms are permissible in the exercising of that right.
A common disparagement among “gun control” advocates is that “arms” is limited to late 18th century arms, namely muskets. Historians note that the precursors to modern weapons existed at that time, including crude “automatic” weapons through the use of pre-loaded black powder cartridges. Furthermore the term “arms” is ambiguous and to take it as a specific weapon is flawed. One only has to look at the First Amendment to draw similarly absurd arguments. No one requires the press to use manual printing presses, quill pens or inkwells. Religious institutions are not validated on whether they use the English common to early America or dress accordingly. There are no requirements that search and seizure apply only to saddle bags and hard papers. These are all absurd, and any extension to the ownership and bearing of arms to the type of arms available at the period is logically void.
Very soon after Ratification, the second Militia Act of 1792 was passed. It provides context for the Second Amendment as it deals specifically with the requirements of the militia in the bearing of arms. Specifically, it requires every male of military age from 18-45:
“…shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder;…”
It is important to note that this is very similar to the equipment carried by the regular army. The modern equivalent would likely mention a rifle very similar to the M4 (derivative of the M-16), a quantity of ammunition and magazines totaling around 270 rounds, a rucksack, grenades, etc. This act was passed by many of the Founders and their compatriots less than five years after drafting the Constitution. They understood what they intended with the Bill of Rights and its 4th Amendment (which became the Second Amendment at its ratification). They clearly intended that the right protected the oft maligned “weapons of war” in order to ensure peace and the common defense.
The protection in right to bear arms must be modern if the Constitution can be applied and understood in modern contexts. The same conclusion is arrived at if the right is to be understood in the context of being able to repel assault from any invader or usurper, which would logically use the most modern weaponry available. A state unable to protect itself is not a free state but a vassal for whatever other sovereign state that desires to rule it. Thus any law that impinges on the right to bear arms in keeping with modern military-style equipped forces would be unconstitutional. Those unconstitutional laws imperil the populace by stripping the common and sure defense from all threats to the people’s life, property, and liberty.
National Firearms Act of 1934
 Ex post Facto: law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law.