BASTARDY OF “MARTIAL LAW”
PART 2 of 2
Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr.,
August 9, 2014
Nonetheless, the members of these “private militias” have grasped only the less important half of the right idea. In the final analysis, the organization of such groups is useless for restoring constitutional government, for the undeniable reason that, even if they are perfectly legal in all other respects, “private militia” by definition possess no governmental character. True constitutional “Militia” are governmental establishments of the several States, “well regulated” by statutes according to certain definite constitutional principles. In contrast, being the products of purely private action, no “private militias” can claim any governmental, let alone specifically constitutional, authority. And without such authority no “private militias” can assert the constitutional right, power, and duty to execute the laws of the Union and of the several States in a “martial” fashion against usurpers and tyrants who attempt to inflict “martial law” upon Americans anywhere within this country.
Indeed, if the misplaced enthusiasm for “private militias” did not derive originally from the machinations of agents provocateurs and agents of influence despatched by the CIA, the FBI, or the BATF, it ought to have. For nothing could be more useful to “the Powers That Be” than: (i) to goad patriots into expending their energies on purely private and uncoordinated activities, rather than on efforts to revitalize the constitutional establishments which embody and empower popular sovereignty; (ii) to deceive patriots into becoming suspicious of and antagonistic to “government” in general, so that they will disdain seeking the specifically governmental authority which the Constitution offers them (indeed, requires them to exercise) through the Militia; and (iii) to mislead patriots into disarming themselves of such a status, so that, in a crisis, when they are asked “What is your constitutional authority?” the honest answer must be “We have none.”
• Proponents of the so-called “individual right to keep and bear arms”. Those in the rather large crowd touting “the individual right to keep and bear arms” are worse off than the members of any “private militia”, because they comprehend far less than half of the problem. They fixate on the private possession of firearms alone, disregarding entirely that the organization of “well regulated Militia” imbued with governmental authority—not simply the adventitious possession of firearms by average Americans as their private right—is “necessary to the security of a free State”.
If the misplaced enthusiasm for “the individual right to keep and bear arms” did not derive originally from “black” political-psychological operations set in motion by the CIA, the FBI, or the BATF, it too ought to have. For Americans who myopically focus on an “individual right” to the exclusion of the Militia imagine that they are promoting the ultimate purpose of Second Amendment simply by “clinging to their guns”—which, as one of their favorite expressions has it, will have to be pried “from their cold, dead hands”. But this bravado, even if backed up by action, can defend only a part of the Second Amendment—a part which, although necessary, is not sufficient. While each American who might have helped to revitalize the Militia dotes exclusively on his “individual right”, the Militia remain unorganized, and “the security of a free State” remains undefended by the institutions which the Second Amendment declares to be “necessary” for that purpose. None of these folks seems to recognize that: (i) Americans’ collective right (and duty) to possess firearms suitable for service in the Militia also secures each American’s “individual right”—for the self-evident reason that every member of the Militia, armed for that purpose, is also an individual who must maintain personal possession of one or more firearms at all times, thereby exercising an “individual right” to those firearms within the Militia far more secure than any “individual right” to any firearm which he might enjoy outside of the Militia (until the Judiciary declares that some so-called “compelling state interest” allows for that “individual right” to be abridged). And (ii) the purely “individual right to keep and bear arms” does nothing to secure each American’s collective as well as individual right (and duty) to participate in “[a] well regulated Militia”, and therefore next to nothing to promote “the security of a free State” for which such a Militia is “necessary”.
Consider the danger from tyranny. Can any individual, exercising solely his “individual right to keep and bear arms” in the confines of his own cellar, be expected to deter, let alone to stand up against, a tyranny which disposes of a large, well organized, and fully equipped police-state apparatus? Can even thousands and tens of thousands of individuals, individually exercising their “individual rights” in their individual cellars in mutual isolation, be expected to stop such a tyranny in its tracks? No—the “individual right to keep and bear arms”, individually exercised, simply assures the defeat of all individuals in detail. Only by organizing the great mass of her patriotic citizens for collective action can America defend herself from any tyranny worthy of that name. (And from an host of other highly undesirable situations less serious, but probably more likely, than full-blown tyranny.)
Consider also the contemporary problem of the constant political agitation in favor of “gun control”. Even having been approved by bare majorities of the Justices of the Supreme Court in the Heller and McDonald decisions, “the individual right to keep and bear arms” remains woefully insufficient to stifle this subversive ferment. Notwithstanding Heller and McDonald, which way is the line moving on the graph of tyranny versus liberty? On the one hand, “gun control” is still advancing by giant strides in such “people’s democratic republics” as New York, Connecticut, California, Maryland, and New Jersey. On the other hand, in the course of lobbying and litigation over “gun control” sometimes patriots do win, and sometimes they lose—but the struggle goes on interminably, because they have not finally secured the practical application of the constitutionally most significant principle that every eligible American has a right (and a duty) to serve in “[a] well regulated Militia”, and therefore to be appropriately armed at all times for that purpose (unless, as to the actual possession and use of firearms, he happens to be a conscientious objector). Is not this never-ending fight over “gun control”, arising out of incessant political aggression against the American people by rogue public officials and the subversive private special-interest groups allied with them, wholly incompatible with the Second Amendment’s command that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”? What other constitutional right is the subject of such relentless attacks that its character as a true “right” is constantly open to challenge and even denial in America’s legislatures and courts?
Thus, “the individual right to keep and bear arms” proves to be a snare and a delusion—even arguably the greatest disservice to the defense of the Republic in modern times:
First, it cannot defeat, and probably cannot even deter, the kind of tyranny against which average Americans would need to exercise large-scale armed resistance.
Second, it diverts Americans from the real issue—which is the supreme constitutional authority of WE THE PEOPLE organized in “the Militia of the several States”.
Third, it administers a political soporific—that the big “gun-rights” organizations have everything well in hand, as long as common Americans continue to send them and their attorneys more and more money to pour down the rat-holes of endless lobbying and litigation.
Fourth, even when lobbying and litigation fail to secure “the individual right” to anything like its full extent, it nonetheless provides a political narcotic which attenuates the psychic pain of defeat with the consolation that at least some Americans can retain possession of some of their firearms under some circumstances for some limited purposes for some little while longer. Of course, who can foresee how long that will last? And as the narcotic effect wears off with the steady advance of “gun control”, who can predict how painful the withdrawal symptoms induced by a final exposure to hard reality will be? Finally, and of the most dire consequence,
Fifth, while the struggle over “gun control” continues on the “gun controllers’” own terms, Americans are doing nothing to revitalize the Militia on the Constitution’s terms.
• Purveyors of fairy-tale panaceas for America’s problems. If the proponents of “private militias” and of “the individual right of the people to keep and bear Arms” at least grasp small—albeit woefully insufficient—parts of what needs to be done, what can be said about the Pied Pipers of Humbug who promote such airy schemes as “Impeachment” of Barack Obama?
Leave aside the obvious objection that, if Mr. Obama is constitutionally ineligible for “the Office of President” because he is not “a natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution, then he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment” under Article II, Section 4, because as a matter of constitutional law he never entered into that “Office” in the first place. Indicted he might be—for impersonation of a public official (as well as for numerous other offenses stemming from and facilitated by that imposture)—if he is actually constitutionally ineligible for “the Office of President”; but “removed from Office on Impeachment” he cannot be. To be eligible for “Impeachment” from some office, one must first be eligible to the office to which “Impeachment” relates. The illogicality of the drive for “Impeachment” is not the worst of its demerits, though. The most glaring are the impracticality of “Impeachment” in the short term and its utter irrelevance in the long run.
First, in light of the present composition of Congress, can anyone not regularly ingesting LSD or some other hallucinogenic drug possibly imagine that “Impeachment” of Mr. Obama might possibly follow a strictly constitutional path to a strictly constitutional end? For example, with respect to the notorious issue of Mr. Obama’s alleged ineligibility to “the Office of President”, and all of the consequences thereof, is not every Member of Congress knowingly, willfully, and intentionally complicitous in whatever wrongdoing has taken and continues to take place, or at least proceeding with willful blindness towards or in reckless disregard of the facts? No present Member of Congress who was in office in 2008 or 2012 challenged a single electoral vote supposedly cast for Mr. Obama in the presidential elections of those years—although every Member of Congress had a statutory right and even duty to do so. And apparently not a single Member of Congress at the present time openly refuses to acknowledge, accept, or acquiesce in Mr. Obama’s posturing as “the President”. Why this is the case doubtlessly requires different explanations for different Members of Congress—none of these excuses, one presumes, exculpatory. But that such is the case no one can deny. How, then, can anyone expect such hopelessly compromised individuals to carry through the process of “Impeachment” in the “no stone left unturned” manner in which it ought to be prosecuted? That, in such an environment of thoroughgoing institutional cowardice and corruption, “Impeachment” would provide nothing but farcical political entertainment can be predicted with moral certainty simply by studying the history of the last two episodes of real “Impeachment” or near-“Impeachment” of the real Presidents Clinton and Nixon, as documented in such “kiss and tell” books as David P. Schippers, Sell Out: The Inside Story of President Clinton’s Impeachment and Jerry Zeifman, Without Honor: The Impeachment of President Nixon and the Crimes of Camelot.
Second, what of real substance could be expected to change for the better if, for recondite political reasons, the necessary majorities of Members of Congress would agree in the cloak rooms that Mr. Obama should be “removed from Office on Impeachment”? Mr. Obama, after all, is merely a symptom, not the underlying cause, of America’s malaise. Removing a single, even very prominent, puppet from the stage will not change the identities of the puppet masters, let alone their ability to bring forth as many new puppets as may be necessary to serve their interests. As long as “Manchuria” exists, it will continue to supply a plenitude of suitable “candidates”. Certainly the departure of Mr. Obama from the scene will not, by itself, return control of their own political destiny to WE THE PEOPLE. The “two” major political parties, and (of more consequence) the factions and other special-interest groups that pull their strings, will remain in commanding positions in the electoral process, in the big “mainstream media”, in the world of banking and high finance, and so on.
Moreover, by itself “Impeachment” of Mr. Obama will not solve any of the problems that now confront this country with the threat of “martial law”—in particular, the impending dethronement of the Federal Reserve Note as the “world reserve currency”, with the consequent collapse of America’s domestic economy in hyperinflation, depression or (most likely) the one followed by the other. Whoever “the Powers That Be” contrive to foist upon this country as President in Mr. Obama’s stead—whether that be "Joe Biden" or some other equally appalling figurehead—must follow the path heretofore laid out for Mr. Obama, because Obama’s successor can do nothing else without impairing the position of “the Powers That Be”. So, even if “Impeachment” were successful to the extent of removing Mr. Obama himself from the office which perhaps he never held in the first place, Americans would still need to revitalize the Militia—which, of course, can (and should) be done without wasting any time and effort on “Impeachment”.
C. At the end of the rope. What can these and other Americans who have neglected revitalization of the Militia, or worse yet actively opposed it by joining the dissident chorus of those who demonize the very word “militia”, belatedly offer in their own defense? That now, as the threat of “martial law” looms large over this country, they are sorry for having misled themselves and countless others too? What good will such a tardy admission be? As of this writing, patriots of all sorts have squandered more than forty-five years since the Gun Control Act of 1968 plastered the agenda of the “gun-control” fanatics across the pages of the United States Statutes at Large for everyone to see, and almost twelve years since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security began the erection and deployment in earnest of a national para-military police-state apparatus. America, moreover, does not have the luxury of another forty-five years, or another twelve years—more than likely not even another four or five years—during which her citizens in sufficient numbers can finally catch on to what is going on, and to what lies at the end of the road down which they are being led.
If Americans want to live in “a free State”, they must bend their every effort—immediately, if not sooner—to restore, protect, and preserve the Constitution. No alternative to an unremitting defense of the Constitution exists, because the Constitution, rightly understood and enforced according to that understanding, provides the only basis for acceptable “government” now available. Nothing else is ready, or even in contemplation, to replace it. Moreover, the great advantage of the Constitution is that true patriots know perfectly well what it really means and how to put that meaning into practice.
According to the Constitution, the Militia are the sole institutions “necessary” for achievement of the Constitution’s ultimate aim, “the security of a free State”. Therefore it is childishly ridiculous to imagine that anyone can defend the Constitution—even as it might be amended by those supposedly well-meaning but naive individuals recklessly calling for a “constitutional convention” of some sort—without demanding revitalization of the Militia. Certainly no proposed amendment which I have ever seen substitutes, or even suggests, something other than “[a] well regulated Militia” as a new institution “necessary to the security of a free State”. The reason is obvious: Who but WE THE PEOPLE themselves, exercising sovereignty through the ultimate Power of the Sword in their own hands, could possibly perform the task of guaranteeing such “security”?
Yes, time is rapidly running out. But perhaps that is not so bad, after all. Although America’s neck is in a noose, perhaps the threat of “martial law” will finally stimulate enough of her remaining “good People” (as the Declaration of Independence styled true patriots) to think about—and then to take action aimed at—revitalization of the Militia before the trap door on History’s scaffold springs open and the threat of “martial law” becomes a fatal actuality. After all, as Samuel Johnson once reputedly quipped, nothing focuses a man’s mind more than his impending hanging.
� 2014 Edwin Vieira, Jr. - All Rights Reserved