Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Constitution Role of County Sheriff

In response to the deceptive propaganda currently circulating around Sussex County [Delaware] regarding the role of the Sheriff, I offer the following points:

The term, Conservator of the Peace, as originally intended in the Delaware Constitution, Article XV, section 1, means that the Sheriff is a Peace Officer vested with broad law enforcement powers (inherent in the public trust of the office) that historically preceded police departments and other executive-branch law enforcement agencies.

The concept of an elected chief law-enforcement officer, responsible to the People (instead of the executive) of the County in which he resides is a critical constitutional check and balance to prevent governmental abuse of power in a “free society”. Accordingly, the Delaware Code statutory limitation against admitting Sheriffs and Regular Sheriffs Deputies to the Delaware State Police Academy is irrelevant in the definition of a “law enforcement officer”, as any given statute, ordinance or policy is legally subordinate to state and federal constitutions. Furthermore, 11 Del C, section 8401(5) as embedded, does not explicitly define a law enforcement officer per se. It only specifies categories of candidates for eligible for admission to the academy.

The same County Council that arbitrarily limits Free Speech (public participation policy),turns a blind eye toward illegal immigration, approves zoning of a low-income housing development over a known toxic waste dump (Jackson’s Pit) in utter disregard of public health and safety; and who penny-pinches our duly-elected Sheriff, Jeff Christopher over proper uniforms and side arms (risking the lives of our lives of our deputies) is not in a strong moral, legal or intellectual position to supercede the Delaware Constitution in any way, shape or form.

To the citizens of Sussex County in these troubled social and economic times (largely brought about by politicians and special interests afraid of independently-elected law enforcement officers) ask yourself:

In a real emergency, whom would you rather call … your County Councilman or the Sheriff???

Wolfgang von Baumgart,

State Chairman,

Independent Party of Delaware

Millsboro DE


(302) 945-2646

Choose your poison well in twenty - Twelve

Last election cycle, I was telling everyone I had a chance to speak with; that voting for the same two parties would be an economic disaster to the country maybe the final nail in the coffin for America. Yet many people went and voted for the same two factions who have been sitting in control. Just as in 2008 the only two choices people were being told they had was Obama or McCain. Nevermid the other candidates who had a very sound platform, not bought and paid for by bankers lobbyists, Nuclear Power Lobbyists. Planned Parenthood, ACORN, the Military Industrial Complex and others.

During one of the debates I was lincluded at, I addressed problems and gave viable solutions on correcting the dangers we face. The country being in debt- This was a much bigger threat to our national security than al quaeda. My remarks were not taken well by some who stated my commnets were very "Un-American... People want to hear how strong our country is, and how we are a world power." Not that we are about to be destroyed.

What occured in 2010 though voters were told to believe a lie. A vote for an alternate party candidate was a vote for the other side, Actually they were correct in a way. But not for the Democrat or Republican side, (Some know that choosing Democrat or Republican is not tow different sides.). The accusation that we are a lost vote is a remark resembling the stereotypes motorcyclists receieved from the political hogs in the 60s and 70s.. "They're a bunch of rouges- vagabonds, They wear Purple fuzzy seat covers on there motorcycles.. and don't take baths. They are a bunch of 'unamerican' commies, and many other remarks. What is even more remarkably stupid in the lies that people believed, many of those 'commie motorcyclists'? were Veterans who served in the US Military in Korea, WWII and Vietnam.

Is this what we have become?
A run the muck beligerant raving old madmen? Who are equally as uncivilized as those who the established Factions label as being evil?

Yet, we shouldn't expect any less from a country has leaders who decide it is a good law that kills hundreds of thousands of innocent babies a year. Who for decades of reducing the value of human life to the point where baby killing is a legal and then paid-for-with-your-tax-dollars outpatient procedure, American leaders have no qualms about assassinating those they disagree with. They even put US citizens who disagree with them in Prison. and pass insane laws like the Patriot Act and then haggle about other bills like THE ENEMY BELLIGERENT INTERROGATION, DETENTION, AND PROSECUTION ACT.

It is clear John McCain doesn't like Muammar Gaddafi and he says "kill him!". But that is only because the Banks can't control Colonel Gaddafi. and McCain, like Obama and most of the thers are bought and paid for by the Banking cartel.

“Senior western leaders called for NATO to adopt an assassination policy against Col Muammar Gaddafi to salvage the bombing campaign in Libya from a descent into stalemate. The calls came as Col Gaddafi was reported to have strengthened his grip on power by repatriating billions of dollars in overseas assets that should have been frozen by UN sanctions.

On Sunday, there was growing pressure on Coalition forces to directly target Col Gaddafi with military strikes.
Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican member of the Senate Armed Services committee, said that the quickest way to end the emerging stalemate was to “cut the head of the snake off”. He said: “The people around Gaddafi need to wake up every day wondering, ‘Will this be my last?’

Senator John McCain, who visited Libya at the weekend, also said that the Libyan dictator should be targeted but argued that it was more important to increase American firepower over Libya. He said: “It’s pretty obvious to me that the US has got to play a greater role on the air power side. Our Nato allies neither have the assets, nor frankly the will – there’s only six countries of the 28 in Nato that are actively engaged in this situation.” source – Telegraph UK

When does the madness end? Choose your poison carefully !!

According to the IMF forecast, whoever is elected U.S. president next year will be the last to preside over the world’s largest economy.
We have lived in a world dominated by the U.S. since 1890, when America overtook Great Britain as the world’s leading economic power. There isn't anyone who remembers anything else.

And both those countries live under very similar rules of constitutional government, respect for civil liberties and the rights of property.

China has none of those. The Age of China will feel very different.

The decline of America, is the biggest story of our time. You can see its implications in the factories no longer operating in the Midwest, soaring costs of oil, food and other commodities.

Ralph Gomory, research professor at NYU’s Stern business school stated, "There are two systems in collision,” "What we have done is traded jobs for profit. The jobs have moved to China. The capability erodes in the U.S. and grows in China. That’s very destructive. That is a big reason why the U.S. is becoming more and more polarized between a small, very rich class and an eroding middle class. The people who get the profits are very different from the people who lost the wages.”

By the way, the last time the world’s dominant leader lost its ability to run things singlehandedly was early in the past century. That’s when the U.S. and Germany surpassed Great Britain. That resulted in World War I, and didn’t turn out well either. After WWI we ended up going on into the Great Derpssion, and that marched into another World War that developed a nuclear monster that has continued to march in lock step towards the prophetic end game. Far worse than any other time in the history of man.

Wednesday, April 20, 2011



Whereas, James Madison (1751-1836) who attended the college of New Jersy which would become Princeton, graduating in two years. He was studied in subjects ranging from Latin to geography to philosophy; Whom called for the Constitutional Convention of 1786, Whom wrote most of the US Constitution at the Constitution Convention in 1787; Whom once the Convention ended, along with John Jay and Alexander Hamilton wrote the Federalist Papers. Whom became the 4th President of the United States and is attributed to stating the following Two (2) quotes, (1) “Every word of the Constitution decides a question between power and liberty.” (2) “Do not separate text from the historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”

Whereas, Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), his scientific achievements helped him earn respect at home and abroad. While in England, he also received honorary degrees from St. Andrews and Oxford. Whom attend the Second Continental Congress that met from 1775-1776 where he helped draft and signed the Declaration of Independence. Whom attended the Constitution Convention of 1787 and signed the Constitution, so ratifying the same the seventh day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty. Whom in a letter dated December 9th, 1775 (12 years prior to the ratification of the Constitution) wrote the following : “I am much obligated by thinking present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. Your manuscript “Indee Sur le Gouvernement et la Royaute” is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces, which accompanied Vattel. “Le court Expose de ce qui s`est passe entre la Cour Britannique et les Colonies” bc. Being a very concise and dear statement of facts, will be reprinted here for the use of our new friends in Canada. The translations of the proceedings of our Congress are very acceptable. I send you herewith what of them has been farther pubished here, together with a few newspapers, containing accounts of some of the successes Providence has favored us with. We are threatened from England with a very powerful force, to come next year against us.”

Whereas, John Jay (1745-1829) whom served as Chief Justice of the SCOTUS from 1789-1795, (contributor to Federalist Papers) in a letter dated 25 July, 1787, wrote the following to George Washington, “Dear Sir, Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to delcare expressly that the command and chief of the American Army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.”

Whereas, Fifty-five (55) days after the above cited letter from John Jay to Washington dated July 25th 1787, the Constitution for the United States was ratified containing Article I § 8 CL. 10, “To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations”, Also Contained therein, occurs Article II § 1 CL 5, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President, neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”

Whereas, Vattel’s the “LAW OF NAITONS”, which Franklin stated in 1775 “has been in the hands of the members of Congress now sitting,” and also stating, “when the circumstances of a rising stat make it necessary frequently t consult the law of nations”, contains Book I, Ch. 8@ 212 and natives, “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or NATURAL BORN CITIZENS, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of citizens those children naturally follow the conditions of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation, and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the father is therefore that of the children, and THESE BECOME TRUE CITIZENS merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their own coming of to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe the society in which they were born. I say that, IN ORDER TO BE OF THE COUNRY, IT IS NECESSARY THAT A PERSON BE BORN OF A FATHER WHO IS A CITIZEN, FOR IF HE IS BORN THERE OF A FOREIGNER, IT WILL BE ONLY THE PLACE OF HIS BIRTH AND NOT HIS COUNTRY.”

Whereas, there appears no other “strong check against the admission of a foriegner’ as to the Commander in Chief of the Army within the Constitution beynd the Article II § I CL 5 requirements, it is surely the original intent that only that specific type of citizen the “natural born citizen” described by Vattel and well understood by the Framers of the Constitution, as is demonstrated within this resolution by citation of historical record, is to lawfully hold the position.

Whereas, John Binham 1815-1900) served as US Representative from Ohio from 1855- 1863 and again from 1865-1873 was appointed judge-advocate. Mr. Bingham on 9 March, 1866, speaking on the House floor stated’ “[I} find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United State of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”

Whereas, John Marshall (1755- 1835) whm attended the ratification convention in Virginia and spoke on the new constitution, was appointed secretary of state by Adams in 1801, became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court until 1835, whom in 1814, serving the SCOTUS in that year along with Bushrod Washington (1762-1829) William Johnson (1771-1826) Gabriel Duvall (1752- 1844) and Joseph Story (1779-1845), descided The Venus, 12 USC 9 Cranch 253 253 (1814). Nearly all these men either participated in the American Revolution, or there fathers did. These men being men who were intimately associated with the American revolution Bushrod Washington was George Washington’s nephew and heir. William Johnson’s father, mother and elder brother were revolutionaries, who served as statesman, rebel, or nurse/ assistance to the line of troops, respectfully. Henry Brockholst Livingston, during the Revolutionary War, was a Lieutenant Colonel in the New York Line and an aide-de-camp to General Benedict Arnold, before the latter’s defection to the British. Thomas Todd served 6 months in the Army against the British and participated in 5 Constitutional Conventions from 1784-1792. Joseph Story’s father took part in the original Boston Tea Party. Being witnesses and heirs of the Revolution, they understood what the Framers of the Constitution had intended.
In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire § 212 paragraphs from the French edition, using his own English, on p 12 of the ruling: “Vattel, who though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands says; “The citizens are the members of the civil society, bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being than any other whose work has fallen into my hands says
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound t this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subject and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obligated to defend it because of its grants ~ p 12 US 290
“them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. Then enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizen of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participation in all its advantages.

Whereas, in the majority opinion delivered by the Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett, 88 US. 162 (1875) it is stated: The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents”.

Whereas, on p 168-9 of the record within US v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649 (1898), Justice Gray states: “At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution where familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

Whereas, on 30 April 2008, the United States Senate (in toto), the 110th Congress unanimously agreed with Senate Res. 511( one of those which sponsored the resolution was the now sitting President of the United States, Mr Obama from Illinois). The sole purpose of Senate Resolution 511 is to apply the set of birth requirements which give interpretation of “natural born citizen” s applied to the United States Constituton Article II § I CL 5.
Within that Resolution, at the last paragraph and the statement of the resolution is the following: “Whereas John Sidney McCain III, was born to American Citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone, in 1936; Now, therefore, be it Resolved. That John Sidney McCain, III is an ‘natural born Citizen’ under Article II § I, of the Constitution of the United States.”.

Whereas, it is clear from the forgoing paragraph that the statements “Wereas John Sidney McCain III, who ws born to American citizens…” offered the 110th Congress (in toto) within SR 511 agrees with the historical background provided withing this instant Resolution that one requirement for “natural born citizen” status of citizenship is to have been born of two (2) American citizens. Furhtermore, it is apparent from the same 110th Congress that there pose is that John Sidney McCain III was born under the jurisdiction of the United States agrees with historical background tat a second birth requirement is that a “natural born citizen” status citizenship requires the birth to take place at a place where the jurisdiction of the United States by the completion of the statement “… on an American military base in Panama Canal Zone in 1936“.

That the United States Constitution Article II § 1 Cl 5 “natural born citizen” is any human being born (A) within the country of the United States, or on soil which is under the sole and complete jurisdiction of the United States, and also (B) born of “Two (2) biological parents, who at the time of birth, are both legal United States citizens andnot owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.

They all are to blame

I have been listening to the poltial grandstanding from some Republicans who are attempting shift away from the fact the the entire political powers have abanded the problems of our southern border.

A few weeks ago, Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever made headlines when he claimed that the Federal Government had ordered the Border Patrol to stop arresting illegals entering the country and simply turn them back to the border.

And actually this may be something good for the American people. It proves that Jan Brewer has been telling the truth. That every Administration dating as far back as Nixon has been promising tougher border security on their way to the WH. Only to turn their backs on the problem after they were elected. This is not only presidential elections this goes out to the Body politics that have been usurping power forthe good of their own best interest, over and above serving to provide for the good of the country.

This is the kind of lunacy we have come to expect though from the political powers that reign in government making and sometimes breaking the law. .

They send Border Patrol agents into gunfights with heavily armed drug smugglers, telling them to use “bean bag” guns.

And I can run a page of past history of how this problem has been neglected. Yet we should epxect this to come from the Democrat Side. What about the ones who are suppsed to be conservatives? Why is it that many are not standing in support of Jan Brewer on this problem? It is also important to understand that the Sheriff has more power in his own county that the President of the United States. So instead of Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever ranting about what the President has done, Why doesn't he do what he has the authority to do? Hue and Cry! or Muster himself an irregular militia that is an "All Voluntary" group that would be serving as his Deputy Sheriffs just as a private citizen is entitled to do under the Constitution of the United States. The Federal Government is openly showing the people they are in control of this problem But they aren't coming out and telling them. Otherwise the people who are actually in charge of this country would be conducting that which was granted to them in the first place.

If you read the Two most important claims related to the powers of a County Sheriff. You find that the United States Supreme Court decided the Sheriff has the authority over deciding whether the people of his county must comply any federal laws that are passed. Even so, the Sheriff is also able to muster a group of volunteers who would be acting under his authority to ensure that criminal activities are not violated in his county. That includes the issues related to anyone who violates the US Codes or State and County Laws related to crossing into the United States by any other means execpt through border patrol Stations..

Confederacy is where you have two or more political factions that do what is in their own best interest and not in the best interest of the country as a whole.
When two political factions control the government, not tend to the problems the country faces; serving their own best interests looking out for the good of the country; it becomes no different than when they usurp power away from the body of the entire union. Putting at risk the entire tree to be spoiled

"If any member should attempt to usurp the supreme authority, they could not be supposed to have an equal authority and credit in all the confederate states. Were he to have too great influence over one, this would alarm the rest. Were he to subdue a part, that which would still remain free might oppose him with forces independent of those which he had usurped and overpower him before he could be settled in his usurpation.

"Should a popular insurrection happen in one of the confederate states the others are able to quell it. Should abuses creep into one part, they are reformed by those that remain sound. The state may be destroyed on one side, and not on the other; the confederacy may be dissolved, and the confederates preserve their sovereignty.

"As this government is composed of small republics, it enjoys the internal happiness of each; and with respect to its external situation, it is possessed, by means of the association, of all the advantages of large monarchies.''

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Political coat of many colors

By Earl Lofland
On the day that the Revolutionary War began It is only fair to express some ideals about how our country was designed.

The founding generation

At first, there were no parties in the nation; however soon factions formed around dominant personalities such as Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton and Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, who opposed Hamilton's broad vision of a powerful federal government. Where, Jefferson objected to Hamilton's flexible view of the Constitution; Hamilton stretched to include a national bank. When the government is only as good as those who are in control of it.

In the beginning of this country, George Washington feared the country would be divided along party lines because people would trend to vote or act in concert with whichever party they belonged to at the time. instead of seeking the good of the country. George Washington eventualy being villified by members of the Republican party as if he were King George.
Parties could also become tyrannical if one became too strong for any other to resist. John Adams felt he would rather go to his grave than become a member of a political party. Although he was looked to to be the head of the Federalist party , even though he believed in the cause they advocated.
Jefferson was a Democrat-Republican, meaning he was against a strong federal government and devoted to the cause that he actually undermined John Adams' presidency behind the scenes even as he was Adams' vice-president.

The Body of politic that the founding generation designed was constructed in such a delicate fashion that it balanced the powers of the government so as each branch of the federal government did not have too much power over the other. While at the same time the States of the union were recognized having rights - allowing them to have powers that were numerous and indefinate. So as they were able to provide a system of governmen within their state that would create order and give the citizens of that State individual liberties in their lives.

In order for this body of politic to properly function the founders also recognized, as Thomsas Jefferson stated: "I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men … where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to Heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all."

James Madison and many others also expressed this view (Federalist 10)

Often times people ask what should be done in this failing economy and the political struggles that are happening today, As many attempt to give an alternate view with very powerful evidence, yet time and time again those seeking answers continue to hold on to their coat of color like it will keep them a afloat in choppy seas, or give them power over death itself.

"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. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State". James Madison Federalist No. 10

Alexander Hamilton explained citing Spirit of Lawa,'' vol. i., book ix., chap. i. the threat of giving too much power and how to quell that usurpation through having a body of many members to ensure that one or two may not be able to control the entire union.

"If a single member should attempt to usurp the supreme authority, he could not be supposed to have an equal authority and credit in all the confederate states. Were he to have too great influence over one, this would alarm the rest. Were he to subdue a part, that which would still remain free might oppose him with forces independent of those which he had usurped and overpower him before he could be settled in his usurpation.

"Should a popular insurrection happen in one of the confederate states the others are able to quell it. Should abuses creep into one part, they are reformed by those that remain sound. The state may be destroyed on one side, and not on the other; the confederacy may be dissolved, and the confederates preserve their sovereignty.

"As this government is composed of small republics, it enjoys the internal happiness of each; and with respect to its external situation, it is possessed, by means of the association, of all the advantages of large monarchies.

Alexander Hamilton Federalist No 9.

Judging on how government is run today between the two parties, the ones who opposed political parties were correct in their fears. We have witnessed where the Major Parties will battle it out amongst themselves to gain control of the body of poitics in the governments (Municiple, County, State and Central body's)while all at the same time, the also will fight together to retain their power from being stricken by any other voices who studies are showing are vastly a majority of voters. Most who are voting along the lines of the majority than voting for the good of the country, even when it is a voice that may not be a member politic that is seated in power.

Sunday, April 17, 2011

The PCA Today

Legal Question Does a federal law agencies presence or a Special State Police task force violate the Posse Comitatus Act?
By Earl Lofland
To properly examine whether the federal government or state government has violated the posse comitatus Act, first the definition of the Posse Comitatus must be examined and the history behind the term.

1. The ‘Posse’ as it was known in 16th century England was derived from two latin words Posse is defined in scholastic Latin to mean “potentiality, capability” (US) A group of people summoned to help law enforcement

2. and Comitatus is the plural for committee, board in the plural comitātus (genitive comitātūs); m, fouth declension, meaning company of soldiers the word comitatus etiology is from another latin word comes meaning companion the etiology of the word comes (genitive comitis); m,f is a companion, comrade, partner. A Count or an Earl the plural form of this comitatus is defined as: a group of warriors or nobels accompanying a king or other leader

The phrase Posse comitatus or sheriff's posse is originally a common-law or statute law authority of a county sheriff to conscript any able-bodied males t assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon In accordance to Winchester, 13 Edw.I cc. 1 and 4, (1285) anyone, either a Constable or a private citizen, witnessing a crime shall make “hue and cry”, and that the hue and cry must be kept up against the fleeing criminal from town to town and county to county, until the felon was apprehended and delivered to the sheriff. All able-bodied men, upon hearing the shouts, were obliged to assist in the pursuit of the criminal. Hue and Cry was the original concept for the phrase posse comitatus The word Posse Comitatus .Originally found in English common law, it is generally obsolete; however, it survives in America, where it is the law enforcement equivalent of summoning a militia for military purposes
See Oxford English Dictionary s.v. "posse n. 2, posse comitatus.
(See All the Posse of Hell, cannot violently eject me." T. Fuller, Good Thoughts in Bad Times (1645) I. xv. 39. "A whole posse of the young lady's kindred—brothers, cousins and uncles—stood ready at the street door to usher me upstairs." W. Beckford Portuguese Jrnl. 10 June 1787, p. 72.

During the early stages of the English Civil War (1642) local forces were employed everywhere by the Crown for all able bodied males. They produced valid written authority, inducing them to assemble as a Militia.

This is what would be considered as an All Volunteer Militia today. A body of men who were not a part of a regular army nor paid by the Crown as such. Different than what is defined today as the National Guard, Reserves or Active members of any branch of the US Military.

The Sheriff was a royal official responsible for the keeping of the peace (“a reeve” for the Shire or county on behalf of the Crown. The Sheriff in the Definition of the States Constitution is defined an elected office working for the people of a County, with a paid salary and, a skeleton staff preventing the government from having to levy heavy taxes, for the sheriff to perform his official duties.
In the event criminal activities occurred, the sheriff would then muster a “Posse” to apprehend the criminal. This posse was an all volunteer body, under the authority of the Sheriff and the government to quell any violence or felonious criminal activities. Once the criminal was apprehended and handed over to the Sheriff, the Posse was then disbanded, and the judicial due process of laws would commence for the accused; where they were then brought before the magistrate and their charges would be tried by a jury of their peers. These peers were also made up of the body of citizens whom were within the jurisdiction where the crime occurred.
The powers of sheriffs for posse comitatus were codified by section 8 of the Sheriffs Act 1887 Section (1):

Every person in a county shall be ready and apparelled at the command of the sheriff and at the cry of the country to arrest a felon whether within a franchise or without, and in default shall on conviction be liable to a fine, and if default be found in the lord of the franchise he shall forfeit the franchise to the Queen, and if in the bailiff he shall be liable besides the fine to imprisonment for not more than one year, or if he have not whereof to pay the fine, than two years.”See Section 8 (1), Sheriffs Act 1887

Though Posse Commitatus was established under civil law. It also would apply in the event the government required able bodied men to be mustered for a war or acts of treason against the Crown.
on June 18, 1878, after what was known as the Reconstruction era, with the intention of substantially limiting the powers of the federal government and its use of the military for law enforcement. Posse Comitatus Act was passed and signed into Law. This in Combination with the The on June 18, 1878, after what was known as the Reconstruction era, with the intention of substantially limiting the powers of the federal government and its use of the military for law enforcement. Posse Comitatus Act was passed and signed into Law. This in Combination with the The Insurrection Act of 1807 is the set of laws that govern the US President’s ability to deploy troops within the United States to put down lawlessness, Insurrection and rebellion . The combination of these laws are chiefly contained in 10 USC §331-10 USC §335 are to limit Presidential power as much as possible, relying on state and local governments in accordance to the principles related around the Kentucky Virginia Resolution and Amendments IX and X for response in the event of insurrection.

Coupled with the Posse Comitaus Act the powers of the President for law enforcement are theoretically to be limited, and delayed.
In in 1956 the Posse Comitatus Act was Amended 18 USC § 1385

Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both".

The Act prohibits members of the Army and Air Force from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police or peace officer powers that maintain “law and order” on non-federal property (States, counties and their municipal divisions) within the United States.

In 2007 The Defense Authorization Bill was passed, with over $500 billion allocated to the military, and contained changes to the Insurrection Act of 1807, by a bipartisan majority of both houses of Congress: 398-23 in the House and by unanimous consent in the Senate.
For military forces to be used under the provisions of the revised Insurrection Act, the following conditions must be met: the Bill read:

(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--
(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--
(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and
(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or
(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).
(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--
(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

Though the Bill was repealed in 2008 the 2008 bill amended the original wording of the Act required the conditions as worded in Paragraph (2), above, to be met as the result of

insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy

The new wording of the Act, as amended, still requires the same conditions as worded in Paragraph (2), above, but those conditions could, after the changes, also be a result of

natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition

and only if

domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order.

Though this has been repealed completely in HB 5122
There is still 10 USC § 332: Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority “Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

Does an employee of the federal government constitute the definition of “Standing army?”

“The President isn’t required to need a state of emergency to call out federal forces. In fact NORTHCOM has “maturing relationships with agencies inside our country, the FBI for instance.” (See Mullen Praises Northern Command’s Interagency Efforts by Jim Garamone American Forces Press Service March 11, 2008)

NORTHCOM includes a task force which consists of active, Guard and Reserve military members drawn from all service branches, as well as civilian personnel, who are commanded by a federalized National Guard general officer.

“The Posse Comitatus Act is often cited as a major constraint on the use of the military services to participate in “homeland security”, “counterterrorism”, “civil disturbances, and similar domestic duties”. It is widely believed that this law prohibits the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps from performing any kind of police work or assisting law enforcement agencies to enforce the law. This however, is not exactly correct. The biggest error is the common assertion that the Posses Comitatus Act was enacted to prevent the military services from acting as a national police force."
What is correct is that new rules are needed to clearly set forth the boundaries for the use of federal military forces for homeland security. The Posse Comitatus Act is inappropriate for modern times and needs to be replaced by a completely new law.” (See The Posse Comitatus Act and Homeland Security by John R. Brinkerhoff
February 2002

Mr Brinkerhoff went on to say; “Sinnreich, Trebilcock, Bolduc, and most commentators who opine on this law are wrong. The Posse Comitatus Act was not, as they assert and as most people believe, enacted to prevent members of military services from acting as a national police force. It was enacted to prevent the Army from being abused by having its soldiers pressed into service as police officers (a posse) by local law enforcement officials in the post-Reconstruction South.” Id. The Posse Comitatus Act and Homeland Security John R Brinkerhoff Feb 2001

During the Ronald Reagan Years (1981 to 1983) Colonel John Brinkerhoff was acting associate director for national preparedness of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), (Reagan Administration), a career senior executive in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. His last position before leaving OSD to joint FEMA was as acting deputy assistant secretary for reserve affairs. He was also director of manpower programming, director of intergovernmental affairs, and special assistant to the deputy assistant secretary of defense for reserve affairs. Before joining the civil service, Mr. Brinkerhoff served in the US Army for 24 years where he retired in 1974 of 24 years of active commissioned service in a variety of troop assignments: Korea, Germany, Vietnam, and the United States. He also served two tours on the Army Staff and two tours in OSD. From 1997- 2002 he was an adjunct research staff member of the Institute for Defense Analyses working on a variety of issues including Homeland Defense.

In order to define what constitutes a Standing Army compared to a ‘militia’ the history of the word Militia must be examined.

To have an understanding whether a federal employee of an agency such as the FBI, ATF or other agency would be considered a Standing army the word Militia must be properly defined, and what differences there are in a ‘regular military unit; and irregular militia and a “Regular Army”.
Militia derives from two Latin words:
miles /miːles/ : soldier
-itia /iːtia/ : a state, activity, quality or condition of being
In a book, Certain Discourses Military by Sir John Smythe (1590) it was definded as:
a military force; a body of soldiers and military affairs; a body of military discipline.

In England the word Militia derives from a common law tradition, and dates back to Anglo-Saxon times. The tradition was that all able-bodied males were liable to be called out to serve in one of two organizations. These were the posse comitatus, an ad hoc assembly called together by a law officer, (such as a Sheriff), to apprehend lawbreakers, and the fyrd which was a militia mustered from the districts threatened with attack. Service in the fyrd only had a short duration and the participants were expected to provide their own arms and provisions. Something recognized as volunteer service. The origins of the fyrd can be traced back to the Late 1500’s to early 1600’s. (See A History of the British Army, volume I J.W. Fortescue,). The militia become an important institution in English life. It was organized on the basis of the shire county, and was one of the responsibilities of the Lord Lieutenant, a royal official (usually a trusted nobleman or Sheriff).
Each Deputy Lieutenant (equivalent to a Deputy Sheriff) of the county hundreds, were responsible of who relayed orders to the justices of the peace or magistrates. Each parish furnished a quota of eligible men, whose names were recorded on muster rolls. Likewise, each household was assessed for the purpose of finding weapons, armor, horses, or their financial equivalent, according to their status. The militia was to be mustered for training purposes from time to time. Just as was written in Federalist No 29 for a militia in these Several States of America during the era of our founding generation. In 1820 the militia was transformed into a volunteer force seen as an alternative to the “Regular army”. Men would volunteer and undertake basic training for several months at an army depot. Afterwards, they were to return to civilian life. In the United States, a militia dates back the colonial era, and the American Revolutionary War. American revolutionaries took control of the militia system. Regulation of the militia was codified by the Second Continental Congress with the Articles of Confederation. The revolutionaries also created a full-time regular army—the Continental Army.

Due to manpower shortages, the militia provided short-term support to the regulars in the field throughout the war. (See "Mobilizing Armed Force in the American Revolution" John Shy, and The American Revolution: A Heritage of Change (Minneapolis, 1975), pp. 104–5 John Parker and Carol Urness,

The militia was also distinguished from the “Regular Army and “military service” whereas the latter was normally fixed commitment for a period of time to last at least a year, and would include a salary. Compared to the militia was mustered only in times to meet a threat, or prepare for an imminent threat, and would usually last for very short for periods of time. Militia persons normally provided their own weapons, equipment, and supplies, however at times they would be compensated for losses or expenditures. This would make the Militia acting in the spirit of what defines volunteerism,(In general terms, volunteering is the practice of people working on behalf of others or a particular cause without payment for their time and services).( See The Right of the People or the Power of the State Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment, Valparaiso Law Review, vol. 26, number 1, page 131 (1991)

During the 1780s, James Madison helped convince the political leaders to call for a convention to replace the Articles of Confederation. Madison, due to his overall influence historians consider him the "Father of the Constitution."
Madison was elected to the United States House of Representatives when the Constitution was ratified, from his home state of Virginia, serving from the First Congress through the Fourth Congress. He like Thomas Jefferson was a member of the Democratic-Republican Party during his final term in the House. In 1798 and 1799, While most members of Congress, the President, John Adams, along with the majority of US Supreme Court members were Federalists. The central government decided to pass into law The Alien Seditions Act , whereas Thomas Jefferson, then elected as Vice President of the United States and James Madison wrote the Kentucky-Virginia Resolutions not to abide by the Act due to a constitutional question arising to argue that the Acts were unconstitutional and therefore void, and in doing so, they argued for states' rights and strict constructionism of the Constitution. They also seen this Act targeting the members who belonged to the minority party at the time, the Democrat-Republican Party who opposed the Quasi- war being funded by Congress, without actually declaring a war in Congress controlled by the Federalist body. Years later While Jefferson was the President, he removed nearly all of Mr. Adams' "midnight judges" from office, which led to the Supreme Court’s decision in Marbury v. Madison. This was done under the Constitutional Clause of Judges acting not acting in “Good Behavior” outlined in Article III § 1 of the US Constitution. Jefferson also began, and won the First Barbary War (1801–1805)Where, prior to the inauguration of Jefferson as President, Congress passed naval legislation that provided six frigates that ‘shall be officered and manned as the President of the United States may direct.' . . . In the event of a declaration of war on the United States by Yusuf Karamanli, the Pasha (or Bashaw) of Tripoli, the powers of Barbary., (In 1800, Federal revenues totaled a little over $10 million.) Putting his long-held beliefs for cessation of the tribute being demanded by Karamanli This ideal was also supported by George Washington and others. With the American navy in 1794 being re-commissioned and the resulting increased firepower on the seas, by 1801 it became increasingly possible for America to refuse paying tribute. However this long-standing ideal of paying tribute would continue until 1801 where President Jefferson refused the demand. Consequently, that May, the Pasha declared war on the U.S., in the customary Barbary manner of cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate. Algiers and Tunis did not follow their ally in Tripoli. 'The ships commissioned, ships were to 'protect our commerce & chastise Tripoli’s insolence — by “sinking, burning or destroying their ships & Vessels wherever you shall find them.'".
During the Quasi War Congress authorized the president to seize vessels sailing to French ports. But President Adams, acting on his own authority and without the sanction of Congress, instructed American ships to capture vessels sailing either to or from French ports. Whereas the US Supreme Court Later ruled that. A Captain of the US Navy could indeed be sued for damages in the case. "In short," writes Louis Fisher in summary, "congressional policy announced in a statute necessarily prevails over inconsistent presidential orders and military actions. Presidential orders, even those issued as Commander in Chief, are subject to restrictions imposed by Congress." (See Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. 2 Cranch 170 170 (1804))

In Federalist No 69, Alexander Hamilton explained the president's war powers and authority, it "would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war, and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the constitution under consideration would appertain to the Legislature."

In 1812, Having helped to win the nation’s independence American Civilians were again called upon by Congress and the President James Madison to defend their country. As the militia in the war of 1812, most notably in the siege and battle of new Orleans, which culminated on January 8, 1815. In that battle, General Andrew Jackson commanded not only regular military units, but also an irregular force composed of state militia from several southern states, New Orleans uniformed and irregular city militia mustered en masse from the City residents, a battalion of free men of color, frontiersmen, volunteers, Choctaw Indians, and a group of Baratarian Pirates (Privateers) fighting under Jean Lafitte See Robert V. Remini, The Battle of New Orleans: Andrew Jackson and America First Military Victory 2, 59, 133, (2001))
Although the performance of some untested irregular units were flawed, the irregulars marksmanship, local knowledge and other skills were proven invaluable as Jackson Defeated a much larger force of British Regulars (See Id. At 116, 146, 153-54, 162.)

Eerily Abraham Lincoln famously explained the principle this way:“Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose — and you allow him to make war at pleasure…. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probability of the British invading us" but he will say to you "be silent; I see it, if you don't."

John Bassett Moore, born in Smyrna, Delaware, graduated at the University of Virginia in 1880, and admitted to the Delaware bar in 1883 took the first full professorship of international law at Columbia University explained the principle this way:
There can hardly be room for doubt that the framers of the constitution, when they vested in Congress the power to declare war, never imagined that they were leaving it to the executive to use the military and naval forces of the United States all over the world for the purpose of actually coercing other nations, occupying their territory, and killing their soldiers and citizens, all according to his own notions of the fitness of things, as long as he refrained from calling his action war or persisted in calling it peace.”

In 1898, during the Spanish American War an all volunteer militia known as the Texas Militiamen joined Theodore Roosevelt’s Rough Riders, (A Regular Army) The Texas Militia was formed during the Texas Revolution in 1836. Following the war, some of the militia units reorganized into what is known today as the Texas Rangers, originally was a private, volunteer effort for several years until it became an official organization.

Following the Spanish–American War of 1898, that demonstrated weaknesses in the militia, and in the entire U.S. military. The Militia Act of 1903 (32 Stat. 775), (also known as the Dick Act), was initiated by United States Secretary of War Elihu Root. According to the constraints and definitions of a Militia this Act violates the principles of a militia as the principles though out the history of a militia.

In this usage, a militia is a body of private persons who respond to an emergency threat to public safety, usually one that requires an armed response, but which can also include ordinary law enforcement or disaster responses. The act of bringing to bear arms contextually changes the status of the person, from peaceful citizen, to warrior citizen. The militia is the sum total of persons undergoing this change of state. Whereas “[v]olunteers were formed in militia units who came under the command of professional, usually British, officers and served in regular military units. While a few militias were organized into recognizable units, these militiamen rarely fought as members of defined units, nor were they expected to.” (See The Citizen-Solider under federal and State Law by James Biser Whisker, West Virginia Law Review 94 (1992): 949

An examination of the Militia and Army Clauses was undertaken on the eve of World War II by Frederick B. Wiener, a professor of law at Harvard University. [5] In that article, Wiener traced the history of militia and army [Page 949] relations, and gave an overview of the history of militias. Wiener was heavily influenced by the anti-militia military writings of Brevet Major General Emory (See Id. at 947, 949, Frederick B. Wiener, The Militia Clause of the Constitution, 54 HARV.L.REV. 181 (1940).

Elbridge Gerry, delegate from Massachusetts and later a leading Anti- Federalist, objected, arguing that the last clause might be used to disarm certain religious minorities. When proposed to the states the amendment read, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the common defense, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."(See 1 ANNALS OF CONG. 451 (Joseph Gales ed., 1789))

In the 2008 decision District of Columbia v. Heller (554 U.S. 570 (2008)), ruled by the US Supreme Court, the de jure definition of "militia" as used in United States jurisprudence was discussed. The court's opinion made explicit, in its obiter dicta that the term "militia", as used in colonial times in this originalist decision, included both the federally-organized militia and the citizen-organized militias of the several States: "... the 'militia' in colonial America consisted of a subset of 'the people'—those who were male, able-bodied, and within a certain age range" (7) ... Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them"(23).

Conclusion: Any agent or government official operating in the capacity of a federal agency other than those who are limited their powers, in time, and duty under Article 1 § 8 of the US Constitution i.e. FBI, ATF, IRS inter al. are considered a “Standing Army”, and Whereas the presence and operation of such agents and their agencies within a State is in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, and the Insurrection Act of of 1807.

Friday, April 15, 2011

I do not suport HB 95 Delaware's Lid Bill

I can not support Delaware's HB95. While I believe any manditory helmet laws and seat belt laws are unconstitutional. I can't support this bill on the technicality of the wording inside the Bill. The SYNOPSIS of this bill states that it
"eliminates the requirement that a person must have a safety helmet in their possession while operating or riding on a motorcycle".

This may sound like something that is good for liberty riders. However this is not the problem I have with the wording.

This bill does not change the age requirement in Title 21 of the Delaware Code; from a person "up to 19 years of age being told they "must wear a safety helmet while operating or riding on a motorcycle"."

bold texted is the wording that I have a problem with!!!

Delaware citizens at the age of 17 (with their parents consent) is permitted to join the military and die for the government. But that same government says you must be 19 before you get to choose whether or not to wear a lid.

The Bill should be worded to "Repeal" Title 21 and the Section related to this bad law-Title 21, Repeal it and not amend it.. Then amend the repeal to reflect individuals who are 17 with the parents consent or over age 18 years of age



Section 1. Amend §4185(b), Title 21 of the Delaware Code by deleting the language “shall have in that person's possession a safety helmet approved by the Secretary of Safety and Homeland Security (hereinafter “Secretary”) through the Office of Highway Safety and” as it appears in subsection (b).

I understand the reason for the sponsors of HB 95 for introducing this Bill, at this time. Motorcyclists have been fighting for their right of choice for over 30 years and this wording is all wrong. For a true Liberty Rider to agree to.

It isn't about voters having liberty to choose at all. If so, it would have included repealing the manditory seatbelt law as well!

So, what is this bill actually about?

It is a political maneuver from the so called Two Party System who have not done their jobs correctly in serving the People!

This bill is about putting a breadcrumb on the table of a starving family (motorcyclists) to buy these political tricks, making motorcyclists believe the Two party's seated in the State General Assembly is doing something for people. And suggesting that a little is better than nothing at all.

This is to get motorcyclists votes in the upcoming elections. All for a bill that is actually no better than the current law that is already on the books.

HB 95 should not be needed at all. Instead of it reading "This bill eliminates the requirement that a person must have a safety helmet in their possession while operating or riding on a motorcycle. This bill does not change the ...requirement in Title 21 of the Delaware Code that a person up to 19 years of age must wear a safety helmet while operating or riding on a motorcycle.":

A New Bill should be drafted instead that reads:






Section 1. Repeal §4185(b), Title 21 of the Delaware Code, the language “shall have in that person's possession a safety helmet approved by the Secretary of Safety and Homeland Security (hereinafter “Secretary”) through the Office of Highway Safety and” as it appears in subsection (b).

Amend §4185 with the language (b) every person up to 18 years of age, or up to 17 with the parents or guardians consent, operating or riding on a motorcycle shall wear eye protection and a motorcycle helmet approved by the Secretary of Safety and Homeland Security (hereinafter "Secretary") through the Office of Highway Safety by the Secretary


This bill repeals the requirement that a person must have a safety helmet in their possession while operating or riding on a motorcycle. This bill amends the requirement in Title 21 of the Delaware Code that a person up to 18 years of age or 17 with the parents or guardians consent must wear a safety helmet while operating or riding on a motorcycle.

The biggest problem with this bill is the age requirements

You only have to be 17 with the parents consent to enlist and die for the government, Yet the government says you have to be 19 before you are allowed decide whether or not to wear a a lid if this bill were to be passed!!!!

Repeal §4185(b) and amend the Bill to reflect under the age of 18-

Change the wording in this bill to reflect this matter.Otherwise I can't support the Bill.

The reason for this process I urge is due to the General Assembly showing in good faith they seek to provide liberty to those who are voting age.

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Constitution Question; Amendent II

The Constitutional Question: Does the rights protected by the Second Amendment include Citizens owning Fully Automatic Firearms?

By Earl Lofland
April 13, 2011

On April 12, at 4:30 AM the South Carolina Militia mustered Cadets from the Citadel also known as South Carolina Military Academy, who launched an attack upon Ft Sumter with cannon fire lasting for 32 hours, until the commander; US Army Maj. Robert Anderson surrendered the fort to South Carolina, marking the beginning of the “War Between the States”. Many school books teach the War was about freeing Slaves. Yet there are many more issues that were involved besides just the topic of slavery among the several States in the Union, dating as far back as 1798.
If you ask people today where the first shots were fired that started the War, and who fired the first shots, an alarming amount of people answer with the Federal government fired the first shots on April 12. And some believe the first battle was the Battle of Gettysburg. Disturbingly because many people were uninterested in American history in school, almost two centuries have passed, where States have had to endure a standing army, that has lead up to people today growing so accustomed to a standing federal military force. They rally around at celebrations waving flags; shouting slogans, and wearing logos saying: “Support the Troops”. However, when you look at the reason the Second Amendment was created the threat of a standing army was one of the most dangerous concerns the people of the States seen as threat to either diluting or ultimately eliminating their individual liberty. In 1798 Congress and the President, John Adams first began to take these dangerous steps - an encroachment of the rights of the people of each State, when the Union Congress passed, and President Adams signed into law; the Alien Seditions Act, leading to Vice President Thomas Jefferson and James Madison retaliating with the Kentucky Virginia Resolutions, later to be known as the ‘Principles of 98’ or the “Nullification Crisis”.
The Citadel Bulldogs as they are known today. From the city of what used to be known as Charles Town South Carolina, (today known as Charleston, SC) were among the members of that States militia. After Major Anderson surrendered the fort to the Citadel and State of South Carolina's militia on April 13, 1861, the Union Army was then permitted to leave the fort without the threat of being harmed or captured. Outraged by South Carolina's arrogance and the embarrassment of the Union Army being physically removed from the State, Republican President Mr. Lincoln ordered the Secretary of War, Mr. Simon Cameron to muster 3 regiments from each of the States in the Union of States in retaliation against the seven states who were now called seditionists, for deciding to separate themselves from an overpowering and unbalanced government, that since 1798 had continuously encroached upon the rights of the people of the States . Five days later; on April 17, 1861, Virginia also voted and seceded from the Union.
In a Letter to the Secretary of War the Governor of Virginia wrote:
Executive Department, Richmond, Va., April 15, 1861. Hon. Simon Cameron, Secretary of War: Sir: I have received your telegram of the 15th, the genuineness of which I doubted. Since that time I have received your communications mailed the same day, in which I am requested to detach from the militia of the State of Virginia "the quota assigned in a table," which you append, "to serve as infantry or rifleman for the period of three months, unless sooner discharged." In reply to this communication, I have only to say that the militia of Virginia will not be furnished to the powers at Washington for any such use or purpose as they have in view. Your object is to subjugate the Southern States, and a requisition made upon me for such an object - an object, in my judgment, not within the purview of the Constitution or the act of 1795 - will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war, and, having done so, we will meet it in a spirit as determined as the administration has exhibited toward the South.
– Respectfully, John Letcher

In the following weeks Maryland and 6 other states voted on secession where Just before April 29, The Secretary of War ordered the US Army to go into Maryland to detain each member of the Maryland General Assembly who would vote in favor of secession. This was an further encroachment on States rights. Which prevented the people of Maryland from leaving the Union as it was known would happen if all the member s of Maryland’s state Convention had been permitted to vote.

The principles of nullification was originally accepted in 1814 by the Hartford Convention of New Englanders as well as many in the south, who recognized the Kentucky Virginia Resolutions as a protection against federal encroachments on their rights, and remained a point of contention; eventually leading to the crisis that erupted in 1832 with the Unions passage of The Tariff of 1832. Despite pleas from Southern representatives, who failed to moderate the protective barriers erected in earlier legislation, South Carolina called a state convention that passed a decision to nullify both, the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 within their borders, and threatened to secede if the federal government attempted to collect those tariff duties. This struggle between the business owners and people of the several States which formed a Union in 1787 went back and forth until 1860 when the predominantly agricultural states finally were threatened by seeing their economy collapse under the unbalanced tariffs which were leveraged to appease the industrial northern states business owners from paying an equal share in the operations of the central government. Robert Hayne (of Webster-Hayne Debate fame) resigned from the Senate to run for governor of South Carolina, and John C. Calhoun resigned as vice president, to take Mr. Hayne’s seat in the Senate. Both men spearheaded the nullification drive. Making the issue a real possibility of secession and the very threat of war was now seen.
President Jackson immediately offered his thought on this matter, that nullification was tantamount to treason, following the same path that occurred in 1798 with the passage of the Alien Seditions Act, ordering the dispatch of naval ships to the Charleston harbor and began deploying US military to Fort Sumter and other federal fortifications. This outraged the people of many States, reminding them of a similar action which occurred not but 70 years prior- leading up to the States forming a union and ultimately Declaring war against Great Britain and the English Army. The Unions Congress supported President Jackson however and passed a Force Bill in early 1833 authorizing Jackson to use a standing army to enforce the tariff measures. A standing army continued to occupy the States up until the outbreak of the War in 1861. US Forces were continuously marching against the will of the people of the States just as what occurred during the 1700's with the King of England and the British Army.

Meanwhile Henry Clay again took up his role as the Great Compromiser. On the same day the Force Bill passed, he secured passage of the Tariff of 1833. This latter measure provided for the gradual reduction of the tariff over 10 years down to the level which had existed in 1816. This compromise was acceptable to Calhoun who was not yet successful finding other states to support nullification. President Jackson signed both measures. South Carolina repealed its nullification measure, but then nullified the Force Bill and Mr. Jackson ignored this action. Though the issue died down, the outrage of a standing army and the other problems related to tariffs did not entirely go away, where they gradually morphed into the principles of States Decisions of nullification eventually leading to the secession of seven Southern states and the formation of the Confederacy.
In 1861, just one month before Mr. Lincoln took over the WH the SenatePassed the Morrill Tariff only possible because many low-tariff Southerners had left Congress after their states declared their secession. Historian Reinhard H. Luthin documented the importance of the Morrill Tariff to the Republicans in the 1860 presidential election where Abraham Lincoln's was recognized as a protectionist and supporting the Morrill Tariff bill. Reinhard noted, this bill helped Lincoln to secure support in the important electoral college states; Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Lincoln carried Pennsylvania handily in November, as part of his sweep of the North.
Still as all these issues were occurring in Congress the people continued to find disinterest in what President Jackson had created in 1832 and Congress nor any president after Jackson had yet decided to repeal a standing army in the several states.
The Second Amendment, like other provisions within the Constitution, was born of a combination of compromise and necessity, where the people of the founders generation had become acutely aware of the shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation, particularly those which established a tragic deficiency in the system of national defense which the States were the primary source in providing this role. The Constitutional Convention was called to seek redress in the potential risks of an encroachment on the Rights of the People outlined within the spectrum of the Articles of Confederation. The Framers experience with Great Britain made them all to aware of the dangers a large standing army posed to encroach individual liberty, while there was a broad agreement that a stronger federal military was needed, there was insight that a large and permanent National Armed Force would be met by the people with strong resistance. In accordance to the Emerson Case; “The primary shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation was that the central government it provided for was too weak” “ US v. Emerson 270 F 3D 203, 236 (5th Cir. 2001)

In an Americus Curiae filed by Several Retired Officers of the US Military in the case District of Columbia et. Al vs. Heller 554 US 570 (2008) counsel wrote:
“The Second Amendment, which enshrines the preexisting right to personal firearm ownership in the Constitution, offered a solution agreeable to all concerned. For those (Primarily Anti-Federalists) Concerned with the threat posed by a large national army to domestic tranquility, guaranteeing the right to “keep and bear arms” in the Constitution ensured that the People could act as a direct check against any tyrannical impulses this national army might harbor. As both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton explained in the Federalist Papers, the national army, no matter how fierce, could never overtake a body politic armed and trained to defend its liberty.”
The Framers ensured that the people could act as a direct check on any threat to domestic tranquility that a standing army might present a federal army would be powerless against citizens trained to carry arms. The size of any standing army would not “exceed one hundredth Part of the whole number of souls; or “twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms or approximately twenty-five or thirty thousand men” (Federalist No. 46 James Madison).
The framers also understood the what threats a large standing army imposed upon the people whereupon they articulated this in the Militia Clause of ART. I, § 8 CL. 15 allowing the federal government to call upon the people to defend the nation in times of need, thus reducing the demand for a massive federal army.
US v. Emerson 270 F 3D 203, 236 (5th Cir. 2001)
(“[F]ederal militia powers obviated the need for, or (at least) minimized the likelihood of, a large standing army being kept in existence”)
Citizens role in each State, in defense of liberty, whether threatened domestically or from an enemy abroad, thus is necessary and depends on citizens having ready access to arms and those arms being equal to any arms a federal Standing Army would be issued. These citizens were recognized as fully voluntary not enlisted or hired by any State or federal militia. These citizens arms also are to be considered adequate to arms which any standing army would be issued.
(See The Federalist No. 29 (Alexander Hamilton) ). “To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

Should The Government impose Any Limits To What Arms Citizens Should Be Entitled To Own?

A Publication: A Democratic Federalist, Pennsylvania Herald Oct. 17, 1787 asked: “What then will there be to oppose to their encroachments? Should they ever pretend to Tyrannize over the people, their standing army will silence every popular effort….” The founders recognized and ensured through the Second Amendment the citizens could act as a direct check on any threat to domestic tranquility that a standing national army my represent; an army created by the central government would be powerless against the people of the States who were trained to arms.

In US v. Miller the “Sentiments of the time strongly disfavored standing armies” and the court ruled that the weapons that a person owned, in order to be constitutionally protected under the Second Amendment; the arms had to be used by and distributed to the US military. In the case of Miller, the question involved the possession a sawed off shot gun. Though the lower court ruled against Miller it was later reversed in Prinz v US. The question arose if a Sawed off shot gun was a government issued weapon prior to Miller; the answer is yes.

In American Munitions 1917-1919 Benedict Crowell, Assistant Secretary of War (1919) Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.. pp. 185–186. It states:
"When American troops were in the heat of the fighting in the summer of 1918, the German government sent a protest through a neutral agency to our Government asserting that our men were using shotguns against German troops in the trenches. The allegation was true; but our State Department replied that the use of such weapons was not forbidden by the Geneva Convention as the Germans had asserted. Manufactured primarily for the purpose of arming guards placed over German prisoners, these shotguns were undoubtedly in some instances carried into the actual fighting. The Ordnance Department procured some 30,000 to 40,000 shotguns of the short-barrel or sawed-off type, ordering these from the regular commercial manufacturers. The shell provided for these guns each contained a charge of nine heavy buckshot, a combination likely to have murderous effect in close fighting. "

The story in the Miller case began with the National Firearms Act of 1934, the first federal law regulating firearms. Prior to the NFA, it was believed the Constitution did not grant the federal government this power.
The new law levied a prohibitive $200 dollar tax on machine guns and sawed off shotguns. Government officials passed this law under the argument they were the weapons of choice for the criminal gangs during prohibition. This law was enacted during a period when the central government was in a determined effort to expand federal police powers at the expense of the States. (See The strange case of United States v. Miller Dr. Michael S. Brown (2001) Enter Stage Right - A Journal of Modern Conservatism.)
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), was reversed in Prinz v US, where the court determined the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, they determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense." Id., at 178. Though the Court did not attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment. It is clear the right of a person to own firearms that equate to those used as “Ordinary military equipment” or contribute to the common defense” today would be inclusive of the right for the people to own a wide variety of arms, used by the military today.
The militia consisted of the people bearing “Their own arms when called to active service” by the central government, “Arms which they kept and hence knew how to use” (See US v. Emerson 270 F 3D 203 at 235 (5th Cir. Ct. 2001). And by guaranteeing this right, citizens would have the skill needed to usefully bear them in defense of the nation, should the need arise. (US v Miller 307 US 174, 178-79)

Several Presidents also have recognized the need for the people to own military equipment grade arms, One during the time he commanded the Allied Forces, during WWII. General Dwight D Eisenhower observed “Any young man that has ahead of him prospective Service in the armed forces will do well to learn all he can about the military rifle… expertness in its use cannot be over emphasized” Letter from Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower Commander in Chief Allied Force Headquarters To Dr. M.J. Damlos Clevland Civilian Marksman Ass’n Aug 16,1943 (5A)
Individual gun ownership has a direct national security benefit; deterring foreign aggressors of attacking the United States. Those inclined to attack this country realize that for such an invasion to succeed, they would not only be forced to defeat a first rate military, They would also be required to defeat a people equally armed, trained, and prepared to defend its sovereignty . This principle has been passed down from the founders generation involving the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, The Spanish American War WWI and the Hawaiian Islands December 7, 1941. Each time the people of the States have proven that contributing to the defense of this nations defense depends upon owning and knowledge of how to use arms. Without the command or blessing from the Several States.
Another World War II veteran and president also attested civilian marksmanship was important “through competitive matches and sports in coordination with the (NBPRP), The National Rifle Association fills an important role in our national defense effort, and fosters in an active and meaningful fashion the spirit of the Minuteman. Letter from: John F. Kennedy, President of the United States. To: Franklin L. Orth Executive Office Presidnet, national Rifle Assoc. (March 20, 1961 (11A)

Are there any studies which show proof Citizens should be entitled to own the same arms as the Military?

In a recent Rand Corp. report they discovered that training periods i.e Basic Training, are not as effective at elevating performance quality as much as lifelong training . “Many studies suggest that it is the accumulation of training over a lifetime that has the largest effect on individual performance, rather than simply training in the previous six months” It was also reported those with previous experience or training in a variety of military-oriented tasks would have a better performance than the novice.
Jennifer Kavanagh, Rand National Defense Research Institute, Determinants of productivity for Military personnel; A Review of findings on the Contribution of Experience, Training, and Aptitude to Military Performance (2005)

In an earlier report published by Rand Corporation they noted that even the trainees with no previous experience assigned to units with a high number of experienced shooters showed a higher numbers of qualified marksman in their scores . This report explained that this was most likely due to Marksmanship instructors not needing to spend as much time with the experienced shooters, and or those with prior experience shared their knowledge and were providing additional coaching to the inexperienced shooters.
(See Restructuring Military Education and Training: Lessons from Rand Research 1 (1997) by John D Finkler And Paul S. Steinberg. The court also ruled that; “An effective Militia requires not only that people have guns, but that they be able to shoot them with more danger to their adversaries than themselves Silveira v Lockyer 328 F3D 567 (9th Cir 2003)

CONCLUSION: Evidence proves through Court decisions; Research reports; letters from Presidents and military officers; and writings by those who birthed this country with having expressed the people should be capable to preserve their liberty- that the Second Amendment should not be interpreted in such a way that the government encroaches upon the right of the people to own firearms of their personal choice. As long as the arms are “ordinary military equipment” which is “used for the common defense”.

Sunday, April 10, 2011

Who Won?

Despite the establishment's fear mongering, if the government "shut down,” the Treasury Department would continue to sell debt, the printing presses would have rolled on, the IRS would still have seized your hard-earned property on time (currency), They would have been able to gain more interest on what you paid in to the IRS, because you would not be getting any back on schedule, But they would still be imposing late fees for you if you didn't pay them on time!!! The POLICE state would still have cameras and boots on the ground to conduct surveillance on you, the TSA would have remained in airports to sexually assault you.

LIONS AND TIGERS AND BEARS OH MY The government is shutting down! Help .. I had so many people calling me with these comments:
Pick up the phone!!! Help.. I have a question!!!
Dread Fear!!!
TERROR!!! TERRROR!! I am Afraid!!!!!
THE GOVERNMENT IS SHUTTING DOWN!!! The Government is shutting down. OH NO!! TERROR..... I kid you not!!!!!!! It reminds me of Chicken Little;

People .. People.. Lets be logically here ok? These so called “leaders” (More like the Grand Whizz ards or are they the lizards? of Oz), they were not serious, It was all hyped up on a sugar high hoax to make you afraid!!! Or they would:

Audit the Federal Reserve, They would Investigate and press charges on those that have been treasonous! Ending the Federal Reserves ability to control our economic future without any accountability or oversight.
Then they would abolish the Federal Reserve!!!.

- They would cut $900 billion from the budget.
This year. And that would only be for starters. Doing away with all the Initialized Agencies that are making the decisions in government. That the Congress is supposed to be doing!

They would pass an Act titled "The Balanced Budget ACT, A Statute and not another cumbersome Amendment) An Act with legitimate spending restrictions.

They would allow us to make our own health care decisions by downsizing the Dept of Health until it was all operated under each state and these bureaucrats that hold positions of Secretary, Directors, Under Secretary's, Advisors, etc. They all would be looking for a job in the private sector. and the operation of the State Health Care system would operate through legislation passed by the State and US Elected officials.

The implementation of a program to force Americans to buy bureaucrat-approved insurance should END (should never have started in the first place)!!!! And put elected officials in government responsible for doing the job they were ELECTED to do themselves!

They would strengthen our national security. One way would be to place an ultimatum on the table.... Either Obaman to recall all our ground- and air forces from foreign countries and for all military installations to be transitioned and reinstituted over to to their respective State militia. Or, Congress would demand Impeachment hearings to begin on Reagan, Bush I Bush II Clinton And Obama for the illegal use our military to police the world, nation-build, and enforce the United Nations' dictates. and begin dimantling NATO,But none of that will happen until you unseat both the Democrats and Republicans from Power.

Repeal the Patriot Act, and annul the TSA, and ending the many other ways government intrudes into our personal lives.

Surgically dismantle the Social Security System; In such a way it would not harm those who have paid in or are on the system now, at the same time stop manditory seizure of a persons property under the Social Security Agency.

The list of what is not being addressed could go on and on, which further proves how the vast majority of both Republicans and Democrats are ignoring their oaths to defend the Constitution. And actually doing everything they can to destroy Individual citizens Liberty.

Government doesn't need a tune-up. It's time for a complete overhaul, which is why a real shutdown was needed. Actually unseating the Democart and Republican Party would be a step in the right direction. (but that is only one step)

Instead, America is in for more posturing for the cameras glamour, blame game and how much their Partys won (both of them using that one Guess that means it was a tie and no one realy won)! –
These are all traits more expected of Kleptocrats than elected officials.

America's debt crisis is a natural consequence of a system so infested with statist ideals that less than $39 billion in cuts to a multi-trillion dollar budget nearly brings these kleptocrats in OUR government to their knees cowering on facts that the 100 billion dollar promise that was later expressed after the elections as only a symbolic move, that ended up with so little in cuts it is nothing more than proving both Established Sides are just that. So deeply rooted with the same goal of bigger government targeting stripping citizens of their rights that they even go out warning you if you pull that tree up, there will be a huge hole. People think.

Actually, that hole left there will only take a little hard work and dedication from Americans to fill in the gap with individualism... INDEPENDENCE Something the Founders recognized and wanted to create - a government that would not infringe on that!

Yet you go and vote every two years, for out of control legislators and their dangerous policies under the disinformation you need them (like an abused spouse needs more abuse) which has brought us to this point in our history.

They are Established Party Hawgs all the established deep rooted politics are to be blamed for this. There are many who are not to blame, because they have been fighting to prevent the two established factions from further destroying our country.

I am not about to stop working for freedom to restore a federal government. Not only limited in its power, but putting back the proper protocols for who has that limited power and its size and how it is actually to function. A federal government which is operating only within the confines of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutions (US and States).

I hope you will take advantage of these current events to discuss the role of government on the local, state, and federal levels and spread our message to your family, friends, and neighbors who are constantly bombarded by the establishment's tired rhetoric.

Invite people to join the Constitution Party and help us, by helping yourselves take back All of your lives from the established government's control.

Only in the truest realization of what Liberty is, can we find effective, lasting solutions to these challenges our nation is faced with today, ensuring future generations have something better.

In Liberty,
Earl Lofland, State Chairman
Constitution Party of Delaware
P.O. Box 272
302 653 7205