What is in a Word?

“LAW” VS. “THE CONSTITUTION”

by Michael Gaddy, ©2016

(Feb. 2, 2016) — Possibly the most misunderstood, misapplied, misrepresented word in the English language is the simple three letter word spelled, l-a-w. What or who is the law? How is it to be defined? Who is charged with its application as relates to the citizens of this country? Who is to decide what the law is and what the law is not? Is the law only the tool of the righteous or can it be used for the purposes of abject tyranny?

“A nation of laws; law and order; law enforcement:” words and phrases we hear a multitude of times each day. But, what is the intended purpose of a “law?” If we relate this back to our Declaration of Independence, the organic document of our freedom and liberty, we see laws should have only one purpose, and that would be to protect the rights of the people. Sadly and tragically, laws have now become instruments of tyranny and oppression. Governments have created laws to oppress the rights of the people they were tasked to protect.

Simply stated, any law that violates or restricts the inalienable rights granted to each individual by his/her creator, is null and void on its face. The problem, as I see it, is this: Our so-called founders, especially the Federalists, worked diligently to make sure no enforcement mechanism was included in our Constitution and Bill of Rights which could be immediately imposed on any elected or appointed member of government when they violate their sacred oath to “uphold and defend” our Constitution. They mistakenly believed the people would educate themselves to the point they would immediately recognize any encroachment on their freedoms and move immediately to either recall these miscreants, vote them out at the first opportunity or hang them for treason.

The Anti-federalists, being knowledgeable of history and the foibles inherent in the human race, attempted to place enforcement mechanisms within the Bill of Rights to prevent usurpation and tyranny. Finding that impossible, especially in the various State Ratification Conventions, the Anti’s correctly predicted what would become of our government without such mechanisms in place. A cursory reading of Patrick Henry, Brutus, Centinel, The Federal Farmer, and many others reveals a prediction and an insight into the tyranny and despotism of the government in place today, not only in our federal government, but also at the state and county levels.

According to Article VI, Section II of our Constitution: “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…” This often misquoted and abused section of our Constitution clearly states for a law to have any validity, it must be made in pursuance of the dictates and limitations of our Constitution. Simply stated: “in pursuance of” means the law must follow the tenets of the Constitution to the letter. If it does not, it should not be enforced, nor should people be prosecuted for violating it.

I believe it was in the 1970s when then-congressman Ron Paul proposed legislation that would require all proposed laws to contain a reference to its constitutionality in the preamble of that bill. When Ron Paul’s proposal was unable to obtain sponsorship or support, it should have been a huge alarm to American voters—but—how many even know it happened? How many unconstitutional laws and acts have been passed since? How many unconstitutional wars; how many deaths? How much of our national debt can be directly traced to those unconstitutional laws and acts?

The vast majority of laws today are not in pursuance of our Constitution. They are indeed, as Thomas Jefferson once said, “Nothing but the tyrant’s will.” Legislators who propose and write these laws are criminals, those in positions of power who sign them into law are traitors; those who wear a badge and carry a gun to enforce the tyrants’ will are criminals; prosecutors who prosecute citizens using unconstitutional laws and regulations are criminals. The judges who preside over trials and sentence citizens for violating unconstitutional laws are tyrants. The unelected bureaucrats who propose and enforce regulations (BLM, USFS, BATFE, etc) as law are also criminals, for only the legislatures can constitutionally make laws. All of the above are the “domestic enemies” to our Constitution each of them took an oath to protect us from, which makes them more despicable than any common thief. They not only steal and plunder, they do so under the color of legitimacy.

When citizens support these elected officials, bureaucrats, police, prosecutors, judges and other assorted tyrants, they willingly contribute to their own enslavement and promote the demise of not only their creator-granted rights, but the rights of others as well.

Frederic Bastiat warned us of just such perversions of the law in his book published in 1850 which stated:

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers and treats the victim—when he defends himself—as a criminal.”

And:

They would be the shepherds over us, their sheep. Certainly such an arrangement presupposes they are naturally superior to the rest of us. And certainly we are fully justified in demanding from the legislators and organizers proof of this natural superiority.”

Last week, on a road in Oregon, this nation took a giant step toward total fascist rule and ventured even further down the road from any possibility of a return to legal, therefore, constitutional government. The members of “law enforcement” there who took the life of Lavoy Finicum did so to defend plunder and to participate in it. The unconstitutional acts of the BLM, the FBI and the Oregon State Police were acts of those who believe they are “naturally superior” to those (we sheep) with whom they deal on a regular basis.

The Bundy brothers, Lavoy Finicum, Shauna Cox, and others who went to Oregon to defend the property rights of the Hammonds and thousands of other farmers and ranchers here in the West whose entire financial and personal freedoms are in the hands of “the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers” were there in defense of all of our constitutional, creator- granted, inalienable rights, while those who opposed them were there supporting and enforcing the unconstitutional, invalid, tyrannical laws of the plunderer class.

Those who have supported the government in these endeavors, especially those claiming to be part of the “patriot community,” are equally as guilty of being at the service of the plunderers as those who pulled the triggers and ended Lavoy Finicum’s life.

Lavoy, Ammon, Shauna, Ryan and many others stood steadfast for the Constitution and our inalienable rights while others sat at keyboards and microphones typing and uttering words in support of the tyrants who seek refuge under the color of unconstitutional “law.” Again, as Jefferson so eloquently stated, “Law is often nothing but the tyrant’s will and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” The tyrant’s will was on full display in Oregon and will be visiting a city or town near you in the very near future.

There is a global design behind the property-seizing actions of our government and its various bureaucracies; it will not stop until all the land and water in the West has been seized and those defending it dead or in prison. Oregon is but a microcosm of things to come.

The “whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes” have deployed themselves against constitutional law, freedom, liberty and individual rights, and at some point in time will be displayed against all who claim the protection of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is all just a matter of time.

There is a reason the plunderers mentioned by Bastiat keep referring to themselves as upholders and defenders of the “law” but seldom, if ever, mention the Constitution they took a sacred oath to uphold and defend. Ammon Bundy and Lavoy Finicum constantly referred to the Constitution in their assorted presentations while those in authority justified their tyranny with the “law” of the oppressor. This is the reason the standing army of uniforms and badges refer to themselves as “law enforcement” rather than Constitution enforcement officers. The difference is between Liberty and Slavery—the choice is yours; pick a side!

Who is your Liberty inspiration; Obama, George W, Hillary, the Republican Party, the Democrats, or Jefferson and Henry? If you sat down with all the political candidates for president—-would any one of them condemn the actions of “law enforcement” in Oregon, the luring of those people into an ambush and the subsequent loss of life and freedom—If they would not, they support tyranny, not the Constitution; they support the law of the plunderer, not the rights of the individual. In this there is no “lesser of evils.”

“That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.” (emphasis added) Kentucky Resolution of 1798, author, Thomas Jefferson

In Rightful Rebel Liberty

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.