The RIGHT of the States and Citizens to Import Arms Without the Consent of the Federal Government - Other

Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788
Defining the words in the Constitution.
In Full: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/americanpatriotpartynewsletter

Mr. JOHN MARSHALL "...asked if gentlemen were serious when they asserted that, if the state governments had power to interfere with the militia, it was by implication. If they were, he asked the committee whether the least attention would not show that they were mistaken. The state governments DID NOT derive their powers from the general government; but each government derived its powers from the people, and each was to act according to the powers given it. Would any gentleman deny this? He demanded if powers not given were retained by implication. Could any man say so? Could any man say that this power was not retained by the states, as they had not given it away? For, says he, does not a power remain till it is given away? The state legislatures had power to command and govern their militia before, and have it still, undeniably, unless there be something in this Constitution that takes it away.

For Continental purposes Congress may call forth the militia, as to suppress insurrections and repel invasions. But the power given to the states by the people is "NOT taken away"; for the Constitution does NOT say so. In the Confederation Congress had this power; but the state legislatures had it "also". The power of legislating given them within the ten miles square is exclusive of the states, because it is expressed to be exclusive. The truth is, that when power is given to the general legislature, if it was in the state legislature before, both shall exercise it; unless there be an incompatibility in the exercise by one to that by the other, or negative words precluding the state governments from it. But there are NO negative words here. It rests, therefore, with the STATES.

To me it appears, then, unquestionable that the state governments can call forth the MILITIA, in case the Constitution should be adopted, in the SAME MANNER as they could have done BEFORE its adoption. (i.e. a reserved right)

(VERY IMPORTANT)

Gentlemen have "said" that the states "cannot defend themselves without an application to Congress", because "Congress" can "interpose!"

>>>>>DOES NOT EVERY MAN FEEL A REFUTATION OF THE ARGUEMENT IN HIS OWN BREAST?

I will SHOW {420} that there could >>>"NOT be a combination", between "those who formed the Constitution", "to take away this power."

All the restraints intended to be laid on the state governments (besides where an exclusive power is expressly given to Congress) are contained in the 10th section of the 1st article.

This power is NOT included in the restrictions in that section.

But what excludes every possibility of doubt, is the last part of it that "no state shall engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay." When invaded, they "CAN" engage in war, as also when in "imminent danger".

This clearly proves that the states can use the militia when they find it "NECESSARY".

The worthy member last up objects to the Continental government's possessing the power of disciplining the militia, because, though all its branches be derived from the people, he says they will form an aristocratic government, unsafe and unfit to be trusted...."

-----------

APP Note: i.e. "aristocratic government" also defined as a "Mixed Monarchy" as warned again later in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions by James Madison: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/candidates that would happen if the states are dissolved into "ONE NATION" or "ONE SOVEREIGNTY" - This is what we have today, and was nowhere intended by the Founders;

James Madison: "....That the General Assembly doth also express its DEEP REGRET, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to "enlarge its powers by FORCED constructions" of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that implications have appeared of a "design" to "EXPOUND" certain >>>"GENERAL "PHRASES" (which having been copied from the very limited grant of power, in the former articles of confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning and effect, of the particular "ENUMERATION" which NECESSARILY EXPLAINS AND LIMITS THE GENERAL PHRASES; and so as to consolidate the states by degrees, into >>>"ONE SOVEREIGNTY"" (APP: i.e. ONE NATION), the "obvious tendency and inevitable CONSEQUENCE" of which would be, to >>>"TRANSFORM" the present "republican" system of the United States, >>>>>>into "an absolute", or "at best" a mixed "MONARCHY"."

A Historical Note: The term "ONE NATION" - The "Pledge of Allegiance" was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy (1855–1931), who was a Baptist minister and a Christian "SOCIALIST", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

the Pledge was first used in public schools on October 12, 1892, as Presidential Proclamation #335; The United States Congress officially recognized the Pledge for the first time, in the following form, on June 22, 1942, "Under God" was incorporated into the Pledge of Allegiance June 14, 1954, by a Joint Resolution of Congress amending §7 of the Flag Code enacted in 1942; Though the addition of "Under God" at least related to the Reserved Rights under Common Law and Assured to us in the Ratifying Conventions;

The "One Nation" pledge however remains in direct conflict with the INTENT of the founders that "warned of the dangers", documented in history, of becoming "One Sovereignty or One Nation"; Which aims our FREE and INDEPENDENT STATES toward "NATIONAL SOCIALISM".

The dangers of "large" republics were warned of by Charles Montesquieu (1750), Bill Yates (Brutus) (1787) and Samuel Adams who relates the dangers of "DISTANT LEGISLATURES" in his "Absolute Rights of the Colonists" (1772) http://www.pacificwestcom.com/oregonpatriotparty/Rights_of_t....

-----------

BRUTUS (Robert Yates):

"...History furnishes no example of a free republic, any thing like the extent of the United States. The Grecian republics were of small extent; so also was that of the Romans. Both of these, it is true, in process of time, extended their conquests over large territories of country; and the CONSEQUENCE WAS, that their governments were "CHANGED" >>>FROM that of free governments >>>to those of the MOST "TYRANNICAL" that ever existed in the world."...

APP: This follows Charles Montesquieu (1750) understanding of large republics, and considered by Hamilton (Federalist #9) indicating the necessity of a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC (of FREE and INDEPENDENT STATES), with a VERY LIMITED Federal Republic "COMPACT"; Which as James Madison indicates in this day convention 6-16-1788 as well as in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, that if a state feels ANY danger from the Federal Government, the State could "refuse it altogether".

See also Our Article: Republics and Representation.

-----------

MARSHALL CONTINUES:

"...If Congress neglect our MILITIA (i.e. CITIZENS), "we can arm them OURSELVES".

CANNOT Virginia >>>"IMPORT ARMS?>>>CANNOT she put them into the hands of "HER" militia-men?

He then concluded by observing, that the >>>>>"power of governing the militia" was "NOT" vested in the states by "implication", because, being "POSSESSED OF IT" > "antecedent to the adoption of the government,

and "NOT being divested of it" by any grant or restriction in the Constitution,

they must necessarily be as "FULLY POSSESSED" of it as ever they had been.>

And it could "NOT" be said that the states derived ANY powers from that (the federal government or Constitution) system,

"but RETAINED them," >>>>>>>>"though not acknowledged in ANY part of it".

------

APP Note: This shows the misuse of the "Commerce clause" which the Federal Government has "arrogated a power which is prohibited"; That is, they have created a "PRETENSE of AUTHORITY" by which to prohibit states and the people from importing freely their own arms to equip their own citizen militias; i.e. ALL people.

APP: i.e. as Nicholas presents in the last paragraphs of this day convention; These are "PREEXISTING RIGHTS" in the "PEOPLE..."

------

Mr. GEORGE NICHOLAS:

"....But the "COMMON LAW" is "NOT EXCLUDED". There is "NOTHING" in "that paper" (APP Note: referring to the US Constitution being considered) to warrant the assertion.

As to the exclusion of a jury from the vicinage, he has mistaken the fact. The legislature may direct a jury to come from the vicinage. But the gentleman says that, by this Constitution, they have power to make laws to define crimes and prescribe punishments; and that, consequently, we are not free from torture. Treason against the United States is defined in the Constitution, and the forfeiture limited to the life of the person attainted.

Congress have power to define and punish:

a.) piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and
b.) offenses against the laws of nations;

but they (APP: the federal government, legislature or supreme court) CANNOT DEFINE or PRESCRIBE the PUNISHMENT of "ANY OTHER CRIME WHATEVER", WITHOUT "VIOLATING the CONSTITUTION".

(APP Note: See this also in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions - Kentucky Resolutions #2 - This can be no clearer, the federal government and all those officials and citizens who support or allow others to be prosecuted under any "other crimes and punishments" not listed are in DIRECT VIOLATION to the Constitution they claim to uphold.)

If we had no security against torture but our declaration of rights, we might be tortured to-morrow; for it has been repeatedly infringed and disregarded. A "BILL OF RIGHTS" is only an acknowledgment of the >>>PREEXISTING CLAIM TO RIGHTS IN THE PEOPLE.

They BELONG TO US AS MUCH as if they had been inserted in the Constitution."

SEE our previous posts on:

"MILITIA the True Definition, Intent and the Limitations that James Madison set upon Standing Armies - Quotes"
http://www.dailypaul.com/207980/militia-the-true-definition-...

Federal Government Expounding on the General Phrases of the Constitution
http://www.dailypaul.com/207948/when-the-federal-government-...

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc
http://www.pacificwestcom.com/oregonpatriotparty

Educate yourselves, educate others. Inalienable Rights, States Rights, Local Control.