The 249th Anniversary of the Boston Tea Party
Samuel Adams led an effort for weeks to negotiate a resolution to the Bostonian’s desire to not unload, not tax and not put for sale, the East India Company monopolized tea sitting in Boston Harbor since late November, 1773, but to no avail.
December 15, Resolves were passed by the Assoc of the Sons of Liberty in New York against the trading and selling of tea [East India Co. monopoly].
— DVM III
Boston, Massachusetts
The day was rainy and chilly as most Massachusetts days in mid-December. The Assembly at the Old South Meeting House was held at 9AM and here the letters from Lexington and Plymouth were read to the people. Again, each community affirming commitment to the cause and will give their lives to the endeavor. The meeting was adjourned and scheduled to reconvene at 3PM. The afternoon meeting was to again have an inquest as to why the tea remained in the harbor. This information was to be gone over again for the benefit of the newly arrived hundreds from the out-lying communities, freshly arrived. The meeting last for two hours and instructed that the ship owners are to once again have an interview with (Acting) Governor for his permission to sail without unloading the tea consignments. The meeting adjourned until 6PM at which time an answer should be presented.
At 6PM, the multitude of citizens arranged themselves within the pews and gallery of Old South. Nothing yet from the ship owners or the Governor, but none was expected. One citizen, Josiah Quincy (member of the Committee of Correspondence) spoken of the peoples resolve and popular acclamations of willing to gives our lives. Others gave voice in similar tones to the crowd as all waited for the final answer from Governor Hutchinson.
Finally, the message arrives around 7PM, that there shall be no passes. Samuel Adams stands and says the words “This meeting can do nothing more to save the country,” In the back of the room and outside in the street, the Sons of Liberty street gang called the “Mohawks”, react to that remark by moving swiftly to Griffins wharf and board the three tea ships Dartmouth, Eleanor and Beaver.
The Mohawk’s a group of a few dozen men, clothed to resemble Indians, extracted the tea from the cargo holds and disperse the leaves into the waters of the harbour. When completed, the ships were cleaned of debris and with no causalities.
“Some interesting extra facts
Late Thursday the 16, December 1773, was cold (low 35 degrees and rainy). The estimates of over 200 men are reported as having been involved. A list of 116 men is recorded with the added fact many not listed were there. The sheer weight of the containers indicates the time involved would be more than two hours as reported. Later, a letter from Dr. Warren to a friend also says the same and estimates the time rage to be more of 4 hours or 7 to 11PM but more likely nearer 8 to mid-night.
Each full container had a weight of 400 pounds, which is a total of all three ships at about 90,000 lbs. (45 tons) of tea, was thrown overboard. The destroyed tea was worth an estimated £10,000. The timing was more based on the local authority’s response then given credit. The British Army was inside Castle William and/or on Governors Island. There was no way the local guards were going to get involved with a few thousand irate Bostonians. They learned that lesson in 1771. So, they slowly rowed to the Island and give alarm. Mustering troops (late evening) and embark them and row them (in force) to the wharf then disembark. Muster into ranks and march over to the area. That would take four to five hours. The riot was over and the insurgents gone. No Loyalist could identify anyone as the “Mohawks” who had smudged their faces in charcoal.
“Next: Interesting point to the story is the lack of damage to property. All three ships were owned by Boston merchants and Lodge Brothers of the Saint Andrew Freemasons or the St Johns. In fact, Rotch (the owner of the Dartmouth) was the Grand Master of St. John’s. Each owner easily could be considered part of the over-all scheme of things. They knew from the beginning that once the ships docked, they were bound by law to remain until said cargo was unloaded, i.e. 20 days. Everything was very convenient.”
“Note: The incident was only referred to as the destruction of the tea at Boston. The earliest newspaper reference to the “Boston Tea Party” doesn’t appear until 1826. In the 1830s, two book; “Retrospect of the Boston Tea-Party” by G.R.T. Hewes and “Traits of the Tea Party” also by G.R.T. Hewes coined the express and is improperly used today.
https://archive.org/details/retrospectofbos00hawk
https://archive.org/details/traitsteapartyb00thatgoog
“Sam Adams: Pioneer in Propaganda” by John Miller
“Samuel Adams: A Life” by Ira Stoll
“Life and Times of Joseph Warren” by Richard Frothingham
“Defiance of the Patriots: The Boston Tea Party” by Benjamin Carp
The Boston Tea Party 1773” by Benjamin Labaree
“Peter Oliver’s Origin & Progress of the American Rebellion” edited D. Adair & J.A. Schutz
(The Bost
(The above article was originally published Dec 16, 2014) Below is a reenactment of the event that Camp Constitution Media videotaped in 2018:
THE WISDOM OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
December 20, 2016
NewsWithViews.com – http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin295.htm
Since the recent Presidential election, the media have overflowed with rather rancorous debates about the legitimacy of the Electoral College, in contrast to a simple count of the overall national votes for the two major candidates, Donald Trump (who, it seems, has won a majority of the Electoral College) and Hillary Clinton (who, it appears, has won a majority of the popular vote). These debates have usually assumed the simplistic form of one side’s contending that, as a supposed “democracy”, America should elect the President by majority vote; while the other side counters that the United States is a “republic” in which majoritarianism is not always desirable, let alone controlling. Both of these arguments miss a crucial point which derives from the federal system in general, and the duties of the States and the powers of the President within that system in particular.
In The Federalist No. 39, James Madison explained that
[t]he executive power will be derived from a very compound source. The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters. The votes allotted to them are in a compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and coequal societies, partly as unequal members of the same society.
Here, Madison recognized the importance of the States’ continuing positions as semi-sovereignties within the Constitution’s federal system. As such, although they do not retain all of the rights, powers, privileges, and immunities of full and independent sovereignties, they continue to enjoy many of those legal attributes as component parts of that system. See, e.g., U.S. Const. amend. X.
Arguably the most important of these rights, powers, privileges, and immunities—and under the Constitution a duty as well—is for each of the States to maintain an armed force suitable to the “Republican Form of Government” which the Constitution requires each of them to preserve, and all of them, acting in the capacity of the United States, to “guarantee” to one another. See U.S. Const. art. IV, § 4. For sovereignty is the quintessence of political power; and all “‘[p]olitical power grows out of the barrel of a gun’”. Quotations From Chairman Mao Tse-tung (Peking, China: Foreign Languages Press, 1966), at 61. This armed force is what the Second Amendment identifies as “[a] well regulated Militia”, which it declares to be “necessary to the security of a free State”. Each of the States must maintain “[a] well regulated Militia” in order to remain “a free State”, and thus to preserve for herself (as well as for her sister States) “a Republican Form of Government”. Moreover, each of the States must maintain “[a] well regulated Militia” in order to secure for Congress the forces the Constitution empowers it “[t]o provide for calling forth * * * to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 15.
Now, the Constitution invests the President with the status of “Commander in Chief * * * of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States”. U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 1. Furthermore, except to “engage in War” when “actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay”, the States have at their own disposal no permanent armed forces other than their Militia; for they may not “keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace” “without the Consent of Congress”.
U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 3. And today, through the mutual “Consent of Congress” and the States, those “Troops, or Ships of War” are organized in the National Guard and the so-called Naval Militia, which in certain circumstances can be brought under the President’s authority as “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States”. Compare U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 1 with, e.g., 32 U.S.C. § 101(3) through (7). Thus it is entirely fitting—indeed, one would think compulsory—for the President to be elected by a process which to the greatest practical degree maximizes the influence of “the States in their political characters”, as opposed to a simple majority vote within the nation as a whole which more or less disregards or even negates that influence.
For the Constitution plainly contemplates situations in which the States’ “‘[p]olitical power [which] grows out of the barrel of a gun” will be exercised by the President directly. One may question whether the Electoral College is, in abstract theory, the very best means to this end imaginable; but, in practice, it is undoubtedly one efficacious means, and the means the Constitution specifies.
Thus, the arguments put forward by those in Mrs. Clinton’s camp against the political wisdom of the Electoral College and in favor of raw majoritarianism as the best way to select the President are basically at odds with federalism in theory and constitutionalism in practice—and should be rejected on that ground alone.
© 2016 Edwin Vieira, Jr. – All Rights Reserved
Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).
For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.
He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective. www.piecesofeight.us
He is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER: A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash of the Federal Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes. www.crashmaker.com
His latest book is: “How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary“ … and Constitutional “Homeland Security,” Volume One, The Nation in Arms…
He can be reached at his new address:
52 Stonegate Court
Front Royal, VA 22630.
E-Mail: Not available
POPULAR VOTE v. ELECTORAL COLLEGE; DEMOCRACY v. REPUBLIC
Daniel Vincent McGonigle III
20 Dec 2016
Assertions that: “the popular vote to determine everything is very compelling”, are nuts. The popular vote to determine everything would favor unequal population centers rights over States and rural rights; and, it would be a democracy, not a republic as guaranteed in Article IV Section 4, U.S. Constitution.
The D of I says: “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America”, not The unanimous Declaration of the united population centers of America.
The Constitution says: “We the People of the United States”, not We the People of the United population centers.
The enemies of America who favor disarmament of population centers (especially deep-water ports) are the same who favor popular vote democracy and rule by majority no matter the rights of the minority.
© 2016 – Daniel Vincent McGonigle III : Constitutional Militia Scholar
ELECTED OFFICIALS NEED TO PROVIDE FOR BACKING UP FIRST RESPONDERS
[The following was published in the Camp Constitution Journal, Wednesday, July 13, 2016]
It is the sworn duty of governors and state legislators—to provide for back up of professional first responders; and to provide for revitalizing, re-organizing, re-empowering and enrolling the State Militia—the country’s intended omnipresent constitutional “homeland security” in each State.
It is the sworn duty of governors, county commissioners, sheriffs and judges, and of local elected mayors and selectmen—to back up professional first responders, by the governor activating Militia or by others requesting that Militia be called forth when necessary in an emergency.
It would be the sworn duty of Militia commanders to call forth their Militia units when requested and/or when necessary in an emergency, if operational local-county-State Militia command structures (constitutional “homeland security”) existed as constitutionally mandated.
© 2016 Daniel Vincent McGonigle III
Authority, U.S. Constitution:
Article I. Section 8. [Clause 15] “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union . . .”
USS Constitution Launched in Boston Harbor, 21 October 1797
Source: posts on Facebook, October 21, 2015
via National Archives Foundation
Today in 1797, the USS Constitution was launched in Boston Harbor. The ship was one of six original frigates commissioned by the Naval Act of 1794, and was named by President George Washington in dedication to our nation’s founding document.
The ship was initially constructed to ward off Barbary pirates who were terrorizing American merchant ships in the Mediterranean, but is most remembered for its part in naval victories over the British in the War of 1812. During a sea battle with the British ship HMS Guerriere, in which the USS Constitution triumphed, she earned her nickname “Old Ironsides.” A sailor aboard the Guerriere saw 18-pound British cannonballs bouncing right off the hull of the Constitution and exclaimed “Huzza, her sides are made of iron!” which propagated the false belief that she was constructed from iron – she was in fact made from oak.
The USS Constitution is the oldest commissioned in the U.S. Navy, and went through significant renovations in the 1830s, 1920s, and again in the 1990s. The ship currently resides at the Charlestown Navy Yard in Boston, where it attracts thousands of visitors every year.
Image: USS Constitution, 8/18/1914
https://www.facebook.com/archives.foundation/photos/a.157959679900.115034.90953349900/10153741592524901
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/6037256
via Naval History & Heritage Command shared USS Constitution’s photo
HUZZAH!!! On this day in 1797, USS Constitution was launched from Edmund Hartt Shipyard in Boston! Join the crew in celebrating USS Constitution’s 218th birthday!!! There will be a firing of Old Ironsides’ saluting battery at her launch time of 12:30 p.m., followed by the ship opening to visitors from 2:30-5 p.m.
Image: provided by USS Constitution facebook page.
The Boston Tea Party, December 16, 1773
Daniel Vincent McGonigle III
December 16, 2014
Samuel Adams led an effort for weeks to negotiate a resolution to the Bostonian’s desire to not unload, not tax and not put for sale, the East India Company monopolized tea sitting in Boston Harbor since late November, 1773, but to no avail.
December 15, Resolves were passed by the Assoc of the Sons of Liberty in New York against the trading and selling of tea [East India Co. monopoly].
— DVM III
The following is via and posted today at: https://www.facebook.com/CommitteeofCorrespondence
“16, December 1773
Boston, Massachusetts
The day was rainy and chilly as most Massachusetts days in mid-December. The Assembly at the Old South Meeting House was held at 9AM and here the letters from Lexington and Plymouth were read to the people. Again each community affirming commitment to the cause and will give their lives to the endeavor. The meeting was adjourned and scheduled to reconvene at 3PM. The afternoon meeting was to again have an inquest as to why the tea remained in the harbour. This information was to be gone over again for the benefit of the newly arrived hundreds from the out-lying communities, freshly arrived. The meeting last for two hours and instructed that the ship owners are to once again have an interview with (Acting) Governor for his permission to sail without unloading the tea consignments. The meeting adjourned until 6PM at which time an answer should be presented.
At 6PM, the multitude of citizens arranged themselves within the pews and gallery of Old South. Nothing yet from the ship owners or the Governor, but none was expected. One citizen, Josiah Quincy (member of the Committee of Correspondence) spoken of the peoples resolve and popular acclamations of willing to gives our lives. Others gave voice in similar tones to the crowd as all waited for the final answer from Governor Hutchinson.
Finally, the message arrives around 7PM, that there shall be no passes. Samuel Adams stands and says the words “This meeting can do nothing more to save the country,” In the back of the room and outside in the street, the Sons of Liberty street gang called the “Mohawks”, react to that remark by moving swiftly to Griffins wharf and board the three tea ships Dartmouth, Eleanor and Beaver.
The Mohawk’s a group of a few dozen men, clothed to resemble Indians, extracted the tea from the cargo holds and disperse the leaves into the waters of the harbour. When completed, the ships were cleaned of debris and with no causalities.
“Some interesting extra fact
Late Thursday the 16, December 1773, was cold (low 35 degrees and rainy). The estimates of over 200 men are reported as having been involved. A list of 116 men is recorded with the added fact many not listed were there. The sheer weight of the containers indicates the time involved would be more than two hours as reported. Later, a letter from Dr. Warren to a friend also says the same and estimates the time rage to be more of 4 hours or 7 to 11PM but more likely nearer 8 to mid-night.
Each full container had a weight of 400 pounds, which is a total of all three ships at about 90,000 lbs. (45 tons) of tea, was thrown overboard. The destroyed tea was worth an estimated £10,000. The timing was more based on the local authority’s response then given credit. The British Army was inside Castle William and/or on Governors Island. There was no way the local guards were going to get involved with a few thousand irate Bostonians. They learned that lesson in 1771. So, they slowly rowed to the Island and give alarm. Mustering troops (late evening) and embark them and row them (in force) to the wharf then disembark. Muster into ranks and march over to the area. That would take four to five hours. The riot was over and the insurgents gone. No Loyalist could identify anyone as the “Mohawks” who had smudged their faces in charcoal.
“Next: Interesting point to the story is the lack of damage to property. All three ships were owned by Boston merchants and Lodge Brothers of the Saint Andrew Freemasons or the St Johns. In fact, Rotch (the owner of the Dartmouth) was the Grand Master of St. John’s. Each owner easily could be considered part of the over-all scheme of things. They knew from the beginning that once the ships docked, they were bound by law to remain until said cargo was unloaded, i.e. 20 days. Everything was very convenient.”
“Note: The incident was only referred to as the destruction of the tea at Boston. The earliest newspaper reference to the “Boston Tea Party” doesn’t appear until 1826. In the 1830s, two book; “Retrospect of the Boston Tea-Party” by G.R.T. Hewes and “Traits of the Tea Party” also by G.R.T. Hewes coined the express and is improperly used today.
https://archive.org/details/retrospectofbos00hawk
https://archive.org/details/traitsteapartyb00thatgoog
“Sam Adams: Pioneer in Propaganda” by John Miller
“Samuel Adams: A Life” by Ira Stoll
“Life and Times of Joseph Warren” by Richard Frothingham
“Defiance of the Patriots: The Boston Tea Party” by Benjamin Carp
The Boston Tea Party 1773” by Benjamin Labaree
“Peter Oliver’s Origin & Progress of the American Rebellion” edited D. Adair & J.A. Schutz
(The Boston Tea Party) 16, December 1773 (12 photos) This shows men in blankets which is nearer the truth.” https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.500497056639620.113152.420169408005719
_____________________________
Additional Sources:
A Short History of The Boston Tea Party http://www.oldsouthmeetinghouse.org/history/boston-tea-party/how-boston-tea-party-began
Association of the Sons of Liberty in New York; December 15, 1773 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/assoc_sons_ny_1773.asp
Our Great Constitution: “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” v. Executive Order Fraud & Unconstitutional Amnesty
By Daniel Vincent McGonigle III
November 20, 2014 [This commentary was originally published as a “Note” on Facebook, November 6, 2014]
Specific powers granted, and the separation of powers, are enumerated in the Constitution.
Presidential Executive Orders/Actions apply within the federal Executive branch of government; and do not apply to the Congress, the Judiciary, the States, or We the People. Executive Orders are not Laws, which are made by Congress.
Orders signed and executed by past Presidents, and the absence of judicial determination, are irrelevant to determining the constitutionality of Executive Orders. The Constitution means what it says.
The People have superseding power:
[Declaration]: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ”.
[Preamble]: “We the People *** do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Article I Congressional power:
Art I Section 1: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, . .”
Art I Sec 8 Clause 4: “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization . .”
Art I Sec 8 Clause 15: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”
The purpose of the 435 U.S. Representatives is to represent We the People.
The purpose of the 100 U.S. Senators is to represent the States. The 17th Amendment of 1913 was and is repugnant to the original intent of the Constitution, and removed power of the States over their U.S. Senators; thereby unbalancing the separation of powers between the States and federal government, in favor of federal government and more centralized power.
Nowhere in the Constitution is there any remote suggestion that law-making be in the sole hands of a single person.
One of the purposes and powers of “the Militia of the several States [Art II Sec 2 Cl 1] *** composed of the body of the People ” [Virginia Const Decl of Rights Sec 13] is “to execute the Laws“, including per Art VI Clause 2: “This Constitution *** the supreme Law “, when it is “[being] necessary to the security of a free State ” [2ndAmendment]; and, additionally confirmed by “The powers *** reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” [10thAmendment].
A necessity for emergency execution would include when the everyday constitutional execution of the Laws is not being performed, such as the current state of affairs.
Article II Presidential power:
Art II Sec 1 Clause 1: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America . .”
Art II Sec 3: “He *** shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, . .”
When a bill passes Congress and then goes to the President’s desk: the POTUS can sign it and it immediately becomes Law; the POTUS can refuse to sign it and it becomes Law in 10 days; or, the POTUS can Veto it, which would require a 2/3 vote passage by Congress to override the Veto for it to become Law. The Veto power is an additional constitutional check that is available on a majority vote in Congress.
Only a constitutional ignoramus, pretending to have advanced constitutional knowledge, would assert that–when it is said “the President signed a bill into Law ” means that the President made Law.
Congress is enumerated to make [constitutional] “Laws *** made in Pursuance” of “This Constitution”; the President and officials underneath the President execute [constitutional] Laws; and the People through the Militia are enumerated “to execute the [constitutional] Laws ” in an emergency or when “necessary to the security of a free State “.
Powers are granted or “vested ” under separate Articles, to prevent any one branch of government from becoming dictatorial or too powerful over other branches.
Orders signed and executed by by the President must be within the powers constitutionally granted and within the Laws existing: “This Constitution, and the Laws *** made in Pursuance thereof ” [Art VI Clause 2].
When the President said after the election that he would do whatever he could do through executive action, the alleged “lawful” action he meant was signing an Executive Action that would pretend to make new immigration “Law ”, which would in fact not be “lawful” because only Congress has enumerated power to make “Laws“.
The President is pretending that his predicted executive action would be constitutional and lawful, despite his lack of law-making authority and the separation of powers, despite his lack of authority to give Orders affecting society outside of the federal executive branch, and despite the constitutional mandate and restriction of Art I Sec 8 Clause 4.
“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization ” means the same single line and same Law for everyone seeking USA citizenship; which means no exceptions, and certainly no special “amnesty” for millions of illegals.
So, it strongly appears that the proposed “amnesty”, if permitted to be done, would violate multiple Clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
Who will enforce our Constitution, when “necessary “?
At the time that the Constitution was approved in Convention in Philadelphia, and then ratified by the States in their Conventions, the body of the People were enumerated to compose the Militia by State Constitutions and Statutes: “That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state . .” [Virginia Constitution Decl of Rights Sec 13].
The U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights, and then federal Militia Statutes, maintained and strengthened the pre-existing State-County-Local Militia command structures. It makes perfect, logical sense that the superseding constitutional authority is enumerated to enforce our Constitution in any emergency or when necessary.
The alleged “liberty movement” and alleged “constitutionalists” need to get with the program, or get out of the way. The un-American factions must be and will be prevented in their facilitation of destruction of America from either without or within. When factions resort to baseless name-calling [e.g. “extremist”; “potential domestic terrorist”] in their talking-points, they reveal their own lack of legitimate argument. America can and will be constitutionally restored to her intended greatness; when “the People” get on board with our own superseding authority, 2nd only to “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God “.
It is job #1 of the 7,300+ State Legislators to restore and re-organize the disbanded command structures, and then ensure performance of enumerated State-County-Local institutions composed of We the People that have the ultimate constitutional authority “to execute the Laws of the Union“, including enforcing “This Constitution *** the supreme Law” when it is “necessary to the security of a free State” [Art I Sec 8 Clause 15; Art VI Clause 2; 2nd Amendment].
We the People in re-organized re-authorized command structures as mandated, will enforce our Constitution when “necessary”, as intended. Proper performance of these mandated State-County-Local command structures, includes the constitutional means to truly secure our borders, and to fully deter tyranny, as “necessary“.
——–
November 6, 2014 — https://www.facebook.com/notes/daniel-vincent-mcgonigle-iii/our-great-constitution-to-establish-an-uniform-rule-of-naturalization-v-executiv/1559633277605476
© 2014 Daniel Vincent McGonigle III
——–
See: Sheriffs standing up:
See: OBAMA IMMIGRATION ACTION IS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL, J.B. Williams, November 25, 2014 http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams294.htm
See: Q – Where are Executive Orders authorized in the U.S. Constitution?, November 18, 2014, The American View http://www.theamericanview.com/q-where-are-executive-orders-authorized-in-the-u-s-constitution-2/
———
Mr. McGonigle is expert on the Security-Militia Clauses in the Constitution & Bill of Rights, and is author-editor of “Execute the Laws” To Restore the Republic (2013) Camp Constitution Press. He publishes brief commentaries here and at the blog EnforceOurConstitution.com, and is a regular instructor at the annual Camp Constitution. Mr. McGonigle, through published posts, commentaries, interviews and speaking tours, is promoting the formation of official Committees of Correspondence and official Committees of Safety, first at the local level and based on historical precedent. Since 2010, and following in the footsteps of the nation’s top constitutional scholar–Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Mr. McGonigle has been promoting necessary revitalization of enumerated well regulated Militia of the several States, that will peacefully facilitate restoration of constitutional security, constitutional money and constitutional enforcement.
“Execute the Laws” To Restore the Republic (2013) — https://campconstitution.net/store/products/execute-the-laws
The Law[s], Organized Common Defense of Liberty, and The Militia of The Constitution
By Daniel Vincent McGonigle III
July 4, 2014
Anarchist, secessionist and neo-con anti-constitutionalists contaminate the liberty movement with an un-American intellectual disease, and have a penchant for quoting 20th century philosopher Friedrich Hayek in their bogus attempts to back up their promotion of anarchist, secessionist, anti-constitutionalist philosophy.
These promoters of un-American anti-constitutionalism who pretend to be pro-liberty, ignore a major western political philosophy principle: that the end or purpose of government is the common or collective defense of life, liberty and property. Obviously, that principle is pro-liberty. No less than Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Samuel Adams, Frederic Bastiat, and 21st century scholars Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr. and Pastor Garrett Lear, have confirmed the principle.
Samuel Adams in the 1772 Boston Committee of Correspondence Report, proclaimed that “the grand end of civil government” is the common defence of Rights, the principal of which being Life, Liberty and Property.
The U.S. Constitution enumerates in the Preamble, the purpose: “to provide for the common defence“, and enumerates at Art I Sec 8 Clause 1, the power: “to provide for the common Defence“.
French political economist Frederic Bastiat in his 1850 book The Law, asserted that “the Law” is the collective defense of life, liberty and property. The American Constitution was Bastiat’s favorite form of government.
Definition of the word mentioned 6 times in the Constitution & Bill of Rights:
“MILI’TIA, n. . . The body of soldiers [militiamen] in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.” — Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary
The 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights: “Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
Enumerated in the U.S. Constitution at Art I Sec 8 Clause 16: “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia “.
Hayek associates “liberty ” with “organization “:
“The argument for liberty is not an argument against organization, which is one of the most powerful tools human reason can employ, but an argument against all exclusive, privileged, monopolistic organization, against the use of coercion to prevent others from doing better.” ― Friedrich Hayek
Disbanding of the People began with the January 21, 1903 federal Militia Act: “the organized militia, to be known as the National Guard of the State “. The National Guard that claimed to be “the organized militia ” was later federalized, in violation of the Constitution’s confirmation that the Militia are State institutions, enumerated at Art II Sec 2 Clause 1: “the Militia of the several States ”. Today, anarchists-voluntaryists-secessionists support the “Unorganized Militia ” false principle of the 1916 National Defense Act, an oxymoron NOT enumerated in any of the federal or state constitutions, but along with “Reserve Militia ” of 1903, were and are both oxymorons stipulated only in repugnant federal and state statutes under color of law since 1903. That disbanding of the People from the Militia may be the greatest anti-liberty example of “exclusive, privileged, monopolistic organization ” that Hayek spoke of.
The disbanding of the Militia and disbanding the whole body of the People who composed the Militia in the early 20th century, contradicted Art I Sec 8 Clause 16, contradicted Webster’s American definition of “Militia”, and contradicted 300 years of pre-Constitution and post-Constitution statutes mandating involvement of the body of the People. In 1774, the People in Militia command structures took control of government operations throughout the colonies, without firing a shot.
Enumerated at Art I Sec 8 Clause 15: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions “.
The Second Amendment: “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 Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The 1776 Declaration of Independence and the 1787 Constitution Preamble confirm the supreme authority of the People. The statutory un-organizing of the body of the People who compose the Militia, in effect, dis-empowered We the People and repugnantly removed our organized ability to execute supreme authority when necessary. That organized authority “to execute [Clause 15] .. This Constitution, and the Laws .. made in Pursuance thereof ” [Art VI Clause 2], must be restored.
Revitalizing the State-County-Local Militia institutions through the passing of a single statute in the States, and thereby restoring performance of the enforcement and security Clauses of the Constitution, is in fact THE urgent necessity that We the people and state legislators must pursue.
© 2014 Daniel Vincent McGonigle III
Mr. McGonigle is author-editor of “Execute the Laws” To Restore the Republic (2013) Camp Constitution Press, he publishes brief commentaries here and at the blog EnforceOurConstitution.com, and is an instructor at the annual Camp Constitution.
https://campconstitution.net/store/products/execute-the-laws
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/670307.Friedrich_Hayek
Why Can’t Foreign Troops Occupy American Soil?—Answers Through Analysis of Constitutional Language, Intent and Word Meanings
By Daniel V. McGonigle III
August 22, 2012
Statements and questions by an acquaintance of a friend:
“The U.S. does joint military exercises in other countries. Doesn’t mean we’re looking to do harm to their citizens. The fact that Russian soldiers are here doesn’t mean all of this conspiracy theory is true. .. Where in the constitution does it say that foreign troops aren’t allowed on U.S. soil? I’m searching but can’t find it. .. Is there a simple reference in the constitution or in any of the amendments which state this? I’m hoping to see the specific text to better understand the letter and the intent of it. .. I want to see/read it.”
An initial brief response by another during the above questions: Continue reading