The American Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

 The Constitution of the United States, in Article VI, commands:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” [Mr. Fiedor continues, “Ask your Member of Congress why there is no penalty for violation of the oath. The reply should prove very interesting.”]

<http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm>

There is an excellent discussion in Doug Fiedor's timeless State of the Union 1998 at <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/state98.htm#RuleOfLaw>

Treaties can not alter the Constitution. See the extensive discussion on treaties under the Docs for Statement of the Problem.

An excellent treatise on this subject is Doug's essay in Fiedor Report On the News #212X:

There has sure been a lot of hubbub about Second Amendment rights lately. We added a little to the fray too, of course. But we shouldn't have. All we did was to pile misinformation on top of more hackneyed misinformation. In other words, we were (partially) wrong.

Here's a quick question for all you Constitutional scholars: Which of the enumerated powers authorized to the federal government are described in the Bill of Rights? None, of course. All powers (except tax and alcohol) given the federal government by the Constitution of the United States are listed in the body of the Constitution. The Second Amendment, then, is something else.

When we have a doubt of the exact meaning of sections of the Constitution, the Supreme Court instructs that we should look to The Federalist Papers for clarification. In Cohens v. Virginia the Court said: "Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank [as a complete commentary on the Constitution], and the part its authors performed in framing the Constitution put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed." Since then, the Federalist Papers have been quoted liberally as an authority in many Court opinions.

In The Federalist #84, Alexander Hamilton gives his opinion on why a Bill of Rights was not really needed:

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?" Indeed. Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? And, there is no power to regulate private firearms.

Yet, many people wanted this declaration of rights added to the Constitution. The promise to do so was made so as to get the Constitution ratified. And the rest is history. It is also enlightening to read what the Representative from Virginia, James Madison, said to the first House of Representatives as he proposed the Bill of Rights. Here is part of that speech:

"It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights, by many respectable gentlemen out of doors, and I find opposition on the same principles likely to be made by gentlemen on this floor, that they are unnecessary articles of a Republican Government, upon the presumption that the people have those rights in their own hands, and that is the proper place for them to rest. It would be a sufficient answer to say, that this objection lies against such provisions under the State Governments, as well as under the General Government; and there are, I believe, but few gentlemen who are inclined to push their theory so far as to say that a declaration of rights in those cases is either ineffectual or improper. It has been said, that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government."

Got that? "The people have those rights in their own hands, and that is the proper place for them to rest." Later, he says that, "all [powers] that are not granted by the constitution are retained" by the people.

If the federal government had the power to regulate personal firearms, it would be one of the powers listed in the body of the Constitution, not in the Bill of Rights. And, since there is no such power granted, the right to keep and bear arms completely and unequivocally belongs to the people. Personal arms may, however, be regulated by State government.

The Second Amendment, then, is no more than a declaration that that people already have the right to keep and bear arms. So, what would the Founding Fathers say about the abuse of power by the federal government to grab guns? Alexander Hamilton gives us a pretty good idea in The Federalist No. 78:

"There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."

One other little point: State governments gave up a few powers when the country was formed. But, the American people did not give up any of their rights. Were the people asked to sacrifice liberty, the Constitution would never have been ratified.

<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/fron212X.htm#ANOTHERPERSPECTIVEONGUNRIGHTS>

<Cohens v Virginia <http://laws.findlaw.com/us/19/264.html>

The U.S. Supreme Court has cited the Federalist Papers as a definitive document for the U.S. Constitution. The feral punks running our federal government have be encroaching on the Constitution, paying but lip service to it.

Everyone in government takes an oath to support and defend our Constitution. According to the U.S. Supreme Court(1), when we have a question as to the exact meaning of any part of the body of the Constitution, we may look to The Federalist Papers as an authoritative source: "The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our constitution; and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank; and the part two of its authors performed in framing the constitution, put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed." Public officials not conforming to the Constitution, as written and explained in the Federalist Papers, are intentionally guilty of malfeasance: "The unjust performance of some act which the party had no right, or which he had contracted not, to do."

(1). Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US 264, 1821 <http://laws.findlaw.com/us/19/264.html>

[Discussed in <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/fron234.htm#SupCtCitesFedPapers,fr234>]

The United States Supreme Court cites The Federalist Papers as a source of Constitutional law and as far back as 1821 (Cohens vs. Virginia), Chief Justice John Marshall said:

Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank [as a commentary on the Constitution], and the part two of the authors performed in framing the Constitution, put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed.

<http://laws.findlaw.com/us/19/264.html>

Still today, the Supreme Court refers to The Federalist Papers in many of its opinions.

So there we have it. We have the Constitution. And we also have the Court approved legal explanation of the Constitution. All we need now is the legislation to plug up a major loophole in the law. That is, we need penalties with which to use to crackdown on public officials who violate the supreme law of the land.

If we ever expect to again have the government we deserve, one solution is clear: we must plug up these legal loopholes and crack down on all Constitutional scofflaws. Because, either the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, or it is not. If it is, then all must obey accordingly.

(http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu185.htm#Federalist78,ConstSupreme,hu185)

Right to be let alone - 1

Right to be let alone - 2

Right to be let alone - 3

No arresting situation, no arrest -1

No arresting situation, no arrest - 2

No permission, no entry

Limited Federal Government

President can not seize - 1

President can not seize - 2

Congress can not alter

Federal government can not force States to enforce federal mandates

The Constitution is, in itself, a Bill of Rights.

 The Federalist Papers # 84, page 515 in the Rossiter. Hamilton is detailed on this issue.

Doug Fiedor has left us a notable discussion on this subject at <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/fron212X.htm#ANOTHERPERSPECTIVEONGUNRIGHTS>

The Constitution is a limiting document and

The federal government is limited by the Constitution

The Court even quoted The Federalist Papers #51 (in footnote #30):

“The great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means, and personal motives, to resist encroachments of the others.” ...

In The Federalist Papers No. 45, James Madison instructs of the role of the federal government thusly:

“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. ... 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 property of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.”

(http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu185.htm#Federalist45,powers,hu185)

The Supreme Court has ruled on the limiting nature of the Constitution. In Pollard v. Hagan (44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845)), the U.S Supreme Court declared: "[B]ecause, the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a State or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted ... Alabama is therefore entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common law."

<http://www.uhuh.com/laws/fedjuris.htm>

<http://laws.findlaw.com/us/44/212.html>

In Alden et al. v. Maine (98-436, 1999) the Supreme Court admonishes: "The Constitution, after all, treats the powers of the States differently from the powers of the Federal Government. As we explained in Hall: 'In view of the Tenth Amendment's reminder that powers not delegated to the Federal Government nor prohibited to the States are reserved to the States or to the people,' the existence of express limitations on state sovereignty may equally imply that caution should be exercised before concluding that unstated limitations on state power were intended by the Framers." . . .

"The Federal Government, by contrast, 'can claim no powers which are not granted to it by the constitution, and the powers actually granted must be such as are expressly given, or given by necessary implication."

<http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-436.ZS.html>

So, how can any EPA regulation be "mandatory" within a sovereign State? It can't, legally.

In “EPA Strikes Anew”, several Supreme Court cases are cited and discussed concerning limitations on Congress by the Constitution. Included are New York and Printz.

  <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/fron252.htm#EPASTRIKESANEW>

 "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it... No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it." — 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256

The Duty of the People

In "American Communications Association v. Douds" (339 U.S. 382, 442), the U.S. Supreme Court said, "It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error."

Abraham Lincoln instructed, "The people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who would pervert it!"

Thomas Jefferson asked: "Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government? When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government is our servant, not our master."

In The Federalist Papers No. 78, Alexander Hamilton writes: "There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." There are many thousands of strong quotations that could be interjected here. But, these four seem to make the point nicely: We have been negligent.

And the operative word here is "We," as in "We the People." Because it is "We" who are the sovereigns in these United States of America. Not, as some would have us believe, the federal government. And it is "We" who have abdicated one of our most important duties as sovereigns.

Our basic function as sovereigns is to oversee the servants: In this case, those in government. But, for the last 60 years, "We" did not pay attention. "We" did not fulfill our proper function as sovereigns. Now look: The servants have taken over.

<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu109.htm#THEDUTYOFTHEPEOPLE,hu109>

 Another good discussion is at <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu77.htm#OURWORKERSAREOURBOSS,hu77> .

 “Under the law today, only the president may declare a national emergency, and only the president may end one. Worse, during a national emergency, the president wields nearly dictatorial powers. This very same arrangement was allowed by Article 48 of the German Constitution in the 1930's. That was how the German President -- Hitler -- was able to suspend the Constitution by presidential decree alone. Many Americans believe we should repeal those war and emergency power laws before we end up with a dictator, too.” <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu92.htm#Hitler,HU92>

 ... Rep. Brooks, who later served as chairman of the Committee, said:

No man in America can be above the law. It is our duty to establish now that evidence of specific statutory crimes and constitutional violations by the President of the United States will subject all Presidents now and in the future to impeachment .

* * *

No President is exempt under our U.S. Constitution and the laws of the United States from accountability for personal misdeeds any more than he is for official misdeeds. And I think that we on this Committee in our effort to fairly evaluate the President's activities must show the American people that all men are treated equally under the law.

Debate on Articles of Impeachment, 1974: Hearings of the Comm. on the Judiciary Pursuant to H. Res. 803, 93rd Cong., 2nd Sess., at 525, 554.

<http://www.uhuh.com/impeach/jc-1-14-99/reply.htm>

"In Support of Our Constitution", one of Doug's historic essays, contains a slightly edited text of the concurring opinion written by Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas, in United States vs. Lopez (93-1260) (1995).<http://laws.findlaw.com/US/000/u10287.html>

This is a very important writing, as it explains the misuse and abuse of the Commerce Clause (States' Rights) since FDR corrupted the federal government. The opinion sets the tone of the federal court system for a number of recent cases.

Source is <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu140.htm>. This is an historic treatise on the Constitution. Everyone is encourage to study it.

The commerce clause was used in an attempt to trash federalism, also known as State's Rights. For a wealth of information on this one, read <http://www.uhuh.com/nobypass/eo13083/list13083.htm> .

The United States Constitution states in Article I, Section 1: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

The United States Constitution states in Article II, Section 1: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Section 2: “... He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; ...” Section 3: “... he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed ...”

The United States Constitution states in Article III, Section 1: “The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

Note that nothing is said about the executive (President) making any laws. The President's job is to execute the laws, not make them. Therefore, Els, rules and regulations that have the force and effect of law, and which did emanate from Congress, are unconstitutional, illegal, null, void and unenforceable.

 Ron Paul, the best person in Congress, spoke against agencies.

<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/fron234.htm#MALFEASANCEINWASHINGTON>

An excellent discussion on the many unconstitutional regs when discussed through leading Supreme Court cases will be found at

<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/fron232.htm#HALTUNCONSTITUTIONALREGULATIONS>

Also discussed is the fact that the federal government cannot force states to enforce unconstitutional federal regulations. Neither can the states enlarge the federal government powers.

Here is an interesting essay on regulators:

<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu103.htm#ROUTREGULATORSANOTHERSUCCESS>

 The United States Constitution states in Article VI: “... This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding ...”

The UN Charter is a treaty. See the extensive discussion on treaties under the Docs for Statement of the Problem. Read through to the end of Constitution Trumps Treaties.

Also see the Docs for Constitution is Supreme.   

Doug Fiedor writes:

 It is worth reviewing why the Colonists declared their independence from England and went to war. They wanted freedom from the constraints of an over-intrusive central government -- much as many of us do again today. In fact, one clause of the Declaration of Independence is almost haunting when read in context today:

"He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance."

Would that we had it so good today! Today’s federal government perpetrates the constraints of not four or five unconstitutional federal agencies on the people of the United States but the never ending regulatory excesses of one-hundred and thirteen independent federal agencies. Consequently, there are so many laws, rules and regulations controlling the lives of the American people that no person, in or out of government, knows even half of them.

The “Father of our Constitution,” James Madison warned us that (1):

“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?”

The point is, when the volume of law enacted by government far exceeds the ability of the governed to comprehend, there is, in effect, no law. The unexpected consequence, then, is what we see today: selective tyranny.

(1) The Federalist Papers No. 62)

<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/fron233.htm#MadisonBigLaws,Fed62,fr233>

The United States Constitution states in Article I, Section 8:

"The Congress shall have the power . . .

"...To establish Post Offices and post Roads; ...

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; ...

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; ..."

 If it is not authorized by the Constitution of the United States, it can not be legally be done by the federal government. The federal government has no authority to control any land (including water that runs with that land) outside those limits.

The power grab for land is well discussed in “Rout the Land Regulators” at <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu106.htm#ROUTLANDREGULATORS,hu106>

 As stated in the opening sections of this paper, limitations on federal land use and control is the crux of this paper. To go beyond that concept is to violate the Constitution.

Those offensive actions by the federal government have prompted the inclusion of a discussion of the 2nd Amendment in this thesis. Our Founding Fathers expected us to keep guns to protect life, liberty and property, and to keep an errant government in check. Page after page in the Federalist Papers discuss this concept.

The Constitution of the United States guarantees our right to bear arms -- that is, to own guns, and to use them to defend against an errant government and for protection of life, liberty and property. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States merely iterates that right.

The people have the unalienable right to bear arms, reiterated by the 2nd Amendment. No government at any level, from federal down to city, can take this right from the people.

The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” <http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm>

 Important court case: <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu130.htm#COURTSUPPORTS2ndAMENDMENT,hu130>

 U.S. v. EMERSON is a recent landmark case that supports the 2nd Amendment. Following are a few paragraphs from the case synopsis:

"Finally, the many newspaper articles and personal letters cited indicate that, at the time, Americans viewed the Second Amendment as applying to individuals. This is confirmed by the First Congress's rejection of amendments that would have directly and explicitly addressed the Anti- Federalists' standing army and power over the militia concerns.

"We have found no historical evidence that the Second Amendment was intended to convey militia power to the states, limit the federal government's power to maintain a standing army, or applies only to members of a select militia while on active duty. All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans.

"We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training.

". . .

"We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment. We hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms, such as the pistol involved here, that are suitable as personal, individual weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller. However, because of our holding that section 922(g)(8), as applied to Emerson, does not infringe his individual rights under the Second Amendment we will not now further elaborate as to the exact scope of all Second Amendment rights.

". . .

"We agree with the district court that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to privately keep and bear their own firearms that are suitable as individual, personal weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller, regardless of whether the particular individual is then actually a member of a militia. However, for the reasons stated, we also conclude that the predicate order in question here is sufficient, albeit likely minimally so, to support the deprivation, while it remains in effect, of the defendant's Second Amendment rights. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's dismissal of the indictment on Second Amendment grounds.

A more detailed write up on the case is at

<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/fron250.htm#USvEMERSON,MAKINGHISTORY>

Gun laws are treaty based and questionable. See Becraft's brief', “Treaties: A Source For Federal Municipal Power” at <http://www.uhuh.com/laws/treatypo.htm> See "Court Cooks Glancing Goose" for a recent case that clips the wings on the Migratory Bird nonsense. Also see the most recent work on limitation of treaty power in "Constitution Trumps Treaties".

We are to bear arms to protect ourselves from an errant government. There is a lengthy excerpt from Federalist Papers 46 on this subject in Organization of the Thesis, above.

The Constitution does not give the federal government the right to control our guns. The Federalist Papers state that we should keep them.

 The Constitution is the job description for the federal government. Nowhere in the Constitution do I find authority for the federal government to do anything with or about our private guns. (Forest)

James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers #46: “ Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, . . .”

" 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and 'is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff." [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, the Federalist Papers #29 #30 at 184-8)

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)

"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.)

For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)]

Dr. Faria writes:

The same Congress that passed the Bill of Rights (with the Second Amendment) also passed the Militia Act of 1790, which defined the militia as 'every able bodied man of military age.' More recently, in the U.S. v. Verdugo decision of 1990, the Supreme Court held that when the phrase, 'the people' is used in the context of the Second Amendment, it means 'individuals' as to mean 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'; these are the same 'people' mentioned in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments of the Bill of Rights. "The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to limit the power of leviathan government, and individual rights were enumerated in this sacred document, so that they would be specifically protected from the monopolistic tendency of government to wrest power away from the individual citizen. That is why when the great Virginian George Mason thundered rhetorically, 'I ask, sir, what is the militia?' He continued, 'It is the whole people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them.'

"Although, there have been no recent Supreme Court decisions on the Second Amendment regarding a collective versus an individual right, various courts have ruled that the individual has the right to keep and bear arms: Presser v. Illinois 116 U.S. 252 (1886); U.S. v. Cruickshank 92 U.S. 542 (1876);

Miller v. Texas 153 U.S. 535 (1894); Robertson v. Baldwin 165 U.S. 275 (1897); and Miller v. U.S. 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In this last case (Miller, 1939), the Supreme Court explicitly stated the Second Amendment protected an individual right to keep and bear arms, particularly protecting military-styled (assault) weapons which are considered 'part of the ordinary military equipment.' The Supreme Court affirmed this even when Miller and his attorney failed to show up for the hearing and could not be found, and thus, only government lawyers presented their side without rebuttal. No wonder Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has stated that it may be time for the Supreme Court to revisit the Second Amendment, calling it --- like his predecessor, Justice Joseph Story (1779-1845) --- the palladium of our liberties.

<http://www.uhuh.com/guns/faria2nd.htm>. This letter points out that both Microsoft in En Carta and Lycos of Carnegie Mellon changed the wording of the 2nd Amendment.

Jefferson had good reason, as he later stated in a 1787 letter to William S. Smith:

“And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. ... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

Jefferson was also a firm believer in the right of self defense:

“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.”

As George Washington can be called the "Father of our Country," so then may Professor St. George Tucker justly be called the most important legal scholar of the early American republic. St. George Tucker taught law at William and Mary from 1790 until President James Madison appointed him to the federal court for Virginia, a post which he held until 1827.

Some like to quote Tucker as writing: "In America we may reasonably hope that the people will never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty." That is a true quote. However, there is a great deal more from this great Professor of Law:

“If, for example, Congress were to pass a law prohibiting any person from bearing arms, as a means of preventing insurrections, the judicial courts, under the construction of the words necessary and proper, here contended for, would be able to pronounce decidedly upon the constitutionality of these means.”

It is not "proper" for Congress "to pass a law prohibiting any person from bearing arms," even "as a means of preventing insurrections."

According to the Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789) St. George Tucker's friend, James Madison, originally wrote what is now the Second Amendment to read:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”

Someone down the line reversed what Madison wrote so as to put the preamble sentence first. Nevertheless, the meaning is the same. The right of the people to keep and bear arms "shall not" be infringed.

In fact, there's really nothing else for us to know. Because, even if the Second Amendment was removed from the Constitution today, there still would be no authority for the federal government to regulate personal firearms. The power, then, would belong to the States alone.

An excellent article on right to bear arms is

<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu160.htm#ConstitutionIsNotMenu>

An old rule of thumb in political science teaches that when you transform a crime-detecting police force into a crime-preventing policing apparatus, you have created a police state. And, that is exactly what is developing. Quickly. See

<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu148.htm#Defending4thAmendment>.

Other excellent gun essays are:

<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu133.htm>, “GUN CONTROL: FROM THE EXPERTS” (Hitler)

<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu137.htm>, “ON GUN CONTROL”. Read what happened to Australia in our lifetime.

Our gun laws have been derived from a Nazi German gun law. That in itself is ominous. <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/fron232.htm#GUNLAWSONEORIGIN> The JFPO knows who in WnDC is responsible.

The following documentation was printed above in constitutional limitation, but it bears repeating under the 2nd Amendment.

Perhaps the best treatise on this subject is Doug's essay in Fiedor Report On the News #212X:

 

Another Perspective On Gun Rights

There has sure been a lot of hubbub about Second Amendment rights lately. We added a little to the fray too, of course. But we shouldn't have. All we did was to pile misinformation on top of more hackneyed misinformation. In other words, we were (partially) wrong.

Here's a quick question for all you Constitutional scholars: Which of the enumerated powers authorized to the federal government are described in the Bill of Rights? None, of course. All powers (except tax and alcohol) given the federal government by the Constitution of the United States are listed in the body of the Constitution. The Second Amendment, then, is something else.

When we have a doubt of the exact meaning of sections of the Constitution, the Supreme Court instructs that we should look to The Federalist Papers for clarification. In Cohens v. Virginia the Court said: "Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank [as a complete commentary on the Constitution], and the part its authors performed in framing the Constitution put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed." Since then, the Federalist Papers have been quoted liberally as an authority in many Court opinions.

In The Federalist #84, Alexander Hamilton gives his opinion on why a Bill of Rights was not really needed:

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?" Indeed. Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? And, there is no power to regulate private firearms.

Yet, many people wanted this declaration of rights added to the Constitution. The promise to do so was made so as to get the Constitution ratified. And the rest is history. It is also enlightening to read what the Representative from Virginia, James Madison, said to the first House of Representatives as he proposed the Bill of Rights. Here is part of that speech:

"It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights, by many respectable gentlemen out of doors, and I find opposition on the same principles likely to be made by gentlemen on this floor, that they are unnecessary articles of a Republican Government, upon the presumption that the people have those rights in their own hands, and that is the proper place for them to rest. It would be a sufficient answer to say, that this objection lies against such provisions under the State Governments, as well as under the General Government; and there are, I believe, but few gentlemen who are inclined to push their theory so far as to say that a declaration of rights in those cases is either ineffectual or improper. It has been said, that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government."

Got that? "The people have those rights in their own hands, and that is the proper place for them to rest." Later, he says that, "all [powers] that are not granted by the constitution are retained" by the people.

If the federal government had the power to regulate personal firearms, it would be one of the powers listed in the body of the Constitution, not in the Bill of Rights. And, since there is no such power granted, the right to keep and bear arms completely and unequivocally belongs to the people. Personal arms may, however, be regulated by State government.

The Second Amendment, then, is no more than a declaration that that people already have the right to keep and bear arms. So, what would the Founding Fathers say about the abuse of power by the federal government to grab guns? Alexander Hamilton gives us a pretty good idea in The Federalist No. 78:

"There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."

One other little point: State governments gave up a few powers when the country was formed. But, the American people did not give up any of their rights. Were the people asked to sacrifice liberty, the Constitution would never have been ratified.

<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/fron212X.htm#ANOTHERPERSPECTIVEONGUNRIGHTS>

Cohens v Virginia <http://laws.findlaw.com/us/19/264.html>

 1. State v. Blocker, 291 Or. 255, — — — P. 2d — — — (1981). "The statue is written as a total proscription of the mere possession of certain weapons, and that mere possession, insofar as a billy is concerned, is constitutionally protected."

 "In these circumstances, we conclude that it is proper for us to consider defendant's 'overbreadth' attack to mean that the statute swept so broadly as to infringe rights that it could not reach, which in the setting means the right to possess arms guaranteed by sec 27."

 2. State v. Kessler, 289 Or. 359, 614 P. 2d 94, at 95, at 98 (1980). "We are not unmindful that there is current controversy over the wisdom of a right to bear arms, and that the original motivations for such a provision might not seem compelling if debated as a new issue. Our task, however, in construing a constitutional provision is to respect the principles given the status of constitutional guarantees and limitations by the drafters; it is not to abandon these principles when this fits the needs of the moment."

 "Therefore, the term 'arms' as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense. The term 'arms' was not limited to firearms, but included several handcarried weapons commonly used for defense. The term 'arms' would not have included cannon or other heavy ordnance not kept by militiamen or private citizens."

 3. Motley v. Kellogg, 409 N.E. 2d 1207, at 1210 (Ind. App. 1980) (motion to transfer denied 1-27-1981). "[N]ot making applications available at the chief's office effectively denied members of the community the opportunity to obtain a gun permit and bear arms for their self-defense."

 4. Schubert v. DeBard, 398 N.E. 2d 1339, at 1341 (Ind. App. 1980) (motion to transfer denied 8-28-1980). "We think it clear that our constitution provides our citizenry the right to bear arms for their self- defense."

 5. Taylor v. McNeal, 523 S.W. 2d 148, at 150 (Mo. App. 1975) "The pistols in question are not contraband. * * * Under Art. I, sec 23, Mo. Const. 1945, V.A.M.S., every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, and property, with the limitation that this section shall not justify the wearing of concealed arms." 6. City of Lakewood v. Pillow, 180 Colo. 20, 501 P. 2d 744, at 745 (en banc 1972).

 "As an example, we note that this ordinance would prohibit gunsmiths, pawnbrokers and sporting goods stores from carrying on a substantial part of their business. Also, the ordinance appears to prohibit individuals from transporting guns to and from such places of business. Furthermore, it makes it unlawful for a person to possess a firearm in a vehicle or in a place of business for the purpose of self-defense. Several of these activities are constitutionally protected. Colo. Const. art. II, sec 13."

 7. City of Las Vegas v. Moberg, 82 N.M. 626, 485 P. 2d 737, at 738 (N.M. App. 1971). "It is our opinion that an ordinance may not deny the people the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms, and to that extent the ordinance under consideration is void."

 8. State v. Nickerson, 126 Mt. 157, 247 P. 2d 188, at 192 (1952). "The law of this jurisdiction accords to the defendant the right to keep and bear arms and to use same in defense of his own home, his person and property."

 9. People v. Liss, 406 Ill. 419, 94 N.E. 2d 320, at 323 (1950). "The second amendment to the constitution of the United States provides the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This of course does not prevent the enactment of a law against carrying concealed weapons, but it does indicate it should be kept in mind, in the construction of a statue of such character, that it is aimed at persons of criminal instincts, and for the prevention of crime, and not against use in the protection of person or property."

 10. People v. Nakamura, 99 Colo. 262, at 264, 62 P. 2d 246 (en banc 1936). "It is equally clear that the act wholly disarms aliens for all purposes. The state . . . cannot disarm any class of persons or deprive them of the right guaranteed under section 13, article II of the Constitution, to bear arms in defense of home, person and property. The guaranty thus extended is meaningless if any person is denied the right to possess arms for such protection."

 11. Glasscock v. City of Chattanooga, 157 Tenn. 518, at 520, 11 S.W. 2d 678 (1928). "There is no qualification of the prohibition against the carrying of a pistol in the city ordinance before us but it is made unlawful 'to carry on or about the person any pistol,' that is, any sort of pistol in any sort of manner. *** [W]e must accordingly hold the provision of this ordinance as to the carrying of a pistol invalid."

 12. People v. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922). "The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the right of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff."

 13. State v. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921). "We are of the opinion, however, that 'pistol' ex vi termini is properly included within the word 'arms,' and that the right to bear such arms cannot be infringed. The historical use of pistols as 'arms' of offense and defense is beyond controversy." "The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions."

 14. State v. Rosenthal, 75 VT. 295, 55 A. 610, at 611 (1903). "The people of the state have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state. *** The result is that Ordinance No. 10, so far as it relates to the carrying of a pistol, is inconsistent with and repugnant to the Constitution and the laws of the state, and it is therefore to that extent, void."

 15. In re Brickey, 8 Ida. 597, at 598-99, 70 p. 609 (1902). "The second amendment to the federal constitution is in the following language: 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.' The language of section 11, article I of the constitution of Idaho, is as follows: 'The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but the legislature shall regulate the exercise of this right by law.' Under these constitutional provisions, the legislature has no power to prohibit a citizen from bearing arms in any portion of the state of Idaho, whether within or without the corporate limits of cities, towns, and villages."

 16. Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878). "If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege."

 17. Jennings v. State, 5 Tex. Crim. App. 298, at 300-01 (1878). "We believe that portion of the act which provides that, in case of conviction, the defendant shall forfeit to the county the weapon of weapons so found on or about his person is not within the scope of legislative authority. * * * One of his most sacred rights is that of having arms for his own defence and that of the State. This right is one of the surest safeguards of liberty and self-preservation."

 18. Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 8 Am. Rep. 8, at 17 (1871). "The passage from Story shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights."

 19. Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846). "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well- regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State."

 20. Simpson v. State, 13 Tenn. 356, at 359-60 (1833). "But suppose it to be assumed on any ground, that our ancestors adopted and brought over with them this English statute, [the statute of Northampton,] or portion of the common law, our constitution has completely abrogated it; it says, 'that the freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence.' Article II, sec. 26. * * * By this clause of the constitution, an express power is given and secured to all the free citizens of the State to keep and bear arms for their defence, without any qualification whatever as to their kind or nature; and it is conceived, that it would be going much too far, to impair by construction or abridgement a constitutional privilege, which is so declared; neither, after so solemn an instrument hath said the people may carry arms, can we be permitted to impute to the acts thus licensed, such a necessarily consequent operation as terror to the people to be incurred thereby; we must attribute to the framers of it, the absence of such a view."

 21. Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822).

"For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise."

"But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution."

There are numerous articles stating that the UN wants our guns. According to our Founding Fathers, that spells the end to freedom. Take a look here: <http://www.uhuh.com/guns/list-gun.htm#UN> [This entry is from the UN discussion in the Summary below.]

 The people have the unalienable right to demand that a warrant be presented prior to search and arrest, reiterated by the 4th Amendment which also defines the content and use of warrants. In common practice a warrant is required for entry into a building, but not necessarily for individuals. The interpretation of the 4th Amendment is changing.

 The Constitution of the United States reads: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” <http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm>

Another frequent violation of our Constitutional rights is the blatant violation of the 4th Amendment in searches, seizures and arrests. Unreasonable breaking, entering, arresting, and confiscating property are considered constitutionally illegal unless proceeded by an affidavit sworn before a judge who then must issue the warrant. The 6 H's -- who, what, when, where, why and how come -- must be written on the warrant. The 4th Amendment to the Constitution and the Federalist Papers are very clear on this subject. No one legally can, except for certain circumstances, break, enter, arrest you or take your property without such a warrant.

However, the law varies in use. The word “unreasonable” is important here. In common practice a warrant is generally required for entry into a building, but not necessarily for pursuit of individuals. The interpretation of the 4th Amendment is changing. A recent Supreme Court decision has ruled that instruments that see through walls require a warrant. Your local judge interprets the law.

 A recent Supreme Court decision has added devices that see through walls to the building interpretation. See <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/fron232.htm#NEWRULEFORHOMESURVEILLANCE>

 Road blocks are also unconstitutional. We don't need any Check Point Charlies over here. Also illegal is posse comitatus - the use of United States military forces against United States civilians. That is not why we pay our taxes.

 See <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu148.htm#DEFENDINGFOURTHAMENDMENT,148> .

 Just for kicks, let's take another look at that Fourth Amendment to our Constitution:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Apparently, the words "shall not be violated" must mean something different now than they did 207 years ago when the Amendment was ratified. Or, perhaps We the People have been hiring the wrong people for government service. Because, any government official supporting this new wiretap action would be in direct violation of their oath of office.

See <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu114.htm#CONGRESSKILLSFOURTHAMENDMENT,114>.

Any government official can be held to know that their office does not give them an unrestricted right to enter peoples' homes at will. . . . The principle that government officials cannot coerce entry into people's houses without a search warrant or applicability of an established exception to the requirement of a search warrant is so well established that any reasonable officer would know it. . . . The Fourth Amendment preserves the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses . . . ' without limiting that right to one kind of government official. (The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case, Calabretta v. Floyd(9715385) ) <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu151.htm>

... Legalizing asset forfeiture would make the above words of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments insignificant. Legalizing forfeiture is analogous to providing the police with a general warrant with which to search and seize anything they wish. That is unconstitutional, as it violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

... Law enforcement will miss all that money they have been stealing from people. One little known fact is that it is not just the departments that benefit from the money. Many police officers around the country have been supplementing their personal incomes with a little unauthorized forfeiture, too.

.. In any form, forfeiture is thievery under color of law. H.R. 1965 can be found at <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.1965>

Color of law is listed above in Onus of Enforcement in the Documentation section.

<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu92.htm> ; “Unconstitutional in Any Form”; contains an informative discussion.

<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu184.htm#HR2987,SecretSearchs,hu184>. Read all of this essay. It even hits the Forest Service.

Here is another essay that includes the U.S. Forest Service: <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu77.htm#OUR WORKERS ARE OUR BOSS>

<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu180.htm#4th Amend,Search,Seizure,180>. This is another good essay.

<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu84.htm#SecretCourtsDestroyRights>. This one is scary.

Also see Notes On the Constitution - 305 in the Documentation section.

Another severe and unconstitutional liability on the farmers is the IRS. Congress and the President have created that cumbersome giant for the most probable reason to acquire funds for their ways of helping people by helping them out of their money. History has shown that this procedure leads to ultimate control and totalitarianism.

But why they are so hard on the farmers leads one to conclude that our “devoted” leaders wish to bankrupt our farmers and place America at the mercy of the 3rd world nations for food. Why else would Washington, DC create GATT and NAFTA and tax American farmers more than farmers in any other industrialized nation? Our food producers adhere to strict controls when using pesticides, fertilizers and labor. Yet food is being imported that has been grown with none of these controls with the consequence that we do not know what we are eating, while American farmers are going broke.

The obvious solution is to negate the IRS. The tax will not be needed if our federal government is trimmed back to the intent of our Founding Fathers.

Detailed discussion will be found in Money Is Unreal: Blowing the Whistle on the Federal Reserve System.

 The IRS is unconstitutional and has no legal authority to enforce.

There is no law that requires an American citizen working in America to pay any income tax. And, the IRS has no legal authority to enforce. Yet they continue to purchase munitions a million dollars at a time. Meanwhile, not one dime of income tax is used to reduce the national debt. The Grace Commission Report is revealing.

So why pay? If excessive and unconstitutional bureaucracy were trimmed, if the government would get out of the banks, and if the banks were thrown out of government, we would not need income tax. What little money government would need could be collected at the border as the Founding Fathers did, America being the largest consumer nation in the world. See Money Is Unreal: Blowing the Whistle On the Federal Reserve System. The solution is therein. The income tax racket is a weapon of the Creature of Jekyll Island, a tool of the IBLs. Income tax is also a plank of communism. Also see the Communist Goals, which appear to have been attained here in America.

The IRS must be ruled unconstitutional for farmers. They pay more tax than farmers in any other industrialized country. Also see Tobin Tax.

High farmer's taxes: Dick Armey, Congress, 9-5-01, “Economy Needs a Capital Gains Tax Cut”, “Our capital gains tax rates are among the highest in industrialized countries, putting our companies and workers at a disadvantage. On average, the capital of U.S. businesses and farmers is taxed 80% higher than foreign competitors.”; <http://freedom.gov/library/economics/capgains.asp>

 The 9th and 10th Amendments must be addressed and followed. The story and documentation are at <http://www.uhuh.com/action/sheriff/list-shf.htm>.

Interested sheriffs are encouraged to contact Sheriff Mattis. He will talk to other sheriffs but prefers not to become embroiled in events with the media. See the above url for contact information.

Two other sheriffs that have faced up to the federal agents are Sheriff Mack and Sheriff Printz, whom you should also contact. See this section in the main section of this thesis.

Gun Owners of America have also published an article on this same subject at <http://www.gunowners.org/op0021.htm> .

Much information on the gun subject will be found at <http://www.uhuh.com/guns/list-gun.htm>.

This article tells what unconstitutional acts some units will do: <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu63.htm#ShameOfLawEnforcement,hu63>

There has been considerable legislation concerning police powers. Take a look at “Here Comes Real Fascism”. <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/fron236.htm#HERECOMESREALFASCISM,fr236>

For a look at potential weapons that could be aimed at you read “For a More Perfect Police State: <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu183.htm#FORAMOREPERFECTPOLICESTATE>

Oath of Office requires swearing to uphold and defend the Constitution of the U.S., and to their state constitution for other than federal officials. All federal and most state and local elected officials must swear to such an oath. If there is no time limit on their oath, it may be forever. (Documentation is below in excerpts from constitutions.)

Ron Paul, MD, the best person in Congress, wrote a fine essay on his oath of office. You will find it at <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu67.htm#WHATWEWANTTOHEAR,hu67>

Rule of Law. “Stripped of all technicalities, this means that government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand -- rules which make it possible to foresee with fair certainty how the authority will use its coercive powers in given circumstances and to plan one's individual affairs on the basis of this knowledge.”(Hayek, Road to Serfdom, p 80) (State of the Union 1998, Heads Up #76, 78, 98 and 113)

For further discussion, see Definitions in the Documentation section

Most of these laws are covered in Fiedor Report On the News #86 at

<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu86.htm#CrimesAgainstThePeople,86>,

in the Fiedor Report On the News SubIndex at

<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/husubdex.htm#Laws,Regs,Cases,Rule>, and

in Fiedor Report On the News #240 at

<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/fron240.htm#CALLFORJUSTICE>.

Posse Comitatus law states that U.S. military forces may not be used against American civilians. (FRON 63 and FRON 110) Watch this one for covert changes by Congress and the President.

2 USC 441e prohibits election donations by foreigners.

2 USC 441f prohibits donations in another person's name.

5 USC 706 encourages citizens to take overbearing federal regulatory agents and bureaucrats to court. That link, Protecting Our Property Right, has documentation and further discussion.

18 USC 3 makes Accessory After the Fact a felony. This law states: "Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact." Also see FRON 86).

18 USC 4 makes illegal the Misprision of Felony. This law states: "Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both." (FRON 81 and 86).

18 USC 201(c)(2) prohibits buying false testimony. It is rather clear, too. It says: "Whoever . . . directly or indirectly, gives, offers or promises anything of value to any person, for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court . . . authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony . . . shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both."

18 USC 219 prohibits American public servants from being foreign agents.

18 USC 241 bars conspiracy against rights. See Protecting Our Property Rights for documentation and further discussion.

18 USC 242 deals with deprivation of rights under color of law. It makes it illegal for a government official to deprive rights under Color of Law. "Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, . . . shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both." (FRON 83, 84 and 86). See Protecting Our Property Rights for documentation and further discussion.

18 USC 600 prohibits rewards to political candidates.

18 USC 602 prohibits federal employee from receiving political donations from federal employees.

18 USC 603 prohibits political donations by federal employees.

18 USC 607 prohibits receiving election donations on federal property.

18 USC 1001 makes lying a crime. Includes fraudulent statements or representations.

18 USC 1510 prohibits obstruction of communication of information by bribery.

18 USC 1956 prohibits financial transactions for illegal activities.

18 USC 1510 criminalizes interference with a criminal investigation. That would include just about everyone in the Clinton White House and quite a few in Congress. In fact, the Clintons actually hired (taxpayer paid) lawyers and a “War Room” full of socialist activists specifically to run interference in the investigations. The Democratic Party also set up a War Room specifically to interfere in the investigations.

"need not and should not". Note this early precedent of the precedent "could have known and should have known", ruled in the case of Lashley v. Koerber, California, 1945. In this 1945 case, the appellant court held a physician liable because he could have known and should have known. It was summarized that a physician could be expected to exercise a "... reasonable degree of skill and learning and care ordinarily exercised by other doctors of good standing in the community ... ." Considered was the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself), where the plaintiff does not cause the problem, and the defendant is assumed guilty if defendant knowingly allowed or caused the harm to happen, or was negligent in preventing that harm when defendant should have and could have prevented it.

The above is an abstract of Lincoln’s monetary policy from Mayor McGeer’s Conquest of Poverty and has been certified as correct by the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress at the instance of Hon. Kent Keller, Member of the House of Representatives. See 76th Congress, 1st Session, Jan 3 - Aug 5, 1939, Senate Documents #10304, Vol 3, Senate Document 23, "National Economy and the Banking System of the United States" by Robert L. Owen, presented by Mr. Logan on January 24, 1939, page 91. For those of you who like researching the original, try your local university or state library. Ask if their library is a federal repository. Senate Document 23 will probably be on microfiche. It is much easier to order it in booklet form from Peter Cook, Monetary Science Publishing, Box 86, Wickliffe, OH 44092. Ask for #761001-A, "2076 - Tricentennial U. S. A.

The entire document and documentation will be easier found at

<http://www.uhuh.com/unreal/lincoln.htm#CouldHaveKnown>

Also see the The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case, Calabretta v. Floyd (9715385) at

<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu151.htm#WouldHaveKnown,151>

 The federal government (the people operating our government) was placed on notice in April 1998 by CO2 (now CO6). This included Congress and its Senators and Representatives from the several states.

The notices were sent my certified mail, return receipt. The return receipts are on file.

CO2 listed violations by the federal government and the responsibility of federal employees operating our federal government, especially elected ones, to recognize and correct violations.

The laws backing this responsibility were outlined.

Even without this notice, they have no excuse. After all, federal lawmakers can certainly be expected to know the Constitution and its pertinent laws and court cases. And many, if not most, of them are lawyers. They have no excuse not to know or not to have known.

 The entire documents and documentation are posted for your convenience at

<http://www.uhuh.com/action/courtord/list-co.htm>

Hillary Clinton was our unconstitutional first Co-President and First Lesbian.

<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/husubdex.htm#Clinton,H>

<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu72.htm#lesbian>

<http://www.uhuh.com/clinton/ed9-21-98.htm>

Congress is giving itself power through treaties. See documentation for Chapter VII. Summary and Conclusion.

FDR also put the nation on national emergency status (NES), giving him more power. Apparently those in the White House and Congress like that power, because we have been under NES almost continuously ever since. And the grip is expanding and tightening.

<http://www.uhuh.com/control/stw-sys/twoguys.htm#NESOffLaw>

<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/state98.htm#EmergencyPowers>

<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu93.htm#NES,NatlEmergencyPowers>

<http://www.uhuh.com/control/list-con.htm> This Controls List itemizes people control mechanisms. Maintaining this list is a continuous chore. New ones are constantly emerging. That should tell somebody something.

<http://www.uhuh.com/action/timeline/timeline6.htm>. This Timeline lists the accomplishments of the IBLs for your edification. This should be an eye opener for all but the very drowsy.

The United States should be energy independent. See Williams' Energy Non Crisis in the Bibliography.

Additional documentation for these statements will be found in the documentation for Chapter I. A. Statement of the Problem.

Oath and Water Excerpts from Constitutions are in the Appendix in Supporting Documents. Consult the Table of Contents for the Documentation or the Index. It will be somewhere near page 103.

A slight change in arrangement was used for the Internet version. To keep the files smaller and manageable, the UN stuff is in a different file. Otherwise, this hard copy and the Internet copy are nearly identical, the difference being in indexing. Hard copy has no hot links, a time saving convenience of the Internet.

Documentation for these statements will be found in the documentation for Chapter I. A. Statement of the Problem, and Chapter IV. Hierarchy of Enforcement.

The UN Charter is a very harmful treaty that is being used to circumnavigate our Constitution. See the documentation for Chapter VII. Summary and Conclusion.

Documentation for these statements will be found in the documentation for Chapter I. A. Statement of the Problem, and Chapter IV. Hierarchy of Enforcement.

Documentation for these statements will be found in the documentation for Chapter I. A. Statement of the Problem, and Chapter IV. Hierarchy of Enforcement.

 The UN is not a nice outfit. Documentation is immediately below.

 Read this for some alarming facts about the UN, UNESCO and Interpol (all under one control):

<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu98.htm#SLICKSNEWCHOSENELITE,hu98>

The UN has the audacity to tax us, even our Internet. Dick Armey squelched that one. The UN's Human Development Report is a threat and a slap in our face.

<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu154.htm#InternetTax,UN,hu154>

“THEY COME TO LIMIT INDEPENDENCE”.

<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu196.htm#THEYCOMETOLIMITINDEPENDENCE>

Power of UN over US.

<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu83.htm#UNUSURPSOURFREEDOM,hu83>

Ron Paul, MD, the greatest person in Congress, states that the UN is intent on global control in his Texas Straight Talk article, “Conflicts at the UN Conference on Racism” at

<http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst091001.htm>.

 See <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu46.htm#MOREUNFOOLISHNESS,46>. There appears to be a motive for a world government in the LAND GRAB SCAM.

There are numerous articles stating that the UN wants our guns.

 According to our Founding Fathers, that spells the end to freedom. Take a look here:

<http://www.uhuh.com/guns/list-gun.htm#UN>

Here is a revealing discussion on the punks running DC, the UN and OUR guns.

<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu156.htm#UNgungrab,hu156>

The media backs the UN spin on guns to the point of misinformation.

<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/fron237.htm#UNANDMEDIASPINONGUNS,fr237>

Here's what happens when we lose all our guns: Just like Australia, it happened in England.

<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/fron237.htm#UNANDMEDIASPINONGUNS,fr237> This is one of Doug's best issues. He explains the ridiculousness of the gun grabbers and their spin (lies).

<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/fron221.htm#CHILDREN,RULESANDGUNS> Also read “Boxing Liberty” at the start of the same issue. That's great.

See More UN Foolishness, above

The United States Forest Service (USFS) may need discussion here. The USFS has closed miles of roads, prohibiting fire fighting and causing loss of huge tracts of timber. I can not find in the U.S. Constitution where the federal government is given authority to do anything with forests. That land belongs to the several states and their people. An interesting discussion will be found at

<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu77.htm#OURWORKERSAREOURBOSS,hu77>

The UN is listing our flora and fauna. Just what are they doing here?

The UN has listed 21 sites in and near the Klamath River watershed.

A partial, but lengthy list of UN sites and endangered species is list below.

 Basin Description Klamath

 <http://www.spiritone.com/~orsierra/rogue/issues/klamath/kbasin.htm>

 Endangered Species

Other Sites to Search

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Threatened and Endangered Species System (TESS)

<http://ecos.fws.gov/webpage/>

 Coho Salmon are tributary spawners not mainstem spawners. Upper Klamath irrigation water can not give one inch of spawning water in lower Klamath river tributaries (Scott, Shasta, Salmon, etc.). It is a physical impossibility.

Chinook Salmon are mainstream spawners in the Klamath and they are once again in fine shape now that the ocean has reverted to a cool, productive system.

By the way, the ocean is the reason for the decline in Coho Salmon that precipitated the ESA situation although this is not what NMFS or the press or the environmentalists want you to believe. This is well documented now including my own 1999 publication on the coastal Coho situation.

<http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/cohospawners.htm>

In July, 2001, I visited with a land owner along the Klamath River. He pointed to the water flowing uselessly to the sea. Last year, he pointed out, there was a drought and very low river flow. Yet this year there was a record salmon run.

Coho salmon have a three to five year life cycle. In 1992-94 there were record droughts. Yet four years later record numbers of cohos returned. Something is just not making sense in government water control. Facts are from Jim Moore, Interim Executive Director, Klamath Water Users Association, Klamath Falls, OR.

"Last years quota for sport fishing on Klamath for King Salmon was 4200, This year will be between 11,600 and 42,000" See whole story at

<http://www.usafishing.com/fishwenchMarch2001.html>

Complete: "Long Range Plan for the Klamath River Basin  Conservation Area Fishery Restoration Program". Lots about the Fish and the River. 

<http://endeavor.des.ucdavis.edu/kris/BIBLIO/httoc.htm>

List of endangered and threatened on the Oregon Fish and Wildlife site.

<http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/Wildlife/t&e.html>

Great list of sites. <http://edinburgh.k12.in.us/wwweslib/endanger.html>

Even the USGS is into endangered species with something called Patuxent. Where is everybody getting their money? One could assume that Congress knows where our money is being funneled.

<http://www.pwrc.nbs.gov/>

Bush wants control of the ESA. This could be good. He included it as a provision in his budget. One might research that document. But the ESA is unconstitutional, at least with regard to land use and control. What is the President doing violating the Constitution?  

Other UN and federal government presence in the Klamath River watershed.

 The big point to remember here, Folks, is that if big government does something that is not spelled out in the Constitution, then what they did is unconstitutional -- meaning illegal. No where in the Constitution can I find authority for the Fish and Wildlife agency. That right belongs to the states and the people. Likewise, nowhere do I find any authority for the federal government to proclaim any species endangered. Now, I am in favor of sensible environmental management. But it appears that a power grab is present here. All encompassing controls like the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and its ESA (Endangered Species Act) can much too easily be turned to a people control apparatus. At issue are the farmers in the Klamath Lake region. Such control has ruined them. . That is what Hitler did before setting the German Congress aside and declaring a dictatorship in three short months. I expect the Klamath Basin farmers are feeling like this is the 4th Reich. (http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/state98.htm#Hitler,su98> Much more advisable, and constitutionally legal, is local control of their water.

Another aspect must be considered here -- the treaty power mechanism. The President and Congress have been signing questionable treaties to gain power through the resultant international law. But even then, no law can supersede the Constitution of the United States. And in the case of the Klamath Basin farmers, we are dealing with use and control of land, and that is where the constitutional road block stops all treaties flat. That Constitution is not about to budge, at least if I can help it. The latest documentation is in Constitution Trumps Treaties (ConTrump). Although a bit dated, another source on this subject will be found in Larry Becraft's brief, “TREATIES: A SOURCE FOR FEDERAL MUNICIPAL POWER” at <http://www.uhuh.com/laws/treatypo.htm> . Be sure to read Doug Fiedor's COURT COOKS GLANCING GOOSE.

 Here is one that has to be the epitome of endangered conceit, Folks -- A putrid filth eating beetle is being touted as an endangered species. This just has to show someone how ridiculously desperate some agents and other critters are for their power grab. They are protecting their putrid filth eating beetle!! More specifically it is called the American burying beetle or carrion beetle (Nicrophorus americanus), a member of the carrion beetle family Silphidae. It buries the carrion to keep the vultures away. I wonder about the flies. Someone ought to start a Save the Vultures from the Carrion Beetles site with donations, tax free of course. 8<) <http://www.ngpc.state.ne.us/wildlife/beetle.html>

Here is more on that beetle: <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/fron241.htm#PROTECTINGAFLESHEATINGBUG,241 >

List of endangered species in California. <http://www.iwec.org/Kits/california.html>

List of endangered species by ESIS (Endangered Species Information System) of the US Fish and Wildlife Exchange. <http://fwie.fw.vt.edu/WWW/esis/>

List by DoD (Department of Defense) <http://www.wes.army.mil/el/tes/> . What in the world is the Department of Defense doing in the endangered species business?

More stuff at EE-Link <http://deannespage.virtualave.net/related.htm>

UN Biospheres have been disapproved and defunded by Congress, yet, through misappropriation, the biosphere program keeps getting funds and growing. <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/fron235.htm#BiosDontExist,YetFunded,fr235>

UN demands that its court supersede US courts

The UN is demanding that its International Court of Justice (ICJ; Also known as the World Court) be recognized as superior to all United States courts.

 See Doug Fiedor's “Protecting Our Property Rights”, an historic document that will lead the trimming of our bloated bureaucracy.

 ICJ. <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/fron238.htm#ICJ,WorldCourt,UN,fr138>

The UN is investigating the US - a downright insult. Part II. <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu74.htm#UnInvestigatesII>

Part III of the insult. Is this what you want in the Klamath Basin? <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu85.htm#UNINVESTIGATESUSACTIII,hu85>

The UN may become involved in 68 % of federal land in America.

<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/fron235.htm#68%FederalLandUnderUN,fr235>

 The UN is labeling OUR flora and fauna. In the Columbia River Basin they have labeled 698 species. Again I ask why? And you think you have problems with with just a couple of trash sucker fish. I have not had time to check on the Klamath River Watershed, but I wonder what else is out in the UN tool shed. <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu63.htm#UCRB,EIS,698species,hu63>

The UN condemned mining next to Yellowstone National Park. <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/fron235.htm#UnCondemnedYellowstone,fr235> . Clinton stopped coal mining in Utah by creating the unconstitutional Escalante National Monument, a most unconstitutional act. Much money under the table and Chinese coal seem to be involved. This land grab nonsense is getting bad out of hand.

<http://www.house.gov/cannon/press_072099.html>

<http://www.freerepublic.com/china/9.htm>

<http://www.agiweb.org/agi/legis105/conoco.html>

<http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/1/31/185632.shtml>

Also see Klamath Basin Document (KBD) at

<http://www.uhuh.com/action/klamfalls/klamdex.htm>

The United States Forest Service (USFS) may need discussion here.

 The USFS has closed miles of roads, prohibiting fire fighting and causing loss of huge tracts of timber. I can not find in the U.S. Constitution where the federal government is given authority to do anything with forests. That land belongs to the several states and their people. An interesting discussion will be found at <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu77.htm#OURWORKERSAREOURBOSS,hu77>

The American Heritage Rivers Initiative (AHRI) is controlling our rivers.

<http://www.epa.gov/rivers/>

AHRI is unconstitutional. <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu87.htm>. Read Tiger Newt.

AHRI: <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu73.htm#NatureInKentucky>

AHRI, EO stripped state and local control of rivers, gave control to federal government.

<http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu87.htm#AHRI,HR1842,Chenoweth>

One of Clinton's deal is NW Forest Plan. Clinton is all UN. <http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/siskiyou/ecomgmt.htm>

Diversity. Watch this one. <http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/siskiyou/diversit.htm>

ROADMAP TO THE US FOREST SERVICE DECISION PROTOCOL VERSION 2.0. <http://www.fs.fed.us/forum/nepa/dp2roadmap.htm>

The UN has been stockpiling equipment in the U.S. Is this weapons? <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu83.htm#UnArmsWilderness>

 UN agents are immune in US <http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/hu83.htm#UnGuysImmune>

The main file became so large the links ran past the limit. The use of appendices solves that problem. The hard copy edition does not have this limitation, so no addenda is used there.  

For convenience, this document titled Limited Federal Government has been posted on the Internet. Most documentation there is at your fingertips. The url is

<http://www.uhuh.com/action/govltd/govsmall.htm>.

All items in this appendix are copyrighted whether or not indicated on each page, subject to the rights of copied material. All rights are reserved.

The President and Congress said they are reducing taxes and balancing the budget. uhuh. Sez who?

Smile and Force Congress to Kick the Debt & Taxes Habit with Money System Honesty for Us People. We demand the whole truth with an honest viewpoint.

Don't send money. Call Jo(e) Congress and send letters.

Click here to contact Forest.

Web Home Page: www.uhuh.com

---

  Back to the top of this page

This web page can NOT be altered or sold, but may be copied intact with credit to uhuh for reasonable distribution in keeping with the philosophy of uhuh and GR Force, who can assume no liabilities. Please make your own decisions.

The term U-Mail, uhuh and this web page are Copyright 1996 by Forest Glen Durland, subject to article owners' rights.

govdoc2.htm. Revised 4-19-04. Uhuh and GR Force are non-profit.