The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular Liberty.com

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Rand Touched upon parts of these, But not in this way.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: rand did bring this up (see in situ)

Rand Touched upon parts of these, But not in this way.

We heard "non Combatants" and " armed Combatants". (I listened to over 5 hours and and then off and on until 11pm - Rand repeated most of his speech generally a few times which is to be understood when occupying time and putting a message across )

The fact is, that the federal government (federal legislative or Executive) cannot act independently within the states, as the STATE has to request federal assistance (the state can act at anytime), and only within bounds of the Constitutional Limitations everyone one is subject to. Whether pertaining to those armed or unarmed.

What about those AMERICANS that are exercising their RIGHT and DUTY.

Declaration of Independence:
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/independence

"...that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, ...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security. ..."

What mention was there safeguarding those AMERICANS bearing arms against a tyrannical (federal) government who is "ALREADY ACTING OUTSIDE" THEIR DELEGATED POWERS? AS WELL AS ARROGATING "NEW POWERS" which are Expressly prohibited.

There was no mention of the ACT of WAR against the people by the federal government by exceeding their delegated powers and therefor exceeding their AUTHORITY.

An "Act of War" LEVELS all parties, wherein the federal government gives up it's authority and they become like any other man without authority.

John Locke:

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Locke_Civil_Government/lo...

Locke #235: "He, therefore, who may resist must be allowed to strike.

And then let our author, or anybody else, join a knock on the head or a cut on the face with as much reverence and respect as he thinks fit.

He that can reconcile blows and reverence may, for aught I know, deserve for his pains a civil, respectful cudgelling wherever he can meet with it.

Secondly. As to his second -- "An inferior cannot punish a superior" -- that is true, generally speaking, whilst he is his superior. But to resist force with force, being the STATE OF WAR that LEVELS THE PARTIES, "CANCELS" ALL former relation of reverence, respect, and superiority; and then the odds that remains is -- that he who opposes the unjust aggressor has this superiority over him, that he has a right, when he prevails, to punish the offender, both for the breach of the peace and all the evils that followed upon it. "

See also Locke paragraphs #237, 176, 181, 186, 192, 197, 198, 199 on...

I saw no mention as to the citizens right to arrest and prosecute, and to what extent, upon any and all those in the federal government acting outside the limited delegated powers and authority of the Constitution; i.e. acting without LOCAL, STATE and COUNTY authorization, whether armed or not.

George Nicholas: " He then proceeded thus: But, says he, who is to determine the extent of such powers? I say, the same power which, in all well-regulated communities, determines the "extent" of "legislative" powers. If they exceed these powers,the"JUDICIARY" will declare it "VOID", or else "the PEOPLE" will have a "RIGHT" to declare it "VOID"." ...If I understand it right, NO "NEW" power can be exercised.""

In fact I heard none in regard to citizen and state rights of retaliation against undelegated federal powers (already being exercised in the United States by the federal government). Only what powers the federal government did or did not have against the people.

James Madison also defines another definition of the powers and limitations of the federal government as to their ability to act independently of the states in the Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788

Mr. MADISON replied, that the obvious explanation was, that the STATES were to appoint the officers, and govern all the militia except that part which was called into the actual service of the United States....

...the state governments might do what they thought proper with the militia, when they were not in the actual service of the United States. They might make use of them to suppress insurrections, quell riots, and call on the general government for the militia of any other state, to aid them, if necessary.

"With respect to suppressing insurrections, I say that those clauses which were mentioned by the honorable gentleman are compatible with a concurrence of the power. By the first, Congress is to call them forth to suppress insurrections, and repel invasions of "foreign powers". A concurrence in the former case is necessary, because a whole state may be in insurrection against the Union. What has passed may perhaps justify this apprehension. The safety of the Union and particular states requires that the general government should have power to {425} repel "foreign" invasions. The 4th section of the 4th article is perfectly consistent with the exercise of the "power by the STATES". The words are, "The United States shall guaranty to every state in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against INVASION, and, on application of the legislature, or of the executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened,) against domestic violence." The word invasion here, after power had been given in the former clause to repel invasions, may be thought tautologous, but it has a "DIFFERENT MEANING from the other". This clause speaks of a particular state. It means that it shall be protected from invasion by "OTHER STATES". A republican government is to be guarantied to each state, and they are to be protected from invasion from "OTHER STATES", as well as from "foreign powers"; and, on application by the legislature or executive, as the case may be, the militia of the other states are to be called to suppress domestic insurrections. Does this bar the states from calling forth their own militia? - "NO" -; but it gives them a supplementary security to suppress insurrections and domestic violence.

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 (FEDERAL) 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. 

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 argument 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...."

------------

Another Problem, is that the federal government has usurped the State's powers of possessing state and local Militias (the national guard is NOT a militia - James Madison describes the Militia as those officered by men chosen among themselves, not by either military or governments; George Mason indicates the militia is ALL PEOPLE not a elite separate force); Which the States are suppose to be in control under the Constitution when there is no Declaration of War.

------------

Samuel Adams Absolute Rights of the Colonists - describes this condition as well in 1772:

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Rights_of_the_Colonists/r...

Now what liberty can there be, where property is taken away without "consent"? Can it be said with any colour of truth and Justice, that this Continent of three thousand miles in length, and a breadth as yet unexplored, in which however, its supposed, there are five millions of people, has the least voice, vote or influence in the decisions of the British Parliament? Have they, all together, any more right or power to return a single member to that house of commons, who have not inadvertently, but deliberately assumed a power to dispose of their lives,8 Liberties and properties, than to choose an Emperor of China! Had the Colonists a right to return members to the british parliament, it would only be hurtfull; as from their local situation and circumstances it is impossible they should be ever truly and properly represented there. The inhabitants of this country in all probability in a few years will be more numerous, than those of Great Britain and Ireland together; yet it is absurdly expected [Volume 5, Page 397] by the promoters of the present measures, that these, with their posterity to all generations, should be easy while their property, shall be disposed of by a house of commons at three thousand miles distant from them; and who cannot be supposed to have the least care or concern for their real interest: Who have not only no natural care for their interest, but must be in effect bribed against it; as every burden they lay on the colonists is so much saved or gained to themselves. Hitherto many of the Colonists have been free from Quit Rents; but if the breath of a british house of commons can originate an act for taking away all our money, our lands will go next or be subject to rack rents from haughty and relentless landlords who will ride at ease, while we are trodden in the dirt.

The Colonists have been branded with the odious names of TRAITORS AND REBELS, only for complaining of their grievances; How long such treatment will, or ought to be born is submitted."

This is when in fact it was with the British then as it is with the federal government now, that both governments in fact themselves were and are the "Rebels and the Traitors" to the laws and Constitutions they were suppose to be upholding but were not.

Here John Locke presents this clearly:

#140: "...for if any one shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the people by his own authority, and without such "consent of the people", he thereby "invades the fundamental law of property", and "subverts the end of government". For what property have I in that which another may by right take when he pleases to himself?

# 239: "...That is in short -- not to multiply cases -- in whatsoever he has no authority, there he is no king (No Executive - No Legislative - No Judge), and may be resisted: for wheresoever the authority ceases, the king ceases too, and becomes like other men who have no authority. And these two cases that he instances differ little from those above mentioned, to be destructive to governments, only that he has omitted the principle from which his doctrine flows, and that is the breach of trust in not preserving the >>>FORM of government "AGREED ON", and in not intending the end of government itself, which is the public good and preservation of property. When a king has dethroned himself, and put himself in a state of war with his people, what shall hinder them from prosecuting him who is no king, as they would any other man, who has put himself into a state of war with them,

#227 "...And if those, who by force take away the legislative, are rebels, the legislators themselves, as has been shown, can be no less esteemed so, when they who were set up for the protection and preservation of the people, their liberties and properties shall by force invade and endeavour to take them away; and so they putting themselves into a state of war with those who made them the protectors and guardians of their peace, are properly, and with the greatest aggravation, rebellantes, rebels."

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.