I wrote this article back in February. It was lost in the piles. Now it’s found and–without further proof-reading–published:
The Constitution of the United States was ratified by the people in A.D. 1789. In that same year, the Congress proposed thirteen Amendments to the Constitution. Of these thirteen proposed Amendments, ten were actually ratified. Today, these ten are commonly referred to today as the “Bill of Rights”.
When Congress first proposed these Amendments, they sent copies of the proposed Amendments and a “cover letter” to the governments of each of the States of the Union. The “cover letter” explained the fundamental purpose for the Amendments.
Today, that “cover letter” is largely unrecognized but can be found on the internet if you search for “Preamble to the Bill of Rights”. That “Preamble” declares in part,
“THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution:”
I am somewhat unusual. I not only know about that “preamble,” I’ve taken the time to read and even expended some energy in trying to understand it.
My understanding makes clear that the purpose for what we currently call the “Bill of Rights” was to protect the States of the Union and the people therein from the federal government. I.e., the Congress expressly declared that the purpose of what became the Bill of Rights was “to prevent misconstruction or abuse” of the “powers” of The Constitution of the United States.
Q: Who could “misconstrue or abuse” the “powers” of the Constitution?
A: Not me. Not anyone acting in a private capacity. Only those who were acting as officers or employees of the federal government (created by the Constitution) would be endowed with “powers” under the Constitution and thus only the officers and employees of the federal government would be in a position to “misconstrue or abuse” those “powers”.
Thus, the Bill of Rights is intended to protect the States of the Union and the People of the States of the Union against the federal government. I don’t say so. Congress said so in the “preamble” to the Bill of Rights.
So far, my observations concerning the “preamble” may seem fairly logical and uncontroversial. However, it’s sometimes astonishing how much emotion can be inspired by a simple exercise in logic.
There’s no question that the “preamble” expressed the proposed purpose for the first ten amendments to the Constitution.
There’s no question that the “preamble’s” purpose was to prevent “misconstruction and abuse” of the “powers” of the Constitution.
There’s no question that the “powers” of the Constitution are only granted to officers and/or employees of the federal government.
Thus, for me, the logical conclusion is obvious and irrefutable: The purpose of the first ten Amendments to the Constitution is to protect the States of the Union and the People of the States of the Union against the federal government created by the Constitution.
But, as I said, it can be astonishing how much emotion can be inspired by a seemingly simple exercise in logic.
Q: How’d I inspire so much emotion?
A: By specifically applying the purpose declared in the “preamble” the Bill of Rights to the Second Amendment.
See, insofar as:
1) the Second Amendment guarantees the “right to keep and bear arms” and is one of the Bill of Rights;
2) the “preamble to the Bill of Rights” expressly tells us that the purpose of all ten amendments constituting the Bill of Rights is to “prevent misconstruction or abuse” of the “powers” of the federal Constitution; then,
3) it seems apparent that the purpose of the Second Amendment was guarantee the People of the States of the Union the right to “keep and bear arms” in order to shoot and kill officers and employees of the federal government who had “misconstrued or abused” the powers of the Constitution.
The Second Amendment is not about protecting a sportsman’s right to hunt ducks or bear. It’s not fundamentally about protecting the States against invasion by Canada, Mexico, Great Britain or even Red China. The Second Amendment’s fundamental purpose is to protect us against abuse of the powers of the Constitution by the federal government.
Given that the Second Amendment is all about “arms,” how else could those “arms” be used to “prevent misconstruction or abuse” of the “powers” of the Constitution besides shooting and potentially killing those officers or employees of the federal who had “misconstrued and abused” the powers of the Constitution?
What else could it be? Did the Founders ratify the Second Amendment so we could simply show our firearms to the feds? If I’m falsely charged with a crime in a federal court and I walk in with a rifle, show it to the judge, and mention the Second Amendment, will the judge say, “Boy, that’s a beauty of a rifle, Mr. Adask—thanks for showin’ it to me—case dismissed!”?
The only way the Second Amendment makes sense in the context of the purpose declared in the “preamble” to the Bill of Rights, is as a guarantee of the right to keep “arms” for the purpose of shooting and killing officers and employees of the federal government.
For me, that’s not a controversial statement. It’s simply an exercise in logic. You read; you think; you come to a logical conclusion.
But, perhaps my logic is faulty. Maybe someone correct my error and show me why my allegedly “logical” conclusion is false. And, if anyone can show me my mistake, I’ll thank ‘em for doing so.
More, bear in mind that I’m not giving my opinion—I’m offering my “logic” concerning the purpose for the Second Amendment. It’s the Founders who gave us their opinion on the purpose for the right to “keep and bear arms”. I’m only quoting—or more clearly expressing—the Founders’ statements.
Jerry Kane, the Sovereign
In May of A.D. 2010, anti-government activist Jerry Kane and his 16-year old reportedly shot and killed two police officers and were later, themselves, killed by the police. There are a number of a conspiracy theories about what happened, who shot first, etc.. I wasn’t there. I didn’t see what happened, so I don’t know.
However, I don’t see the Kanes’ conflict as primarily inspired by politics. Yes, Jerry Kane was highly vocal in his criticism of government. Yes, his son Joseph was probably raised on his father’s political slant and certainly embraced that slant.
Nevertheless, I chalk the tragedy up to giving a AK-47 to a 16-year old boy who is naturally stoned on his own testosterone. He saw some police rousting his dad, and he flipped out and started shooting. Soon, four people (including him and his father) were dead. Who, in their right mind, starts shooting cops over a traffic ticket? The boy was mentally impaired by his own testosterone.
Nevertheless, as Hillary Clinton has remarked “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.” Likewise, from the government’s point of view, so is a tragedy. In the same sense that the 9/11 attack provided a swell pretext to invade Iraq, the Kane killings provided a swell excuse to attack “sovereigns”.
Jerry Kane had expressly referred to himself as a “sovereign,” and therefore, the fact that he—or at least his son—had fired on police, became evidence that all such “sovereigns” were prone to violence or even terrorism.
For example, six weeks after the shooting, the Huffington Times used the Kane event to offer observations on the “sovereign citizen movement”. All in all, I regard the Huffington Times article as fairly accurate. It’s slanted in a way that’s intended to discredit “sovereigns” and exaggerate the dimensions of the “sovereignty movement”. Some of its allegations seem unfounded, but many of its allegations also strike me as true.
For example, the Huffington Times article opens with government’s fundamental complaint against “sovereigns”—they don’t believe they are obligated to obey government’s laws:
“A routine traffic stop in Arkansas turned into an extraordinarily violent shooting between police and a father-son pair of so-called “sovereign citizens” six weeks ago, shedding light on a secretive and dangerous subculture which believes American laws don’t apply to them.”
This is the fundamental complaint against alleged “sovereigns” and, to significant degree, it’s true. A lot of alleged “sovereigns” don’t believe they are obligated to obey any of the government’s laws. They don’t need drivers licenses. They don’t need to pay income tax. They don’t need to pay their mortgages. They can do anything they want, whenever they want, and there’s not a damn thing government can do about it because they are “sovereigns”.
I contend that those who believe they aren’t subject to any laws aren’t sovereigns—they’re anarchists.
Yes, they may call themselves anarchists in the same way that some people call themselves Dallas Cowboys fans who’ve never played football and couldn’t run the length of a football field or tackle their grandmother. You can buy a team jersey and one of those big, foam hands with the #1 finger but there’s more to being a real football fan than hollering and cheering. Somewhere along the line, the real fans have actually played the game.
The comparison between alleged football fans and alleged “sovereigns” may not be the best analogy, but I’m trying to explain that not everyone who calls himself a “sovereign” is, in fact, a “sovereign”.
Most people who claim to be sovereigns, regard sovereignty as a “get out of jail free” card that entitles them to do anything they want, and don’t have a clue to sovereignty’s source or obligations. Nevertheless, the government wants to discredit all would-be “sovereigns” and the “sovereignty movement” as “secretive,” “dangerous” and “violent”.
Q: Why is the government so opposed to “sovereigns”?
A: Because, fundamentally the sovereignty “movement” is correct and poses an enormous threat to the existing government.
This nation was built on the principle that every one of us is an individual “sovereign”. This principle was validated in the A.D. 1793 case of Chisholm vs. Georgia (2 US 419) wherein The Supreme Court of the United States declared,
“[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African [2 U.S. 419, 472] slaves among us may be so called) and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.” [Emphasis added.]
Note that Chisholm was decided in A.D. 1793—just 4 years after the Constitution was ratified by the people. There can be no mistake. The Supreme Court absolutely understood the concept of “sovereignty” and the revolutionary application of that concept to the “citizens of America”.
The revolutionary application of sovereignty was this: For the first time in at least 2,000 years, there was a nation that regarded all people as individual sovereigns. Previously, western nations had deemed sovereignty to be vested in one man (or woman) as “king” (“queen”) in a monarchy, or in a limited group of people called “aristocrats” in an aristocracy. In both instances (monarchy and aristocracy) only one or a few men were deemed to have received “divine rights” from God and therefore become sovereign(s) entitled to govern. But under both lawforms, on or a few might be sovereign(s) but the vast majority of people were always deemed to be subjects.
There was a third form of government called “dictatorship” or “tyranny” wherein the power to rule was not based on rights received from God. Instead, the dictator or tyrant assumed power based on pure personal power. The dictator did not enjoy the “divine right of kings” because he was merely a thug capable of extraordinary violence. He ruled simply because he was the baddest MFR in the valley. He ruled, but he was not a “sovereign” because he had no spiritual basis for his claim of right to rule.
However, when our “Declaration of Independence” declared that “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” it established that men received an equal endowment of rights from God and therefore all men (not just kings or aristorcats) were sovereigns. “Sovereignty” flows from our Father YHWH ha Elohiym. Sovereignty is a spiritual concept. By declaring in A.D. 1776 that all men were equally endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, the Declaration elevated all men from the status of subjects to sovereigns.
This declaration is the basis for “the land of the free”. If we are each “sovereigns,” then we are not subjects and we are “free”.
This declaration is the basis for “American exceptionalism”. The United States of America is the only nation ever conceived (with the possible exception of the Hebrew nation as it existed during the era of “Judges”) wherein all of the people were deemed to be “sovereigns”. It is our status as individual sovereigns that made this nation “exceptional”.
The status of the “people” (not the “persons,” “inhabitants,” “residents,” “taxpayers,” etc.) as sovereigns (plural) was admitted and even celebrated when the Supreme Court declared “the people . . . are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects.”
Again, it is inconceivable that the Supreme Court of A.D. 1793 made some fundamental mistake in describing our individual sovereignty. It was only a generation since the Declaration had been enacted; less than a since the Revolutionary War had ended; and only four years after the People had ratified the Constitution.
Q: If individual sovereignty is the cornerstone principle for The United States of America; if the Supreme Court has validated our status as individual sovereigns; and if individual sovereignty is the foundation for our freedom and American exceptionalism—then why th’ hell does our government attack the “sovereignty movement”?
A: Because, if you and I are sovereigns, the government is our public servant. Conversely, if you and I are not sovereigns, we must be subjects and the government is our master. Our government has become a fascist tyranny that’s determined to rule rather than serve. The “sovereignty movement” threatens to expose and destroy the legal and spiritual foundations on which our current government’s power rests.
We can wonder if al Qaida or some other Muslim extremists will knock down a couple more buildings, but from the government’s perspective, these kinds of terrorist attacks can be every bit as useful as 9/11. Without 9/11, would we have the Patriot Acts I & II? Without 9/11, would we have TSA employees radiating or groping men, women and children in airports? Without 9/11, would the various corporations that manufacturer the tools and weapons of war have made such enormous profits over the past decade?
But, if the “sovereignty movement” is allowed to prosper, major corporations will go broke, government agencies will close, government power will be reduced. Muslims terrorists may threaten to destroy a building or even a city—but the sovereigns threaten to destroy the existing government. Not with bombs or bullets, but with law, concepts and ideals. I.e., the concept of sovereignty threatens to destroy our existing fascist government by restoring our historic constitutional government.
Thus, from the perspective of the fascists and New World Order wonks who currently run our government, the “sovereignty movement” is “terrifying” and the would-be sovereigns are “terrorists”. Today’s government vs. sovereigns illustrates the old principle that “one man’s freedom-fighter is another man’s terrorist.”
But who would argue that our government is in any degree “fighting for our freedoms”? Sure, gov-co claims to fight for our freedoms in Iraq or Afghanistan, but what freedom of yours was ever threaten by the Iraqis or Afghans? Not one.
In fact, our government is moving rapidly and intentionally into overt fascism. Clearly, our government is not a “freedom-fighter”—it is a determined freedom destroyer.
Sovereigns—real sovereigns—on the other hand, are fighting to restore the freedoms and rights on which this nation was originally founded.
So, while there may be a dispute over who the real “freedom-fighters” and who the real “terrorists” may be, that dispute is primary government propaganda and PR. Any objective assessment of the conflict between government and sovereigns should find that the government is the terrorist and the sovereigns are the freedom-fighters.
But—this finding is clouded by the fact that a lot of alleged “sovereigns” don’t know a damn thing about sovereignty. They don’t understand its spiritual foundation nor the attached obligations. They really think that being a sovereign exempts them from all laws and entitles them to do anything they want.
These people are not sovereigns—they’re anarchists.
They are no more “sovereigns” than criminals who dress up in police uniforms are “cops”. We hear stories of criminal who dress up as cops or install flashing red and blue emergency lights on their vehicles for the purpose of robbing or assaulting innocent people. These thugs say they’re cops. They dress like cops. Does that prove they’re cops? Do violent acts perpetrated by some people falsely claiming to be cops (or agents of the FBI, or DOJ or IRS), prove that all cops, FBI, DOJ and IRS agents are crooks?
I’m not going to answer that question, but from the government’s perspective the answer must be No.
The fact that some criminals claim to be cops does not prove that everyone who claims to be a cop is a crook.
The same principle applies to sovereigns. Some people claim to be sovereigns and thus above all law. Despite their claims, those people aren’t really “sovereigns”—they’re anarchists masquerading as “sovereigns”.
But there are other people who are legitimate “sovereigns” in that they understand that the sovereigns are not exempt from all law. As a fundamental principle, every man is obligated to obey the laws issued by the entity that provides that man with his rights. If you’re a “citizen of the United States” and you get your civil rights from the federal government, then you are obligated to obey that government’s laws. If your claims rights under the government of Mexico, then you are also obligated to obey the laws of Mexico.
Similarly, if you claim the “unalienable Rights” granted by God, you are obligated to obey God’s laws. Insofar as sovereignty flows from God, the would-be “sovereign” must consent to be bound by God’s laws.
More, insofar as each of the “people” is (as per Chisholm vs. Georgia) one of the “joint-tenants in the sovereignty,” we are also bound by the laws of the people (fellow sovereigns acting in concert but not acting as a “collective”).
What are the laws of the people (laws of the sovereigns)? Our State and federal constitutions are all ratified by the people and are therefore the People’s law (the “sovereigns” law). Once upon a time, the “sovereigns” (We the People) gathered together to act in their sovereign capacities and enact the “sovereigns’ laws” we call State and federal constitutions. Those former sovereigns left proviso for future sovereigns (the People) to act in their sovereign capacity to amend those constitutions.
Every sovereign is subject to the “sovereigns’” laws—our various constitutions. If a sovereign doesn’t like one of more aspects of the constitutions to which he is subject, he has every right to attempt to organize a movement among his fellow sovereigns to amend their constitution(s) as they see fit. But until those constitutions (sovereigns’ laws) are amended, every sovereign is subject the “sovereigns’ laws” (constitutions). Similarly, every “sovereigns’ law” (constitution) is subject the laws of the ultimate source of earthly sovereignty: God.
The conflict between government and sovereigns arises over who is liable to obey the government’s laws—the statutes and code sections.
The “deal” consummated between We the People/sovereigns and our State and federal governments (public servants) is memorialized by our State and federal constitutions. In essence, that deal is: We the People/sovereigns of The United States of America conditionally grant some of our sovereign powers to our State and federal governments to be exercised by our public servants as service to us—the sovereigns. These are the “limited” powers of “limited” governments. But through it all, our governments/public-servants were empowered to exercise some of our sovereign powers on condition that they were required to recognize that We the People were always the “real” sovereigns—the laws passed by the governments would be authoritative only on condition that those governmental laws (statutes and codes) were always subject to the limits imposed by the People’s/sovereigns’ laws (the State and federal constitutions).
The individuals who were offered the powers of government are at least as egotistical, self-righteous and self-serving as the rest of us. Therefore, while they may have taken an oath of office to support and defend our constitutions (the People’s/sovereigns’ laws), they quickly discovered that there was a lot more money to be made and fun to be had by ignoring their oaths and betraying the people/sovereigns.
This betrayal (treason) by our public servants was fairly difficult so long as the people (or at least some of them) understood and were prepared to claim and assert their individual sovereignty. But once people forgot the fundamental principle on which this nation was founded (that all men are equally endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights and are therefore individual sovereigns), treason became increasingly easy and, now, common.
The current government is now acting so far outside the limits of the People’s law (constitutions), that they understand that if the public ever wakes up to their status as individual sovereigns, the vast majority of our officers, officials and politicians could be charged with treason and legitimately convicted and hanged. Thus, the officers, officials and politicians of the current government have a very powerful self-interest (living to a ripe old age) in suppressing all inclinations by the People to recall, comprehend and reassert their individual sovereignty.
The inclination to suppress the “sovereignty movement” explains the FBI’s repeated attempts to discredit that “movement” as seen in various newspaper articles.
The government is obligated to stop the “sovereignty movement” because it poses the only real American threat to those in government engaged in institutionalized treason against the People/sovereigns of The United States of America.