Monday, March 28, 2011

Why Martial Law Cannot Happen in USA

So this weekend I was surfing youtube and came across:

US v. Emerson, Fifth Circuit, Case No. 99-10331:
1. Testimony of Norman Olson of the Michigan Militia; and,
2. John Trochman and Bob Fletcher of the Militia of Montana before the Senate Subcommittee on Anti-Terrorism, June 15, 1995.

I found this to be very interesting and thought I would put up Mr. Olson statement. Another interesting thing I see is that a couple Senators that where there, seem to have made a career out of politics, Arlen Specter and Dianne Feinstein.

Not only does the Constitution specifically allow the formation of a Federal Army, it also recognizes the inherent right of the people to form militia. Further, it recognizes that the citizen and his personal armaments are the foundation of the militia. The arming of the militia is not left to the state but to the citizen. However, should the state choose to arm its citizen militia, it is free to do so (bearing in mind the Constitution is not a document limiting the citizen, but rather limiting the power of government). But should the state fail to arm its citizen militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms becomes the source of the guarantee that the state will not be found defenseless in the presence of a threat to its security. It makes no sense whatsoever to look to the Constitution of the United States or that or any state for permission to form a citizen militia since logically, the power to permit is also the power to deny. If brought to its logical conclusion in this case, government may deny the citizen the right to form a militia. If this were to happen, the state would assert itself as the principle of the contract making the people the agents. Liberty then would depend on the state's grant of liberty. Such a concept is foreign to American thought.

While the Second Amendment to the US Constitution acknowledges the existence of state militia and recognizes their necessity for the security of a free state; and, while it also recognizes that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, the Second Amendment is not the source of the right to form a militia nor to keep and bear arms. Those rights existed in the states prior to the formation of the federal union. In fact, the right to form militia and to keep and bear arms existed from antiquity. The enumeration of those rights in the Constitution only underscores their natural occurrence and importance

According to the Tenth Amendment, ultimate power over the militia is not delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution nor to the states, but resides with the people. Consequently, the power of the militia remains in the hands of the people. Again, the fundamental function of the militia in society remains with the people. Therefore, the Second Amendment recognizes that the militia's existence and the security of the state rests ultimately in the people who volunteer their persons to constitute the militia and their arms to supply its firepower. The primary defense of the state rests with the citizen militia bearing its own arms. Fundamentally, it is not the state that defends the people, but the people who defend the state.

The second line of defense of the state consists in the statutory organization known as the National Guard. Whereas the National Guard is solely the creation of the statutory law, the militia derives its existence from the inherent inalienable rights which existed before the Constitution and whose importance are such that they merited specific recognition in that document. While the National Guard came into existence as a result of legislative activity, the militia existed before there was a nation or a constitutional form of government. The militia consisting of people owning and bearing personal weapons is the very authority out of which the United States Constitution grew. This point must be emphasized. Neither the citizen's militia nor the citizen's private arsenal can be an appropriate subject of federal regulation. It was the armed militia of the American colonies whose own efforts ultimately led to the establishment of the United States of America! While some say that the right to keep and bear arms is granted to Americans by the Constitution, just the opposite is true. The Federal government itself is the child of the armed citizen. We the people are the parent of the child we call government. You, Senators, are part of the child that We the People gave life to. The increasing amount of Federal encroachment into our lives indicates the need for parental corrective action. In short, the Federal government needs a good spanking to make it behave.

One other important point needs to be made. Since the Constitution is the limiting document upon the government, the government cannot become greater than the granting power, that is the servant cannot become greater than his master. Therefore, should the Chief Executive or other branch of government, or all branches together act to suspend the Constitution under a rule of martial law, all power granted to government would be canceled and defer back to the granting power, the people. Martial law shall not be possible in this country as long as the people recognize the Bill of Rights as inalienable.

Since the power of self defense and the defense of the state is ultimately vested in the people, there is no possible way that a Governor or the Chief Executive of the United States, or any legislative body can "outlaw" the citizen militia for to do so would rob inherent power from the people. If that were to happen, our entire form of government would cease.

Historically, we have found that the Governor's militia, that is the National Guard, is intended to reduce the need for the citizen militia. Simply, if the National Guard did it's job in securing the state, the citizen militia would not emerge. That it has emerged so dramatically seems to indicate that the people do not feel secure. Simply stated, the growing threat of centralized Federal government is frightening America, hence the emergence of the citizen militia. When government is given back to the people at the lowest level, the citizen militia will return to its natural place, resident within the body of the people. Civil war and revolution can be avoided by re-investing governing power to the people.

To summarize: Citizen militia are historic lawful entities predating constitutions. Such militia are "grandfathered" into the very system of government they created. The Constitution grants no right to form militia, but merely recognize the existing natural right of all people to defend and protect themselves. The governments created out of well armed and free people are to be constantly obedient to the people. Any attempt to take the means of freedom from the people is an act of rebellion against the people.

In order to resist a rebellious and disobedient government,the citizen militia must not be connected in any way with that government lest the body politic loose its fearful counterbalanceas the only sure threat to a government bent on converting free people into slaves.

Submitted by Norman E. Olson

You can find the rest here:

No comments:

Post a Comment