26 votes

Who CAN be a Domestic Enemy of the Constitution?

This is a very important question to ask:

Who can be a domestic enemy of the Constitution?

Recall, all people who are (s)elected to government or serve in the armed forces take an oath to "defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic."

The Constitution of the united States is a document that makes rules for the government. The Constitution establishes no limits on the actions of citizens except for the special case of treason. The people can speak out against the Constitution, burn copies of the Constitution, wipe their rears with copies of the Constitution, etc, and the Constitution would have nothing against any of those actions.

So, to answer the question, only those people in government - with the exception of treason - can act as domestic enemies of the Constitution.

When people take an oath to protect the Constitution from domestic enemies, they are taking an oath to act against anyone in government who seeks to subvert that founding document.

Is anyone going to take their oath seriously? Now would be a high time to act.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Cyril's picture

Who CAN be a Domestic Enemy of the Constitution? Here's a hint :

Who CAN be a Domestic Enemy of the Constitution? Here's a hint :

Keeping Government Secrets: A Pocket Guide for Judges on the State-Secrets Privilege, the CIP Act, and Court Security Officers


"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

we need to be building...

The free market systems that replace government so we dont need them anymore.


Protect your assets and profit from the greatest wealth transfer in history.

Great post!

It's just like the medical doctors rattling of the Hippocratic Oath with zero intention of following it. You know? Empty words and smokescreen.


I got my license revoked for daring to treat patients with cutting edge medicine!?

This caused me to think of a question I contiually ask myself

WHY has the constitutional Sheriffs Organization and/or Oath Keepers not yet visited capital hill or the whitehouse to arrest ALL of the domestic enemies of the constitution?

Every time I hear or see Sheriff Mack I wonder to myself...what the hell is he waiting for?

"So, to answer the question, only those people in government-

with the exception of treason - can act as domestic enemies of the Constitution."

There in lies the problem.

Recall; term limits; jury and state nullification. Screw the Supremes (states rights).

We are not helpless. We are culpable, tho, if we do nothing to stop it. It's not easy putting the cat back into the bag. Has it ever been tried without violence? Gotta try.

These are times which try mens' souls...you know the rest.

Can be done without violence, this time?

Hell yeah! Our Founders gave us the tools. Only America has them.
So, use 'em or lose 'em.

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

C-SPAN is FULL of them

Oh me me me me me!

if i get to wear a special hat i'll do anything.

Be brave, be brave, the Myan pilot needs no aeroplane.

People's Law Enforcement

The Grand Jury concept here could be useful since it is a common law construct and the Grand Jury is not part of the government.

See Wikipedia Article

"In the early decades of the United States grand juries played a major role in public matters. During that period counties followed the traditional practice of requiring all decisions be made by at least twelve of the grand jurors, (e.g., for a twenty-three-person grand jury, twelve people would constitute a bare majority).

Any citizen could bring a matter before a grand jury directly, from a public work that needed repair, to the delinquent conduct of a public official, to a complaint of a crime, and grand juries could conduct their own investigations.

In that era most criminal prosecutions were conducted by private parties, either a law enforcement officer, a lawyer hired by a crime victim or his family, or even by laymen.

A layman could bring a bill of indictment to the grand jury; if the grand jury found there was sufficient evidence for a trial, that the act was a crime under law, and that the court had jurisdiction, it would return the indictment to the complainant.

The grand jury would then appoint the complaining party to exercise the authority of an attorney general, that is, one having a general power of attorney to represent the state in the case. The grand jury served to screen out incompetent or malicious prosecutions.[36] The advent of official public prosecutors in the later decades of the 19th century largely displaced private prosecutions.[37]

While all states currently have provisions for grand juries,[38] today approximately half of the states employ them[39] and twenty-two require their use, to varying extents."

The oath is to defend the Constitution specifically

The oath does not say, defend the Constitution and all laws pursuant of the Constitution. It simply says "to defend the Constitution against all enemies." In order to be an enemy, one has to have the ability to inflict harm upon the person or item of which they are considered to be an enemy. That being said, it would be extremely difficult for a civilian to be legally considered to be an enemy of the Constitution. The only people that have the ability to subvert - to act as an enemy against - the Constitution are those people in government, people in government established bureaucracies, military men and women, or civilians aiding an enemy during a war declared by Congress.

These criteria leave a very short list to those who can be enemies of the Constitution.

Grand juries are groups of citizens which have a recognized right to free speech under the Constitution. It would be very difficult to argue that members of a grand jury could be enemies of the Constitution.

TwelveOhOne's picture

Neat logic experiment

You had said, "The oath does not say, defend the Constitution and all laws pursuant of the Constitution. It simply says "to defend the Constitution against all enemies." In order to be an enemy, one has to have the ability to inflict harm upon the person or item of which they are considered to be an enemy."

This led me to think -- perhaps legislation can be considered to be an enemy of the Constitution, when it is unconstitutional and before a court has declared it such, while it is wreaking havoc on the lives of the People?

I think a good argument can be made that there must be prior restraint on Congress. No bill passes without passing the Supreme Court as well.

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)


I think you misunderstood me. I was saying the Grand Jury is the mechanism to investigate, indict, arrest and try those who are in government and violate the constitution. This is a way for the people to police the government and not rely on separation of powers to do the job.

Specifically, I was responding to, "Is anyone going to take their oath seriously? Now would be a high time to act."

I think a Grand Jury can start the process. How else would it be done?

I took you wrong...

I agree. The grand jury (in the historical role you described) would be a good vehicle to enforce the oaths.

The only other way (that comes to mind) would be violent revolution.

Personally, I would like to avoid violence at nearly any cost. Violence only occurs when communication fails.

Maybe we could revive the traditional concept of grand jury.


The Grand Jury could appoint law enforcers and authorize them to make the arrests. This is how it worked before professional police forces and its still the law. We have so many old things to dust off, learn about, and bring back to life in a modern form.

Grand Jury Article


By Jim Frazier

An organization called the “American Grand Jury.org” has convened a Grand Jury and indicted President Obama for the crime of treason. Will their indictment be acknowledged in a U.S. District court of law? Are common citizens able to indict an elected official?

“Yes,” says Hal Von Luebbert,” author of “Citizen Power Now.” “The US government has no power to bring anyone to trial. The government can NOT find any person guilty of anything. Both of those powers belong to The People through use of a jury.”

The U.S. Attorney’s office in Colorado does not agree. “I don’t think any citizen- convened Grand Jury has power to be enforced in a court of law,” said Jeff Dorschnor, spokesperson for the U.S. Attorneys office in Denver.

Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck echoed the same idea. “I’ve never heard of a Grand Jury called by citizens,” he said.

Mike Saccone, the Colorado Department of Law’s spokesperson, said, “There are no provisions for formation of citizen grand juries in Colorado. That is the way the statues stand now.”

Von Lubbuert disagrees. “Our elected officials have lost the vision of our forefathers. The Bill of Rights is still the supreme law of our land, and that law provides for indictment only by a Grand Jury composed of common people. That law provides for conviction only by a Petit Jury, a jury of your peers. Think about it,” he said. “When you go to a trial, the charges are brought by “The People.” The jury decides whether you are innocent or guilty – not the judge. The jury does not have to follow the law. In fact, the jury can ignore the law and set free an obviously guilty person if they want. The jury is the final word, not the judge, not the prosecutors. The power to create freedom belongs to the jury.”

But the power to convene a Grand Jury is not recognized today in America by most judges. Leo Donofrio, a New Jersey attorney explains. “The constitutional power of ‘we the people’ sitting as grand jurors has been subverted by a deceptive play on words since 1946 when the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were enacted. Regardless, the power still exists in the Constitution and has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court.”
Donofrio says the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides the power for a Grand Jury of the people without reliance upon a U.S. Attorney to concur in such criminal charges.


A Caviot

A Grand Jury must be composed of people natives of the States. Not US citizens. If the Union is comprised as it is now by 50 seperate Nations the corporate US is a foreign entity to that union. 14th Amendment citizens of the US are NOT "We The People" for they are not nationals of any State in the Union, but are nationals of The District of Columbia where exists their naturalized native land.

Further, as subject citizens of land outside the Union they have no standing in constitutional, or Common Law, to convene and exercise the lawful power of a Grand Jury.

Indevidual human beings must possess the appropriate lawful status in order to have proper standing to act in this way. This is why no one in government will pay any attention to US citizens who attempt to hold thsm accountable by means of a Grand Jury.

Know the law. Read the Red Amendment. Act accordingly.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

3 persons in one body?

I've always taken it for a fact the I am native to my state and a US citizen, and one of the people in the term, "We the people." Maybe a jury nullification can allay the misconception that all of the above are separate and not describing the same individual. Sue them!

Technically speaking, you are

Technically speaking, you are a US citizen RESIDING in a state. You may consider youself a native of your State, but all the documentation and evidence suggests otherwise (birth certificate, voting registration, SS number, drivers license, & etc.). You must demonstrate and prove your standing, and if the Federal Government has it wrong it is your obligation to correct it. You can not serve two masters. You are either a subject citizen of the US and subject to its jurisdiction, which exists outside of the Union of free and independent American States, or you are a self governing native and a National of the state in which you were born, and by Constitutional Right, an inhabitant of the State in which you now live. You can't have it both ways. Sorry. It's just a matter of law.

To be a State National is to be a "non-resident alian" of The United States.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/


Technically speaking, the Declaration of Independence and Declarationism is all that is needed to separate from any state lawfully.

The state you separate from will probably not recognize your separation much as Great Britain did not recognize the Declaration of Independence until it lost a war over the issue.

That said, any attempt to surrender 'citizenship' only makes sense if there is another 'country' to belong to. I can not say I am a New York state national because the state of New York is in union. I'd have to form my own 'New York' with others and then come up with some way to defend it from 'incorporated new york'. Right?

So, I don't really see the value in all this pseudo legal nonsense since at the end of the day the authoritarians don't abide by the rule of law and will just do whatever they like. If anything, getting involved in this stuff is more likely to put you on their various lists and have the hammer brought down on you.

From what I understand, you

From what I understand, you are partially correct. A declaration is necessary. However, it is through voluntary contract that one is bound to the US, Inc. One must nullify, in lawful form, those ties that bind.

With respect to exchanging one nationality for another, New York IS in fact an independent sovereign State (Nation or Country) as evidenced by the Treaty of Paris of 1783: (Avalon Project Yale Law School - http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/paris.asp )

"Article 1:

"His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

Here, "United States" is a descriptive term for the American States unified against England in the Revolutionary War and not the future international agent for the several states in union The United States which came into being as a corporate entity in 1789, some 6 years later.

So it's not so much an "expatriation," that one initiates, but a correction of misperception, and nullification of contracts, which generates the said evidence of proper status. The fact that New York is "in union" with other states does not diminish it's stature and standing as a "free sovereign and independent state". This is the jurisdiction that one moves to.

And to be clear, there is nothing "psudo" at all about the law regarding this situation. State National status IS acknowledged by the Federal Government precisely because it IS the law under the Constitution for the United States: Article 4, Section 2. Part of the "declaration" one makes is the repudiation of 14th Amendment citizenship in favor of one's rightful Article 4 Citizenship ( http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/art4.asp ).

Lastly, If you think that you're not already on a list just for being on the DP you got some reassessing to do. The only thing that folks here on the DP could benefit more from is a greater study of the law. It IS everything.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

Treaty of Paris

The Treaty was signed while we were still a confederacy of independent states (Articles of Confederation). Does the legal structure of the US Constitution change the status of states, moving sovereignty to the fedgov? If the states remained complete sovereignty, then the states that left the union in 1860 should have been allowed to do so and the US fedgov would have had no right to invade them to bring them forcefully back into the union, right?

To quote Ed McMahon:

I beleive "you are correct sir."

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

Very interesting subject. I'm

Very interesting subject. I'm now thinking how if some of the most influential US government officers are/were Dual Citizens (Israel/US), how come they can have it both ways, but us US-only citizens can't be Dual citizens(New York State/US)? Does seem to be a contradiction. Why could not a jury decide that US a citizen is simultaneously a State's citizen, and part of "We the people?" Would that not then become the law of the land?


I think the problem there is that 'citizenship' didn't exist as a concept prior the the War Between the States and the passage of the 14th amendment. Prior to that, there were simply "nationals" and not "citizens". There are some few situations today where a person may be considered a US national and not a citizen, such as if they were born to non citizen parents in a 'possession' that does not have statehood.

Exactly! :-)

It just turns out that US citizen and US national are pretty much the same thing. :'(

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

I don't know for certain...

... but it seems that the US does not have any penalties for having duel citizenship, but it does not recognise any other citizenship one may possess. So, with US/New York Citizenship, the only one that the feds will aknoweledge is the US one, because that one gives them jurisdiction. Eliminate US citizenship and they have no jurisdiction over you.

Another element that folks seem to have a hard time with is the idea that the jurisdiction of each of the Union States is now, and always has been, sovereign within the boundaries of its territory. The US, inc. has no jurisdiction uless or until it is GRANTED jurisdiction by the State. No two states can have sovereinty over the same territory. This is why the only territory that the US, Inc. has jurisdiction over is that which is not in the Union, such as The District of Columbia, and why, as a US citizen one is without the Union and therfore without the Constitution for the United States.

In addition, being registered to vote is key. One cannot vote unless one conferms that he is a US citizen, for only US cotizens can vote. If you want to be a State National you have to recinde your registration everywhere you registered. The 14th Amendment forbids State Nationals from voting.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

Recognition of Sovereignty

In the past (prior to the UN), it was the job of individual nations to decided whether or not they wanted to 'recognize' the sovereignty of a third nation and thus send diplomats, etc.

This job of 'national recognition' seems to have been taken over by the UN. That basically means that no new 'legal' nations can form and claim sovereignty unless the UN puts a rubber stamp on it. This way, it can be used by the UN security council to destabilize foreign regimes without running the risk of a dissident or separatist movement in their own countries gaining international recognition.

Oooh. Interesring notion.

I like your reasoning. It does explain a lot about the current international messes that we find ourselves in. However it does not relate to the sovereignty of the States which formed, and are now constituent members of the American Union of states as established by the Constitution for the united States.

The key is that the States had to be states, with all the sovereign rights that go along with being states before they could enter the Union. Their inherent sovereignty is not deminished nor eliminated because of their participation in the Union. It pre-exists the Union and must be extant as a condition of being a member of the Union. Similarly, an organization of people on land who do not compose a state cannot be members in the Union.

So while the UN is assuming the authority to "officially recognize" (or not recognize, as the case may be) lawful emergent states, all the States of the American Union, and their antecedent law, pre-exist the UN at every level.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

Law vs. Force

I believe your knowledge of history and your legal theories are perfectly sound.

I also believe that when the PTB are on the losing side of such an argument, their usual response is to pull out a club or change the rules. The last time they did this to us was the GOP presidential nominating convention. Herein lies the problem.

The southern states came to a point in 1860, predicted by the Antifederalist Papers, where they needed to separate from the union.

Half the states in the Union dropped out and did so in a lawful way through their state legislatures.

The other half answered the call from Lincoln in Washington to send an army to the south to force the states back into the union. To preserve through destruction. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic. That pretty much killed the old republic of the founders.

The loss of the Confederate States of America in the war to defend their sovereignty ushered in many changes. Aside from the policies of 'Reconstruction', one of those changes was throwing out Jeffersonian Antifederalism as the proverbial baby with the bath water. All Americans lost this along with the southern states.

Though there have been moments where the grass roots antifederalist has managed to re-emerge for a time and win a fight here or there for liberty, we are now so weak that we sit by and watch the entire Bill of Rights, which was the basis for our acceptance of the Union and its Constitution in the first place, being tread under foot.

In the final analysis, he who sits on the moral high ground also needs a large stick because evil doesn't care about the moral high ground by its very definition.

Interesting take...

as I ponder your question....
it pivots on
enemies of the Nation (United)...
enemies of the Government.
The 2nd amendment clearly rules out that it would imply the latter.
So my answer would be
it refers to enemies of the Nation
'domestic' enemies of the Nation; the States United,
would be those subverting or combating that which Unites us...
and yes... that would be the Constitution.