Thursday, January 7, 2010

Act Three: The Militia (a.k.a. The National Guard) & The U.S. Constitution

On January 5, 2010, President Obama gave a speech to the American people on the topic of airline security in response to the Christmas Day failed attack by a Nigerian al-Qaeda terrorist. A video of the speech can be watched here: http://www.shallownation.com/2010/01/05/obama-airline-security-speech-video-1-5-10/

In his stern no-nonsense speech, President Obama made no mention of the Dec 4, 2009, open invitation given by TRANSCOM to al-Qaeda to attack commercial air flights that might be transporting U.S. troops either to or from Afghanistan, so I can only guess that Obama is either still outside of the loop or knowledge of the enemy’s concept of fighting to win escapes him. Terrorists fight through acts of terrorism, especially if those acts can be disruptive of the military operations engaged against them.

What is sacred? Where can hope be found in ancient prophecy, or in the shared resolve of American history?

The prophet Isaiah saw this:
In the last days
the mountain of the LORD's temple will be established
as chief among the mountains;
it will be raised above the hills,
and all nations will stream to it.

Many peoples will come and say,
"Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
to the house of the God of Jacob.
He will teach us his ways,
so that we may walk in his paths."
The law will go out from Zion,
the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

He will judge between the nations
and will settle disputes for many peoples.
They will beat their swords into plowshares
and their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation will not take up sword against nation,
nor will they train for war anymore.

Jesus said this:
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.

And Jesus said this, too:
You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains.

President Abraham Lincoln said this at Gettysburg:
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate—we cannot consecrate—we cannot hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom— and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.


Where can we find “government of the people, by the people, for the people” except in the U.S. Constitution — that most sacred of human-contrived documents? If there is such a government still to be found — still to be worthy of a soldier’s sacrifice — are we living by its contents? And are we defending its honor against all enemies, both foreign and domestic? I think not.

The U.S. Constitution: Article I, Section 8 [1] The Congress shall have Power …
[11] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; …

[15] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

[16] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; …

[18] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Article. II.

Section. 2. [1] The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Article. IV.

Section. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

What does this mean?

First, force your mind into clear thinking by considering this clarification of The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is part of The Bill of Rights:
http://steven-a-sylwester.blogspot.com/2009/10/second-amendment.html
http://steven-a-sylwester.blogspot.com/2009/10/bill-of-rights-in-plain-sentence.html

Now, recount what rights and obligations are plainly stated in the U.S. Constitution:
Article I, Section 8 [11]:
The Congress declares War, not the President.
The Congress officially threatens enemies through written documents, not the President.
The Congress determines what to do with captured territory, not the President.
The Congress determines what to do with captured enemies, not the President.

Before proceeding, the term “Militia” must be correctly understood. According to Article II, Section 2 [1], the “Militia” is not “the Army and Navy of the United States.” Furthermore, according to Article I, Section 8 [16], the Congress reserves “to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.” But the Congress also “shall have Power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States.” Therefore, the term “Militia” in the U.S. Constitution plainly refers to the National Guard of each and every State, each State National Guard of which functions as a separate entity under the control of its own particular State government, but yet at times can work in concert with the National Guard of any and all other States under the command of the President and the governance of the Congress when “employed in the Service of the United States.”

Article I, Section 8 [15]:
The Congress equips the National Guard in a perpetually ready state for three — and only three — distinct purposes that would ever be “in the Service of the United States,” those three being to: 1) execute the Laws of the Union, 2) suppress Insurrections, and 3) repel Invasions — none of which should ever require duty of any sort in a foreign land.

Article I, Section 8 [16]:
The Congress organizes, arms, and disciplines the National Guard on a “provide for” basis, which means appropriating funding as needed, but also means overseeing and approving U.S. military leadership practices that directly impact the National Guard. This cannot be disputed, because the language very specifically states: “The Congress shall have Power … for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States.” “Governing” is a very powerful word that means: to prevail or have decisive influence: CONTROL: to exercise authority — according to Webster's Dictionary.

Article I, Section 8 [18]:
The Congress can constitutionally protect its turf and its governance regarding the National Guard against any usurpers, including the Pentagon and the President.

Article II, Section 2 [1]:
The Plain Sentence of the first part reads either (as is version) The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States or (reorganized version) The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States when called into the actual Service of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States. It is either one or the other, but not both. Either the President is ALWAYS the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States (as is version), and is therefore only the Commander in Chief of the National Guard when called into the actual Service of the United States, or the President is ALWAYS the Commander in Chief of the National Guard (reorganized version), and is therefore only the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States when called into the actual Service of the United States. I vote the “as is version” is (and should be) correct, but the distinction is clear. Therefore, combining Article I, Section 8 [15 and 16] with Article II, Section 2 [1], the President is the Commander in Chief of the National Guard ONLY when the National Guard is called into the actual Service of the United States to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions, which is the ONLY time when “The Congress shall have Power … for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States.”

Article IV, Section 4:
The need for the Congress to maintain the National Guard of every State in a perpetually ready state to be employed in the Service of the United States is explained by the constitutional obligation to protect each and every State against Invasion and against domestic Violence. This is no small obligation as anyone who was alive during the city riots in the U.S during the 1960s and the 1970s can attest. It is not only against the U.S. Constitution to deploy National Guard troops to foreign lands to fight in wars, it is wholly and unacceptably irresponsible in the absolute extreme. No more perfect “Perfect Storm” can exist than to be suckered by an enemy into depleting National Guard troops and equipment resources stateside by shipping them overseas. If al-Qaeda terrorist cells are quietly being established in American cities in advance of a planned orchestrated attack, who will be ready to defend against the attack if the National Guard is 10,000 miles away in Afghanistan?

* * *

The U.S. Constitution allows for change in the form of amendments.

* * *

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress …

In the entire history of the United States, 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been ratified into law. The Twenty-First Amendment, which was ratified in 1933, repealed the Eighteenth Amendment (a.k.a. Prohibition of Liquor), which was ratified in 1919. Plainly, significant fixes can be undone. Sometimes, change takes almost forever to accomplish: the Twenty-Seventh Amendment (a.k.a. Congressional Salaries) was proposed on September 25, 1789, and was ratified into law on May 7, 1992. By contrast, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment (a.k.a. Suffrage for Eighteen-Year-Olds) was proposed on March 23, 1971, and was ratified into law on July 1, 1971, just ten weeks later. The then in operation Selective Service Draft and the Vietnam War had something to do with that quick change. But that proves the point: needed and necessary change that is righteous change — including an amendment to the U.S. Constitution — can be accomplished start-to-finish in ten weeks time!

There is no excuse — change is possible if wisdom dictates that it is needed. Even so, there has never been an amendment proposed that would have ever altered anything about the “Militia” (a.k.a. the National Guard) as it is described above. What was written into the U.S. Constitution by the Founding Fathers regarding the “Militia” remains fully intact, pristine, and unchanged. Even so such is so, were it so! Under the rocks of corruption and gutlessness, damnableness reigns supreme.

What we have here floating at the top of the slough are two haphazard legislative contrivances that keep plausible deniability possible for our nation’s politicians while the lives of National Guard soldiers are wrongly, foolishly, and illegally being put in harm’s way in foreign countries where those soldiers are fighting in wars that have never been declared. And some of those National Guard soldiers have died. According to the “Faces of the Fallen” running tally kept by washingtonpost.com, 466 Army National Guard soldiers have died in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom as of January 6, 2010. What in God’s Name is an “Operation (whatever) Freedom” but the feel-good collective escape from sworn duty by the gutless-wonder politicians of our day? An “Operation Freedom” is a war — an undeclared war — a constitutionally illegal war.

If you can bear it, click on the names of National Guard soldiers who have died thus far:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/branches/army-national-guard/
Read their stories. These National Guard soldiers were not soldiers who joined up to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan. They died honorably, but they died wrongly.

The 466 dead National Guard soldiers represent 8.8% of the total 5,298 U.S. military service people who have died in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom as of January 6, 2010. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/ One out of every eleven deaths is a National Guard soldier. This statistic is significant because, “as of 2008, the Guard represented 7 percent of the force in Iraq and 15 percent in Afghanistan.” http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=63422

The question must be asked: Could the U.S. continue the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan if the National Guard troops were withdrawn from combat there and were brought home to do the duty they were sworn to do according to the U.S. Constitution?

The two haphazard legislative contrivances that are running roughshod over the U.S. Constitution are: 1) the Montgomery Amendment (1986) referenced in:
Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (U.S. Supreme Court 1990 ruling)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/496/334/case.html
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

Since 1933, federal law has provided that persons enlisting in a state National Guard unit simultaneously enlist in the National Guard of the United States, a part of the Army. The enlistees retain their status as state Guard members unless and until ordered to active federal duty, and revert to state status upon being relieved from federal service. The authority to order the Guard to federal duty was limited to periods of national emergency until 1952, when Congress broadly authorized orders "to active duty or active duty for training" without any emergency requirement, but provided that such orders could not be issued without the consent of the governor of the State concerned. After two State Governors refused to consent to federal training missions abroad for their Guard units, the gubernatorial consent requirement was partially repealed in 1986 by the "Montgomery Amendment," which provides that a governor cannot withhold consent with regard to active duty outside the United States because of any objection to the location, purpose, type, or schedule of such duty. Petitioner, Governor of Minnesota, filed a complaint for injunctive relief, alleging, inter alia, that the Montgomery Amendment had prevented him from withholding his consent to a 1987 federal training mission in Central America for certain members of the state Guard, and that the Amendment violates the Militia Clauses of Article I, § 8, of the Constitution, which authorize Congress to provide for (1) calling forth the militia to execute federal law, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions, and (2) organizing, arming, disciplining, and governing such part of the militia as may be employed in the federal service, reserving to the States the appointment of officers and the power to train the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. The District Court rejected the Governor's challenge, holding that the federal Guard was created pursuant to Congress' Article I, § 8, power to raise and support armies; that the fact that Guard units also have an identity as part of the state militia does not limit Congress' plenary authority to train the units as it sees fit when the Guard is called to active federal service; and that, accordingly, the Constitution neither required the gubernatorial veto nor prohibited its withdrawal. The Court of Appeals affirmed.


and 2) the National Emergencies Act:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0903/S00308.htm

By Peter Dale Scott and Dan Hamburg

On 9/11 the Bush administration declared a State of Emergency (SOE), which was formally proclaimed on September 14, 2001, and extended by Bush repeatedly thereafter, most recently on August 28, 2008. Under cover of this SOE, Bush secretly enacted many extreme measures, ranging from suspension of habeas corpus to preparations for martial law in America; all these were undertaken as part of secret so-called "Continuity of Government" (COG) procedures associated with the SOE, and first instituted on 9/11.

The National Emergencies Act, one of the post-Watergate reforms so detested by Vice-President Cheney, requires specifically that

Not later than six months after a national emergency is declared, and not later than the end of each six-month period thereafter that such emergency continues, each House of Congress shall meet to consider a vote on a joint resolution to determine whether that emergency shall be terminated.
(50 U.S.C. 1622 (2002)

Last fall one of us appealed on the Internet for the Democrats in Congress to take this statutorily required step, and also to learn what secret COG measures were being enacted under the SOE. There was no response.

In February 2009 we sent to officials in Washington the following appeal to consider terminating the State of Emergency. The appeal was sent to President Obama's staff in the White House, and to the staff of Nancy Pelosi, Peter DeFazio, and Dennis Kucinich in Congress. Almost two months have passed, and there has not yet been any response from the addressees.

We are now appealing to the readers of this post to contact their representatives in Congress, and demand that they consider the termination of the State of Emergency, as is required of them by law.

This is the letter sent February 10, 2009 by Peter Dale Scott and Dan Hamburg:
Will Obama and Congress End the State of Emergency?

On September 11, 2001, the government declared a state of emergency. That state of emergency was formally put in writing6 on 9/14/2001 consistent with Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C.).

The state of emergency has continued in full force and effect from 9/11/01 to the present. It was most recently extended on August 28, 2008 for an additional year:

Notice: Continuation of the National Emergency
with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks


Consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C.), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency I declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center, New York, New York, the Pentagon, and aboard United Airlines flight 93, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.

Because the terrorist threat continues, the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, and the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond September 14, 2008. Therefore, I am continuing in effect for an additional year the national emergency I declared on September 14, 2001, with respect to the terrorist threat.

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
August 28, 2008.

Under a series of Presidential Decision Directives, the Bush administration enacted secret emergency powers, reportedly affecting the U.S. Constitution, which even the members of the House Homeland Security Committee have not been permitted to review.

Congress has a statutory obligation to address this situation. Section 1622(b) of the National Emergencies Act states that: "Not later than six months after a national emergency is declared, and not later than the end of each six-month period thereafter that such emergency continues, each House of Congress shall meet to consider a vote on a joint resolution to determine whether that emergency shall be terminated."

We now have a new President, supported by a new Congress, elected with a campaign promise of "Change." In this changed atmosphere, two questions need to be answered to satisfy the legitimate concerns of the American people:

Will President Obama allow the state of national emergency, first declared by President George W. Bush on 9/14/01 and re-declared seven times, to remain in effect?

Will Congress meet their statutory responsibilities under Section 1622(b) of the National Emergencies Act, and meet to determine whether that emergency shall be terminated?

Dan Hamburg, former US Representative (CA-01)
Peter Dale Scott, Professor Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley

* * *

Read the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Perpich v. Department of Defense here:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/496/334/case.html
The ruling pertains only to the issue of training in a foreign country without the governor’s permission. Consider the following excerpt (I have added bold for emphasis):

Since 1933, all persons who have enlisted in a state National Guard unit have simultaneously enlisted in the National Guard of the United States. In the latter capacity, they became a part of the Enlisted Reserve Corps of the Army, but, unless and until ordered to active duty in the Army, they retained their status as members of a separate state Guard unit. Under the 1933 Act, they could be ordered into active service whenever Congress declared a national emergency and authorized the use of troops in excess of those in the Regular Army. The statute plainly described the effect of such an order:

"All persons so ordered into the active military service of the United States shall from the date of such order stand relieved from duty in the National Guard of their respective States, Territories, and the District of Columbia so long as they shall remain in the active military service of the United States, and during such time shall be subject

Page 496 U. S. 346

to such laws and regulations for the government of the Army of the United States as may be applicable to members of the Army whose permanent retention in active military service is not contemplated by law. The organization of said units existing at the date of the order into active Federal service shall be maintained intact insofar as practicable."

§ 18, 48 Stat. 160-161.

"Upon being relieved from active duty in the military service of the United States all individuals and units shall thereupon revert to their National Guard status."

Id. at 161. Thus, under the "dual enlistment" provisions of the statute that have been in effect since 1933, a member of the Guard who is ordered to active duty in the federal service is thereby relieved of his or her status in the state Guard for the entire period of federal service.

Until 1952, the statutory authority to order National Guard units to active duty was limited to periods of national emergency. In that year, Congress broadly authorized orders to "active duty or active duty for training" without any emergency requirement, but provided that such orders could not be issued without gubernatorial consent. The National Guard units have under this plan become a sizeable portion of the Nation's military forces; for example, "the Army National Guard provides 46 percent of the combat units and 28 percent of the support forces of the Total Army." [Footnote 18] Apparently, gubernatorial consents to training missions were routinely obtained until 1985, when the Governor of California refused to consent to a training mission for 450 members of the California National Guard in Honduras, and the Governor of Maine shortly thereafter refused to consent to a similar mission. Those incidents led to the enactment of the Montgomery Amendment, and this litigation ensued.

Page 496 U. S. 347

II

The Governor's attack on the Montgomery Amendment relies in part on the traditional understanding that "the Militia" can only be called forth for three limited purposes that do not encompass either foreign service or nonemergency conditions, and in part on the express language in the Militia Clause reserving to the States "the Authority of training the Militia." The Governor does not, however, challenge the authority of Congress to create a dual enlistment program. [Footnote 19] Nor does the Governor claim that membership in a state Guard unit -- or any type of state militia -- creates any sort of constitutional immunity from being drafted into the federal armed forces. Indeed, it would be ironic to claim such immunity when every member of the Minnesota National Guard has voluntarily enlisted, or accepted a commission as an officer, in the National Guard of the United States, and thereby become a member of the reserve corps of the Army.


The United States discontinued its military draft in 1973 by an act of Congress, and has had an all-volunteer Army since then. How then can National Guard soldiers be drafted or federalized from State National Guard status to National Guard of the United States status? Furthermore, there is the issue of draft deferments, and former Vice President Dick Cheney is the prime example. Consider the following article excerpts:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/01/politics/campaign/01CHEN.html?pagewanted=1
Cheney's Five Draft Deferments During the Vietnam Era Emerge as a Campaign Issue
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
Published: May 1, 2004

WASHINGTON, April 30 — It was 1959 when Dick Cheney, then a student at Yale University, turned 18 and became eligible for the draft.

Eventually, like 16 million other young men of that era, Mr. Cheney sought deferments. By the time he turned 26 in January 1967 and was no longer eligible for the draft, he had asked for and received five deferments, four because he was a student and one for being a new father.

Although President Richard M. Nixon stopped the draft in 1973 and the war itself ended 29 years ago on Friday, the issue of service remains a personally sensitive and politically potent touchstone in the biographies of many politicians from that era. …

But by 1963, ferment in Vietnam was rising. Mr. Cheney enrolled in Casper Community College in January 1963 — he turned 22 that month — and sought his first student deferment on March 20, according to records from the Selective Service System. After transferring to the University of Wyoming at Laramie, he sought his second student deferment on July 23, 1963.

On Aug. 7, 1964, Congress approved the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which allowed President Lyndon B. Johnson to use unlimited military force in Vietnam. The war escalated rapidly from there.

Just 22 days later, Mr. Cheney married his high school sweetheart, Lynne. He sought his third student deferment on Oct. 14, 1964.

In May 1965, Mr. Cheney graduated from college and his draft status changed to 1-A. But he was married, which offered him some protection.

In July, President Johnson announced that he was doubling the number of men drafted. The number of inductions soared, to 382,010 in 1966 from 230,991 in 1965 and 112,386 in 1964.

Mr. Cheney obtained his fourth deferment when he started graduate school at the University of Wyoming on Nov. 1, 1965.

On Oct. 6, 1965, the Selective Service lifted its ban against drafting married men who had no children. Nine months and two days later, Mr. Cheney's first daughter, Elizabeth, was born. On Jan. 19, 1966, when his wife was about 10 weeks pregnant, Mr. Cheney applied for 3-A status, the "hardship" exemption, which excluded men with children or dependent parents. It was granted.

In January 1967, Mr. Cheney turned 26 and was no longer eligible for the draft. …

The deferment process proved controversial, discriminating against men who were black or poor, and a lottery was introduced in 1969. President Nixon did away with student deferments in 1971 and the draft ended in 1973. …

* * *

HOW MANY NATIONAL GUARD SOLDIERS ARE OLDER THAN 26 YEARS OLD AND ARE THE PARENTS OF CHILDREN?

* * *

One can shout in outrage about all of the above and be righteously angry, or one can simply quote the U.S. Constitution:

Article. VI.

[2] 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 the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

[3] 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; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

* * *

My opinion is that a Class Action Lawsuit alleging Wrongful Death of the 466 National Guard soldiers who died in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom should be brought by the dead soldiers’ surviving family members against any U.S. governors who allowed State National Guard troops to be federalized without their express permission, and also against any U.S. senators and U.S. representatives who failed in their sworn duties to be responsible for declaring war and to act according to the requirements of the National Emergencies Act.

The simple truth of the matter is this: the language in the U.S. Constitution regarding the “Militia” has not been altered, amended, repealed, or in any way changed at any time in U.S. history. The language has been ignored and usurped — even by the U.S. Supreme Court — but the language stands unchanged nonetheless as “the supreme Law of the Land,” and is to be supported by all who have been “bound by Oath or Affirmation” to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Post a Comment