By
Michael LeMieux
February 8, 2011
NewsWithViews.com
How
many times, since September 11, 2001, have we heard that we are not
at war with the Muslim religion but only with that a faction of Muslim
extremists? This article is not about Muslims, Islam, fanatical religious
extremists, but about the war that has begun to be waged here in America
for the very soul of our nation. We are at war to salvage the very existence
of individual liberty.
The
Declaration of Independence declares without ambiguity that rights are
granted by the creator unto the individual not the state: “We
hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”
Self-evident truth that upon the creation of life the individual is
endowed with unalienable Rights!
Upon
the creation of our national government the Constitution espoused one
of the primary reasons for its creation: “and secure the Blessings
of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution…” Notice they did not say to the nation,
or to the community, or to the village, but to “ourselves and
our posterity,” further emphasizing that one of the primary purposes
of the central government was to protect (secure) the liberty of the
people.
During
the constitutional debates there was much discussion as to how we ensure
that the central government does not step beyond its bounds. Some argued
that the framework provided would prove to chain the government down.
Others argued that governments have always expanded and if protections
were not laid out they would be lost. In 1789 a compromise was made
and 12 amendments were proposed to the states for inclusion in the Constitution
of which 10 were adopted and ratified in 1791 which became known as
the Bill of Rights.
The
federal government was designed to be a limited government. A great
deal of time was spent during the constitutional conventions arguing
over what powers the central government would have, and by so doing
limit that power. Wanting a nation that was run by the rule of law and
not the whims of man -- they invested Congress with the power to legislate.
Article 1, Section 8, enumerates the ONLY areas where the central government
can lawfully act.
In
Federalist No. 45 James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,”
stated: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution
to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain
in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” To
strengthen this point and to ensure it was remembered the states ratified,
as part of the Bill of Rights, the 10th Amendment which 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
was to be an integral part of the balance of power to ensure that America
does not once again fall under an oppressive central government. Alexander
Hamilton also argued this point of view concerning not including a bill
of rights. He stated that adding the Bill of Rights: “would
contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very
account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.
For why declare that things shall not be done which there is not power
to do?”
Alexander
was arguing that it was unnecessary to list things that prohibited the
federal government from doing when the government did not have the power
to do them in the first place. Time has proven that the fears expressed
by those that demanded a Bill of Rights were correct.
A
clear example of government expansion into areas for which they have
no jurisdiction is in the regulation of firearms. There is absolutely
no power granted within the Constitution for the federal government
to regulate firearms or for any particular industry for that matter.
When the first firearms acts were adopted in Congress they were designed
as a revenue raising scheme, a tax, that was all.
The
Federal Firearms Act of 1938 was codified under Title 15, Commerce and
Trade, and promulgated the rules for the manufacture of firearms within
interstate or foreign commerce and to establish licensing for dealers.
Even at this time an individual not operating in commerce was unaffected
by these new rules.
Advertisement
From
1938 to 1968 everything went along fairly well until the government
decided to play a little shell game, and they switched the Firearms
Act from Title 15 to Title 18. Title 18 is entitled “Crimes and
Criminal Procedures.” Why would the government switch the code
section from Title 15 to Title 18 after having been codified under Title
15 for thirty years? The only rational reason is jurisdictional obfuscation,
or hiding what would otherwise be apparent as to the limits the government
could act upon us, the citizens. You see, under Title 15, the government
was within its rightful jurisdiction of “Commerce and Trade.”
However, if you are bound by “Commerce and Trade”, you cannot
enact laws on normal citizens who are not acting in the “trade.”
Therefore, the government changed, with the stroke of a pen, their Constitutional
powers from commerce to crime.
The
finesse with which the government’s lawyers crafted and pushed
this bill through can be seen right from the opening lines. The bill
is entitled: “An Act to amend title 18, United States Code,
to provide for better control of the interstate traffic in firearms.”
Doesn’t that title sound allot like Chapter 15? In fact, even
though there is much overlap between Title 15 and Title 18, Title 15
was never repealed.
This
was done to provide better control of “interstate”
traffic in firearms. However, the stated purpose within the act is as
follows:
Title I
– State Firearms Control Assistance
Purpose
“Sec. 101.
The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title
is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement
officials in their fight against crime and violence…”
To
support State, and local law enforcement! Where does the Constitution
say anything about the federal government assisting state and local
law enforcement? Remember, the federal government cannot legally
do anything that is not specifically enumerated by the Constitution.
So where is its justification? It has none; any federal law that falls
outside the enumerated powers of the Constitution is repugnant and void.
That does not stop the jack-booted thugs from kicking in your door and
enforcing unjust and unconstitutional laws; it just makes them wrong
with a gun.
To
further heighten the creep of government power, which Hamilton was so
sure would not happen, chapter 44 of Title 18, of which our federal
firearms laws are now a part, states the following:
18
USC §921(2) “The term ''interstate or foreign commerce''
includes commerce between any place in a State and
any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United
States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia,
but such term does not include commerce between places within
the same State but through any place outside of that State.
The term ''State'' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including
the Canal Zone).” [Bold emphasis added]
Today
we have the federal government threatening states that have enacted
laws concerning intrastate (within the state) manufacture and sale of
firearms – these are firearms not involved in interstate commerce.
The Title 18 language above specifically states that the federal government
knows it does not have authority when an item is not IN interstate commerce
but it is doing so anyway.
Another
example is the manufacture of items for personal use. The federal government
has deemed that an individual who makes a silencer for a firearm, even
when it is for personal use and is not in commerce at all, is still
guilty of a federal offense when this clearly falls within the jurisdiction
of the state.
All
of this controversy over a single amendment to the Constitution (2nd
Amendment) that Madison argued was needed to keep the federal government
from infringing on our rights and Hamilton argued was unnecessary because
the federal government was not granted the power in the first place
and therefore could not act. On this account they were both right and
they were both wrong. The federal government has infringed on all the
rights enumerated (Bill of Rights) and they have enacted a multitude
of laws into areas to which they have no jurisdiction.
The
war we are currently fighting as a nation is correctly put – that
we are not at war with the Muslim religion but with the extremists who
would work evil against us.
Likewise,
we are not at war with our constitutional government – we are
at war:
•
with those who would work evil against us. • with those who have taken an oath to protect
and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic,
and fail to honor that oath. • with those that have infiltrated our government
with the goal of undermining the individual freedoms and liberty espoused
within the Constitution. • with those that openly defy the property rights
of Americans and push for wealth redistribution. • with those who infringe the rights of individual
Americans for some collective good. • with those who enforce laws where no injury
or damaged party is involved and are made criminal for no other reason
than because the government said so. • with those who deny justice to the American
people to fulfill personal agendas. • with anyone enforcing an unconstitutional law. • with those that would use their positions immunity
from prosecution to deny the rights of others. • with any judiciary that would deny the Constitution
within its walls.
It
is often quoted of Benjamin Franklin that “It is the first
responsibility of every citizen to question authority.” Not
to undermine legitimate areas of government but to ensure the legitimacy
of government.
When
we have members of Congress openly admit that they do not determine
if a law is constitutional before passing it, or scoff and scorn at
anyone who would question the constitutional legitimacy of a proposed
law, then they have set themselves apart from legitimate government
and are acting as an enemy of the Constitution. Any Supreme Court judge
that knowingly rules for agenda or politics over Constitution is an
enemy of the Constitution. Any federal agent or employee who knowingly
enforces laws beyond those enumerated within the Constitution is an
enemy of the Constitution. Any police officer enforcing or assisting
federal agents in unconstitutional laws is an enemy of the Constitution.
Quite
simply we are at war with any person, department, or government entity,
at any level, that operates outside the enumerated powers granted to
them or who infringes on the rights of American citizens. If we continue
to allow the erosion of liberty in America to continue we will awaken
one morning to find that the American dream was nothing more than that
– a dream!
Subscribe
to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!
Perhaps
we should hold our public officials to the same accountability they
hold us. If we break the law they put us in jail or execute us. Perhaps
if they were held to the same accountability for their oaths of office
we would have a lot less infringement on the rights of the rest of us.
In
the words of Thomas Paine concerning tyranny: "No country can
be called free which is governed by an absolute power; and it matters
not whether it be an absolute royal power or an absolute legislative
power, as the consequences will be the same to the people."
Michael
LeMieux was born in Midwest City, Oklahoma in 1956 and graduated from
Weber State University in Utah with a degree in Computer Science. He
served in both the US Navy and US Army (Active duty and National Guard)
and trained in multiple intelligence disciplines and was a qualified
paratrooper. He served with the 19th Special Forces Group, while in
the National Guard, as a Special Forces tactical intelligence team member.
He served tours to Kuwait and Afghanistan where he received the Purple
Heart for injuries received in combat.
Mr. LeMieux left military duty at the end of 2005 after being medically
discharged with over 19 years of combined military experience. He currently
works as an intelligence contractor to the US government.
Michael
is a strict constitutionalist who believes in interpreting the constitution
by the original intent of the founding fathers. His research has led
him to the conclusion that the republic founded by the Constitution
is no longer honored by our government. That those who rule America
today are doing so with the interest of the federal government in mind
and not the Citizens. Michael believes that all three branches of government
have strayed far from the checks and balances built into the Constitution
and they have failed the American people. A clear example is the Second
Amendment, which the Supreme Court and the founders have all said was
an individual right and could not be "infringed" upon, now
has more than 20,000 state and federal laws regulating every aspect
of the individuals right, a definite infringement. He has traveled around
the world living in 14 States of the Union including Hawaii, and visited
(for various lengths of time) in Spain, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Korea,
Scotland, Pakistan, Mauritius, Somalia, Diego Garcia, Australia, Philippines,
England, Italy, Germany, and Puerto Rico.
Michael
now lives in Nebraska with his wife, two of his three children, Mother-in-Law
and grandchild. His hobbies include shooting, wood-working, writing,
amateur inventor and scuba diving when he can find the time.
To support State,
and local law enforcement! Where does the Constitution say anything about
the federal government assisting state and local law enforcement?
Share
This Article
