Thursday, February 18, 2010

Hermetic jargon and the drift of understanding

I have read, with admiration, Tennekes letter on Hermetic Jargon, and it follows quite closely with some observations I had made, though states it far better than my own poor power to add or detract. It did, however, bring to this poor idiot's mind some febrile maunderings that wandered through unlit halls for a few moments, bouncing off dusty neural pathways, then tumbling to my feet, bruised and dusty from their long journey.

Tennekes, with his comparison of hermetic jargon to the tower of Babel, may have struck upon something curious, a meta-state of communication. As research grows more specialized, it also grows more separate. The mental act of 'reaching toward creation', or toward God,(to use the biblical term) requires that specialization, due to the sheer amount of knowledge that is required to understand the initial states of things from the present state. However, human nature throws up walls to communication, to protect their secrets, their research, and their understanding from others, to some extent, as well as to conceptualize and compartmentalize the ideas in ways that can be understood by others of the field. Specializations within the field do much the same, protecting their demesne with lines of language. Eventually the whole fractures under its own weight.

This was an interesting concept to me, and also lead into my fascination with history, language, and the nature of law. Contracts are designed in such a way that the terms of the contract are set 'in stone' without substantial alteration and renegotiation of the contract. The terms of the contract are written in such manner that all parties involved understand the nature of the terms, or are explained in ancillary documents that hold the common, or 'lay' explanation of the contract itself. In the case of the constitution, these would be the Federalist Papers.

Law, like science, has its own disciplines, its own trenched earthworks to try to keep the lay person at bay, its own language, its own concepts which, whilst easily understood, seem arcane to the layperson. The terms of replevin, fee-simple obligations, tortfeasance, lessors, and such seem like another world entirely. But each has concepts irrevocably imbued within them, and concepts that can usually be readily defined.

One of the curious studies my idiotic mind has wandered into is the drift of language within the legal profession itself. It's curious to me how the terms have evolved across the centuries, from the system under the Magna Carta and William and Mary of Orange, to the revolution, to today. We have evolved what is literally a monopoly over the law, with wandering priests (attorneys) trying to tell us what the law is, with unique terms and language to protect the higher orders, with its own internal hidden knowledge and a high fee for entry.

Was this always the way? I cannot say that it was. The founders intended that any person be able to both practice law, and to speak it, to interpret it, as it was written. The terms of the contract (for such the Constitution was, a contract between the people binding the states to a new federal government, setting down limits for that government, and establishing the powers thereof, and limits of the states under the government, the consideration involved being the preservation of rights preexisting the Constitution, in exchange for the powers to preserve those rights) were set down at the time in stone, with specific legal meanings, corresponding to the common knowledge of the meaning at the time, explained by those Federalist Papers and Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England.

Why does this tie in with Hermetic Jargon? What happens when one controls the learning of the terms at the time, and maintains a monopoly over not just the law, but the practice and interpretation of law? Can one not, at that moment, cause a drift in definition, deliberate or accidental according to the whims and biases of the interpreter, far, far away from the original intent, as well as the original definition?

The purpose of the Constitution was to set down a single rule of law for all to follow, no matter their situation, their placement in life, their classification or circumstances. The term attainder at the time referred to any law, or act, or ruling or regulation that removed specific properties, including the property of life... the property of liberty, the property of property itself, and the property interest within the ability to defend all of those. From those four touchstones all rights arise.

Attainder was the process by which these were stripped away, by judge or by legislative fiat. Those property rights were sacrosanct, to be only taken where necessity and the public good demanded it, and then only with fair, just compensation at current market value of the property if the Government had not been involved at all. The original attainder took something deceptive.. the right to have property at all, and this was extended to the children under the Corruption of Blood. Without the right to have property, the property in life and liberty no longer existed. The person ceased to be, and was considered blackened, tainted, or stained under the law, and outside of its protection.

The founders intended to end this, forever. Under the laws of England, if the powers had remained, their own lives would be forfeit for attacking the Sovereign. Their properties could be seized, their livestock and chattel seized, or destroyed, and their homes and families disposed of as the crown saw fit.

They proposed a system of just and equal laws, laws which affected everyone equally, without regard for color, for race, or any of the myriad other considerations which affect our law today... but the ideal drifted. The understanding changed, and the interpretation.

Read through the Federalist papers. This idiot did, and it took a great deal of time to begin to understand them. The concepts are simple, deceptively simple.

One law for all, all under the law, all bound equally thereby, all bound not to remove the rights of their neighbors, bound not to cause them harm. For the purpose of those rights, and the preservation thereof, they bound themselves, their neighbors, the people, their friends, and the government to the same iron rule. No targeted law, no legislation designed to harm or benefit any specific class, and forever made sacrosanct those rights.

Crime was about harm. If harm was done, the neighbor had the right to defend against it by the appropriate force. If there were no recourse, and life were in danger, or believed to be, there could be no time to recourse to the law, and so a state of war existed. Once the state of war was ended, and there was time and place for recourse, that state of war ended.

It did not end, however, if the only available means for recourse was through the body of the one making the harm, for there could be no recourse if he were the means of appeal. No man can sit in judgment in his own case, and not be biased toward his own causes.

It leaves this idiot to ask... what recourse may we have against a monopoly on the Law itself, and the means to recourse? What is our recourse when the most interested parties control the gateway to the recourse? How does one obtain recourse when one does not know whom to address it against, or to?

Has hermetic jargon sealed away the Rule of Law from the hands of those that created it?
This idiot... wonders.

Read more!

Friday, February 5, 2010

Civil law

Have we forgotten who we are? We stand here, comfortable in our majority, believing and thinking in our rights that they may be removed, and that we may vote for their removal. But yet, logic and reason itself speaks to us from the darkness, begging us to reconsider before the last brick is placed in our sepulcher.

But have we become monsters, to seal away that which is so vital to our cause, the cause of reason, of growth, of logic and humanity? Have we forgotten the greatest lesson of all, that which we make insecure for others, is insecure for ourselves?

People that have transgressed against each other deserve, and require punishment. Punishment, however, to be just must be finite, of clear terms and duration, and without arbitrary or vague action. The nature of punishment is that, to be just, it also must offer mercy, even within the mercy of a swift, painless death for those who have stolen the lives of others.

Punishment may be financial, or it may incarcerate, it may restrict, or restrain. But how often do we convince our politicians to snicker behind their hands, claiming a lack of punishment, when the restrictions go out?

The Rule of Law is simple: That which is legal for one is legal for all. That which is unlawful for one, is unlawful for all. Nothing further needs expounded on this principle.

Licensing anything is saying that, without that license, the actions taken would be unlawful. License derives from the idea that the law applies to some differently than others. So long as the Rule of Law applies, however, one cannot license that which is a right.

So what have we done? We have created registration, not for objects or things that we wish to maintain ownership over, but for human beings. Felon registries, sex offender registries, and denied them a license... for something that is their right. The right to live free, and the right to be left alone are foundational in our nation.

Are we saying that without registration, we would be unlawful to live? Can we make it unlawful for a person to exercise that simple right to be... left alone?

And if so, what does it say about the rights we retain? Should they change that licensing requirement to be general, as the Rule of Law itself requires, what would be your answer to this?

I am, as recognized by both detractors and myself, a total idiot. However, if one looks at this situation, with even a shred of rational thought, one must realize that we as a nation are moving back to a system we thought slain years ago.

Slavery. The slaves license to live was the master's will. The master had arbitrary control over the slave's life, and could execute them if they wished. They could sever families, sever limbs, without fear of punishment or retribution. They often maintained them helpless, took from them the increase of their labor, and ground them, body and soul, into the fields and mines.

Is our system of civil law so much different today? Licensing and modifying the law so some may exercise the rights, but others may not? This creates arbitrary classes which may be redefined at any point, by fear or malice.

I may be a total idiot.. but is this really where we want to go in this country?

Read more!

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

The Constitution, and Rule of Law

The Constitution itself is powerless, we are those who give it power.

The constitution, was, indeed, a paper tiger, but it was a paper tiger with a purpose, to rouse the people, and awaken them to the truths inherent within their own existence.  As explained within the Federalist Papers, and contrasted by the fears within the Antifederalist papers, it was also to give the people the teeth to defend what the constitution could not. (1)

This was the purpose for the second amendment.  It was, however, argued that all powers prohibited within the Bill of rights were already prohibited under the Federal Constitution (2)   If we take this statement at face value, there is only one place where the prohibitions could exist, and that is article 1, sections 9 and 10.  If the Bill of Attainder argument is taken to its extent within Blackstone, attainder is also the act of removing rights upon criminal conviction, wherein sentence of death applies.(3) This was the definition of a 'felon' at the time of the founding.  If this understanding is assumed (as evidenced by Noah Webster's definition of attainder in the constitutional contract in 1820)(4) then attainder itself was far more prohibitive than most understand.

If the founders are taken to their word as to the prohibitions from anything but general law(5), this is also the only place wherein such prohibition could apply. (6)

The founders had long stated the dangers inherent in targeted laws, in laws designed to give one person (any person) an advantage over all others in law, or to give any person or group a disadvantage.(7) 

This has been attempted to be bypassed in civil (regulatory) law.

The term 'civil law' as well, at the time of the founding was different, only dealing with laws of escrow, conflicts between private individuals, tort, estate, and dealing with contracts.(8) 

The powers inherent in the Bill of Rights were not created by that document. (9)   They were, rather, recognized by it as rights inherent from a prior state of law.(10).  Those inherent powers were innate in all citizens, and recognized thus by the law .(11)

Those powers were established as human rights, wherein the human himself was sovereign, and all powers of government derived therefrom(12). All powers not thus established in the Federal government, or given to the states, were retained to the people, all rights were thereby retained by the people as well(13)

Unfortunately, people do not recognize that there is no protected property interest inherent in police protection, nor are they required to protect you. (14).

At that point, the inherent, absolutely vested right to life takes precedence over law. No law may deny that right, nor the comitant right to protect the protected property interest absolutely vested in that life. (15) Even police officers cannot operate in such a way as to endanger that property interest, without causing an assault and battery against the individual. (16 ).

Once an absolute property interest is vested, no subsequent act of legislature may thereby divest it.(17)

Any act of legislature that attempts to divest life, liberty, property, or the means of protection is attainder (18) and can be seen in no other light than as punishment(19) and by the operation of powers prohibited to the government as acts of war(20) and thereby as treason.

The people are the body that comprises the state(21) and moreover the sovereignty of the people themselves establishes and owns the powers of the state and further establishes and creates the powers of the Federal Government that exists to regulate the state (22) and those powers were limited by the federal constitution that instituted and established such a body. (23)

We cannot logically allow our sovereign powers to strip us of our sovereignty, nor may we allow those powers to be utilized to strip others of the protected property interests that were our purpose and intent in allowing the use of that sovereignty to that federal government.(24)

It is no less tyrannical to pretend that for a status imposed by government, and subject to its whims, that the government may force you to remove your ability to protect your property within your own life with or without due process than for anyone to make you into a slave.(25).

It is no less an act of war to use force to establish your control over others, including force to prevent the protection of your life, against any taker, including that federal government, the taker with the most power that could be brought to bear for that goal. (26).

The casus belli of the Revolutionary War were clear(27), and no less pressing nor any less tyrannical than the 'perfectly legal' civil system today. (28).

Those rights are not ours to cede, but belong equally to our children, our children's children, into perpetuity.(29).

The second amendment is our check and balance, as a people, against any government that may choose to exercise tyranny against our bodies, against our wills, and against our sovereignty.(30).

It, too, is our protector against the inclination by others to attack the unarmed, our duty to protect ourselves, our family, our property, our state, our nation, and the constitution upon which it is founded. (31).

We cannot pretend to have a power which we do not have the power to enforce.(32) We cannot pretend to have a right which we do not have the option to maintain, or enforce(33) nor can we say that they are inalienable if by simple redefinition those protected property interests may be seized.

If they are inalienable, we may not give them up, transfer them in whole or in part, transfer their control, their means, or their purpose to any outside body. They are ours, now , and indefinitely, without regard to previous condition of servitude, so long as we are human beings that have not been found by a jury of our peers to be guilty of a crime worthy of the death sentence, and even therein they may find mercy.

We cannot reach back into the past and punish people for past acts, and any restriction, no matter the nature, must be viewed as punishments for those past acts. When the court has spoken, it is far beyond the power of the legislature to add or detract after the fact.(34)
We, as a people, ceded that power and authority, and barred the government from it, as something never to be used again, to preserve the general welfare and flow of society. Any reassumption of such authority is outside of the powers of government, and is equally an act of war, and subjugation.(35)
Final commentary: See 36
1 Federalist 28:
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.
The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny. But in a confederacy the people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!

2 Federalist 84:

There remains but one other view of this matter to conclude the point. The truth is, after all the declamations we have heard, that the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS. The several bills of rights in Great Britain form its Constitution, and conversely the constitution of each State is its bill of rights. And the proposed Constitution, if adopted, will be the bill of rights of the Union. Is it one object of a bill of rights to declare and specify the political privileges of the citizens in the structure and administration of the government? This is done in the most ample and precise manner in the plan of the convention; comprehending various precautions for the public security, which are not to be found in any of the State constitutions. Is another object of a bill of rights to define certain immunities and modes of proceeding, which are relative to personal and private concerns? This we have seen has also been attended to, in a variety of cases, in the same plan. Adverting therefore to the substantial meaning of a bill of rights, it is absurd to allege that it is not to be found in the work of the convention. It may be said that it does not go far enough, though it will not be easy to make this appear; but it can with no propriety be contended that there is no such thing. It certainly must be immaterial what mode is observed as to the order of declaring the rights of the citizens, if they are to be found in any part of the instrument which establishes the government. And hence it must be apparent, that much of what has been said on this subject rests merely on verbal and nominal distinctions, entirely foreign from the substance of the thing.

3: Blackstone's commentaries on the Laws of England. Blackstone's commentaries were the core of American Jurisprudence, and the second-most-sold book in the Colonies behind the Bible.

WHEN sentence of death, the most terrible and highest judgment in the laws of England, is pronounced, the immediate inseparable consequence by the common law is attainder. For when it is now clear beyond all dispute, that the criminal is no longer fit to live upon the earth, but is to be exterminated as a monster and a bane to human society, the law sets a note of infamy upon him, puts him out of it's protection, and takes no farther care of him than barely to fee him executed. He is then called attaint, attinctus, stained, or blackened. He is no longer of any credit or reputation; he cannot be a witness in any court; neither is he capable of performing the functions of another man: for, by an anticipation of his punishment, he is already dead in law. This is after judgment: for there is great difference between a man convicted, and attainted; though they are frequently through inaccuracy confounded together. After conviction only, a man is liable to none of these disabilities: for there is ftill in contemplation of law a possibility of his innocence. Something may be offered in arrest of judgment: the indictment may be erroneous, which will render his guilt uncertain, and thereupon the present conviction may be quashed: he may obtain a pardon, or be allowed the benefit of clergy; both which suppofe some latent sparks of merit, which plead in extenuation of his fault. But when judgment is once pronounced, both law and fact conspire to prove him completely guilty; and there is not the remotest possibility left of any thing to be said in his favour. Upon judgment therefore of death, and not before, the attainder of a criminal commences: or upon such circumstances as are equivalent to judgment of death; as judgment of outlawry on a capital crime, pronounced for absconding or fleeing from justice, which tacitly confesses the guilt. And therefore either upon judgment of outlawry, or of death, for treason or felony, a man shall be said to be attainted.

THE consequences of attainder are forfeiture, and corruption of blood.

I. FORFEITURE is twofold; of real, and personal, estates. First, as to real estates: by attainder in high treason l a man forfeits to the king all his lands and tenements of inheritance, whether fee-simple or fee-tail, and all his rights of entry on lands and tenements, which he held at the time of the offence committed, or at any time afterwards, to be for ever vested in the crown: and also the profits of all lands and tenements, which he had in his own right for life or years, so long as such interest shall subsist. This forfeiture relates backwards to the time of the treafon committed; fo as to avoid all intermediate sales and incumbrances m, but not those before the fact: and therefore a wife's jointure is not forfeitable for the treason of the husband; because settled upon her previous to the treason committed. But her dower is forfeited, by the express provision of statute 5 & 6 Edw. VI. c. 11. And yet the husband shall be tenant by the curtesy of the wife's lands, if the wife be attainted of treason n: for that is not prohibited by the statute. But, though after attainder the forfeiture relates back to the time of the treason committed, yet it does not take effect unless an attainder be had, of which it is one of the fruits: and therefore, if a traitor dies before judgment pronounced, or is killed in open rebellion, or is hanged by martial law, it works no forfeiture of his lands; for he never was attainted of treason.

4 Webster's Dictionary, 1820 edition

1. Literally a staining, corruption, or rendering impure; a corruption of blood. Hence,
2. The judgment of death, or sentence of a competent tribunal upon a person convicted of treason or felony, which judgment attaints, taints or corrupts his blood, so that he can no longer inherit lands. The consequences of this judgment are, forfeiture of lands, tenements and hereditaments, loss of reputation, and disqualification to be a witness in any court of law. A statute of Parliament attainting a criminal, is called an act of attainder.
Upon the thorough demonstration of which guilt by legal attainder, the feudal covenant is broken.
3. The act of attainting.
An act was made for the attainder of several persons.
Note. by the constitution of the United States, no crime words an attainder.

5 Federalist 57:
I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny. If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America, a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.
If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate any thing but liberty.

6 Art 1: sections 9 and 10, U.S. Constitution.
Art 1: Section 9, regarding the Federal government: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Art 1: Section 10: Regarding the states.No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

7 Federalist 51:

Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government. This view of the subject must particularly recommend a proper federal system to all the sincere and considerate friends of republican government, since it shows that in exact proportion as the territory of the Union may be formed into more circumscribed Confederacies, or States oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated: the best security, under the republican forms, for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished: and consequently the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionately increased. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.

8 The cases of Smith v. Doe, Aptheker v Secretary of State, U.S. V. Lovett, U.S. V Brown, Cummings v. Missouri, Ex parte Garland, Yick wo v. Hopkins.

9: Federalist 83, discussions of the civil versus criminal law in relation to jury, the immiscibility of the two. Tort, escrow, and contract.

Instances of the licentious and outrageous behavior of the military conservators of the peace still multiply upon us, some of which are of such nature, and have been carried to such lengths, as must serve fully to evince that a late vote of this town, calling upon its inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defense, was a measure as prudent as it was legal: such violences are always to be apprehended from military troops, when quartered in the body of a populous city; but more especially so, when they are led to believe that they are become necessary to awe a spirit of rebellion, injuriously said to be existing therein. It is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence; and as Mr. Blackstone observes, it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression

Boston, March 17". New York Journal, Supplement: 1, Col.3. April 13, 1769.  quoted in Halbrook, Stephen (1989). A Right to Bear Arms: State and Federal Bills of Rights and Constitutional Guarantees

"The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power."

Alexander Hamilton, 23 Feb. 1775
"For the principal aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights, which were vested in them by the immutable laws of nature; but which could not be preserved in peace without the mutual assistance and intercourse, which is gained by the institution of friendly and social communities. Hence it follows, thay the first and primary end of human laws is to maintain and regulate these absolute rights of individuals."
William Blackstone, Commentaries (1765)
"But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusets Bill of Rights, the government of the commonwealth 'may be a government of laws and not of men.' For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself."

Yik Wo v. Hopkins (U.S. Supreme Court, 1885)

Here is the often expressed understanding from the United States Supreme Court, that "in common usage, the term "person" does not include the Sovereign, statutes employing the person are ordinarily construed to exclude the Sovereign."
Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667 (1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 604 (1941)). See also United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 275 (1947).

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him. ...the idea is quite unfounded that on entering into society we give up any natural rights."

Thomas Jefferson - from a letter to Francis W. Gilmor, July 7, 1786

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
– Patrick Henry
"By the absolute rights of individuals we mean those which are so in their primary and strictest sense; such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy whether out of society or in it."
- Ibid.
"Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect
individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty
is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection
of the general public."
(Lynch v. NC Dept. Justice)

". . . a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen."
--Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

15 see 33

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.”
Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.”
(State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.”
(Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.”
Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.”
Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated:
“Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

When absolute rights of property have been acquired and vested by authority of law, no subsequent legislation can divest such rights.
Fletcher v Peck, 6 Cranch 87. Carondelet Canal & Nav. Co. v Louisiana, 233 U.S. 362.

“3. A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without a judicial trial. If the punishment be less than death, the act is termed a bill of pains and penalties. Within the meaning of the Constitution, bills of attainder include bills of pains and penalties. 4. These bills, though generally directed against individuals by name, may be directed against a whole class, and they may inflict punishment absolutely or may inflict it conditionally.”

“The disabilities created by the Constitution of Missouri must be regarded as penalties -- they constitute punishment. We do not agree with the counsel of Missouri that "to punish one is to deprive him of life, liberty, or property, and that to take from him anything less than these is no punishment at all." The learned counsel does not use these terms -- life, liberty, and property -- as comprehending every right known to the law. He does not include under liberty freedom from outrage on the feelings as well as restraints on the person. He does not include under property those estates which one may acquire in professions, though they are often the source of the highest emoluments and honors. The deprivation of any rights, civil or political, previously enjoyed may be punishment, the circumstances attending and the causes of the deprivation determining this fact. Disqualification from office many be punishment, as in cases of conviction upon impeachment. Disqualification from the pursuits of a lawful avocation, or from positions of trust, or from the privilege of appearing in the courts, or acting as an executor, administrator, or guardian, may also, and often has been, imposed as punishment. By statute 9 and 10
William III, chap. 32, if any person educated in or having made a profession of the Christian religion did, "by writing, printing, teaching, or advised speaking," deny the truth of the religion, or the divine authority of the Scriptures, he was for the first offence rendered incapably to hold any office or place of trust, and for the second he was rendered incapable of bringing any action, being guardian, executor, legatee, or purchaser of lands, besides being subjected to three years' imprisonment without bail.”
CUMMINGS V. MISSOURI, 71 U. S. 277 (1867)
19 “The statute is directed against parties who have offended in any of the particulars embraced by these clauses. And its object is to exclude them from the profession of the law, or at least from its practice in the courts of the United States. As the oath prescribed cannot be taken by these parties, the act, as against them, operates as a legislative decree of perpetual exclusion. And exclusion from any of the professions or any of the ordinary avocations of life for past conduct can be regarded in no other light than as punishment for such conduct. The exaction of the oath is the mode provided for ascertaining the parties upon whom the act is intended to operate, and instead of lessening, increases its objectionable character. All enactments of this kind partake of the nature of bills of pains and penalties, and are subject to the constitutional inhibition against the passage of bills of attainder, under which general designation they are included. “ EX PARTE GARLAND, 71 U.S. 333 (1866)

“Sec. 17. And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a foundation of all the rest; as he that in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war. “

The Second Treatise of Civil Government 1690 John Locke
"A Sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal Right as against the authority that makes the law on which the Right depends."
Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349, 353, 27 S. Ct. 526, 527, 51 L. Ed. 834 (1907).
“SOVEREIGN, a. suv'eran. [We retain this babarous orthography from the Norman sovereign. The true spelling would be suveran from the L. supernes, superus.]
1. Supreme in power; possessing supreme dominion; as a sovereign ruler of the universe.
2. Supreme; superior to all others; chief. God is the sovereign good of all who love and obey him.
3. Supremely efficacious; superior to all others; predominant; effectual; as a sovereign remedy.
4. Supreme; pertaining to the first magistrate of a nation; as sovereign authority.
SOVEREIGN, n. suv'eran.
1. A supreme lord or ruler; one who possesses the highest authority without control. Some earthly princes, kings and emperors are sovereigns in their dominions.
2. A supreme magistrate; a king.
3. A gold coin of England, value 20s or $4.44 “ 1828 Webster's Dictionary.

No such ideas obtain here(speaking of America);"at 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 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.
Chisholm v. Georgia (February Term, 1793) 2 U.S. 419, 2 Dall. 419, 1 L.Ed 440, pp. 471-472

“... the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "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," therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," as also the act passed by them on the -- day of June, 1798, intituled "An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States," (and all their other acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory. “
Kentucky Resolutions 1798

"The police power under the American constitutional system has been left to the states. It has always belonged to them and was not surrendered by them to the general government, nor directly restrained by the constitution of the United States... Congress has no general power to enact police regulations operative within the territorial limits of a state."
McInerney v. Ervin, 46 So.2d 458, 463 (Fla. 1950):
"The catalogue of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business, tending to the satisfaction and comfort of his employees, seems endless. Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. Can it fairly be said that the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extends to the prescription of any or all of these things? Is it not apparent that they are really and essentially related solely to the social welfare of the worker, and therefore remote from any regulation of commerce as such? We think the answer is plain. These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power."
Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton R. Co., 295 U.S. 330, 368, 55 S.Ct. 758, 771 (1935):

“Government does not exist in a personal sense, or as an entity in any primary sense, for the purpose of acquiring, protecting and enjoying property. It exists primarily for the protection of the people in their individual rights, and holds property not primarily for the enjoyment of property accumulations, but as an incident to the purpose for which it exists-that of serving the people and protecting them in their rights.”
Curley v U.S., 130 R. 1,8, 64 C.C.A. 369.

25 ...I appear here on the behalf of thirty-six individuals, the life and liberty of every one of whom depend on the decision of this Court.... Three or four of them are female children, incapable, in the judgment of our laws, of the crime of murder or piracy, or, perhaps, of any other crime. Yet, from the day when the vessel was taken possession of by one of our naval officers, they have all been held as close prisoners, now for the period of eighteen long months...

The Constitution of the United States recognizes the slaves, held within some of the States of the Union, only in their capacity of persons—persons held to labor or service in a State under the laws thereof—persons constituting elements of representation in the popular branch of the National Legislature persons, the migration or importation of whom should not be prohibited by Congress prior to the year 1808. The Constitution no where recognizes them as property. The words slave and slavery are studiously excluded from the Constitution. Circumlocutions are the fig-leaves under which the parts of the body politic are decently concealed. Slaves, therefore, in the Constitution of the United States are persons, enjoying rights and held to the performance of duties....
The persons aforesaid, described as slaves, are Negroes and persons of color, who have been transported from Africa in violation of the laws of the United States.... The Court should enable the United States to send the Negroes home to pursuance of the law of Congress passed March 3, 1829, entitled "An act in addition to the acts prohibiting the slave-trade."...
The President...signed [an] order for the delivery of MEN to the control of an officer of the navy to be carried beyond sea.... The District Judge, contrary to all [the] anticipations of the Executive, decided that the thirty-six Negroes...brought before the Court...were FREEMEN; that they had been kidnapped in Africa; that they did not own...Spanish names;...that they were not correctly described in the passport, but were new Negroes...fully entitled to their liberty.
Well was it for the country—well was it for the President of the United States himself that he paused before stepping over this Rubicon!... The indignation of the freemen of Connecticut, might not tamely endure the sight, of thirty-six free persons, though Africans, fettered and manacled in their land of freedom, to be transported beyond the seas, to perpetual hereditary servitude or to death, by the servile submission of an American President to the insolent dictation of a foreign minister....
{President Van Buren informed his subordinates that} if the decree of the Judge should be in our favor, and you can steal a march upon the Negroes by foreclosing their right of appeal, ship them off without mercy and without delay: and if the decree should be in their favor, fail not to enter an instantaneous appeal to the Supreme Court where the chances may be more hostile to self-emancipated slaves.
Was ever such a scene of Lilliputian trickery enacted by the rulers of a great, magnanimous, and Christian nation? Contrast it with that act of self-emancipation, by which the savage, heathen barbarians Cinque and Grabeau liberated themselves and their fellow suffering countrymen from Spanish slave traders, and which the Secretary of State...denominates lawless violence.... Cinque and Graveau are uncooth and barbarous names. Call them Harmodius and Aristogiton, and go back for moral principle three thousand years to the fierce and glorious democracy of Athens. They too resorted to lawless violence, and slew the tyrant to redeem the freedom of their country...

I said, when I began this plea, that my final reliance for success in this case was on this Court as a court of JUSTICE; and in the confidence this fact inspired, that, in the administration of justice, in a case of no less importance than the liberty and the life of a large number of persons, this Court would not decide but on a due consideration of all the rights, both natural and social, of everyone of these individuals.... I have avoided, purposely avoided...a recurrence to those first principles of liberty which might well have been invoked in the argument of this cause. I have shown that [the Amistad's crew members]...were acting at the time in a way that is forbidden by the laws of Great Britain, of Spain and of the United States, and.. .that these Negroes were free and had a right to assert their liberty....
On the of February, 1804, now more than thirty-seven years past, my name was entered, and yet stands recorded, on both the rolls, as one of the Attorneys and Counsellors of this Court.... I stand before the same Court, but not before the same judges—nor aided by the same associates—nor resisted by the same opponents. As I cast my eyes along those seats of honor and public trust, now occupied by you, they seek in vain for one of those honored and honorable persons whose indulgence listened then to my voice. Marshall— Cushing— Chase— Washington— Johnson— Livingston— Todd— Where are they?...Gone! Gone! All gone!... In taking, then, my final leave of this Bar, and of this Honorable Court, I can only ejaculate a fervent petition to Heaven, that every member of it may go to his final account with as little of earthly frailty to answer for as those illustrious dead....
– John Quincy Adams, delivered before the Supreme Court in the Amistad case, February 24, and March 21, 1841

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty. . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty
. --Blackstone's commentaries on the laws, St. George Tucker, 1803

"I ask sir, what is the militia?  It is the whole people ... To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." 
-- George Mason (who opposed ratification of the Constitution without the Bill of Rights)

Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article [the Second Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
– COXE, TENCH, under pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian," Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
But if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights.
– HAMILTON, ALEXANDER, The Federalist Papers, No. 29
27 To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
28 See also: 'extraordinary Rendition', 'IRS tax seizure' 'military tribunals', 'secret evidence', 'sealed charges', 'warrantless wiretapping' 'property forfeiture', 'CALERO-TOLEDO v. PEARSON YACHT LEASING CO., 416 U.S. 663 (1974)', MARTIN V. MAHONEY Credit River

We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds...[we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers... And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for[ another]... till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery... And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.
– Thomas Jefferson

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
– U.S. Constitution.

"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men... It is a very serious consideration, which should deeply impress our minds, that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers in the event." 
Samuel Adams, 1771

30 See 26, 29

To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.
– MASON, GEORGE,, during Virginia’'s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any body of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.
– WEBSTER, NOAH, An Examination into the Leading Principals of the Federal Constitution Defects, and Abuses, 1774
31 "
the jury were not authorized to find him guilty of murder because of his having deliberately armed himself, provided he rightfully so armed himself for purposes of self-defence, and if, independently of the fact of arming himself, the case tested by what occurred on the occasion of the killing was one of manslaughter only."
Gourko v. United States: , 153 U.S. At 190.

Thompson v. United States: 155 U.S. at 273.
"The time is now near at hand which must probably determine whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their houses and farms are to be pillaged and destroyed, and themselves consigned to a state of wretchedness from which no human efforts will deliver them. The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army... We have, therefore, to resolve to conquer or die..."
– George Washington, speech delivered to his army, 1776

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right to bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizen to bear arms is just one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
-- Hubert Horatio Humphrey, 1960

"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily lives, and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."
-- John Fitzgerald Kennedy

"Their swords, and every other terrible instrument of the soldier, are the birth right of an American. ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
-- Tench Coxe, noted federalist and friend of James Madison, writing in defense of the proposed Constitution, in the Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

But in the next place, (and it is that which would furnish a case of most difficulty and danger, though it may be fairly be presumed to be of rare occurrence,) if the Legislative, executive, and judicial departments should all concur in a gross usurpation, there is still a peaceable remedy provided by the constitution. It is the power of amendment, which may be always applied at the will of three fourths of the states. If, therefore, there should be a corrupt cooperation of three fourths of the states for permanent usurpation, (a case not to be supposed, or if supposed, differs not at all in the principle or redress from the case of a majority of a nation or state having the same intent,) the case is certainly irremediable under any known forms of the constitution. The states may now, by constitutional amendment, with few limitations, change the whole structure and powers of the government, and legalize any present excess of power. And the general right of the society in other cases to change the government at the will of the majority of the whole people, in any manner, that may suit its pleasure, is undisputed, and seems undisputable. If there be any remedy at all for the minority in such a case, it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions. It is a resort to the ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.
– Amistad cases, Justice Story.

34 Th
e statute is directed against parties who have offended in any of the particulars embraced by these clauses. And its object is to exclude them from the profession of the law, or at least from its practice in the courts of the United States. As the oath prescribed cannot be taken by these parties, the act, as against them, operates as a legislative decree of perpetual exclusion. And exclusion from any of the professions or any of the ordinary avocations of life for past conduct can be regarded in no other light than as punishment for such conduct.
– EX PARTE GARLAND, 71 U.S. 333 (1866) 71 U.S. 333 (Wall.)

This case deals with the imperative of judicial integrity. In this case it was decided that; "Under our Constitution no court, state or federal, may serve as an accomplice in the willful transgression of `the Laws of the United States,' laws by which `the Judges in every State [are] bound . . . .'
" UNITED STATES v. PELTIER, 422 U.S. 531 (1975)

36 Thank you for your patience in reading this far. It is a grave task, and far more grave a thing to read. Courage, tenacity, and the very nature of freedom itself speak from these old and dusty words, but they still shine through the dust as a testament to the courage, the hope, and the vision of our founders. How long must we remain silent? How long must we remonstrate with those that care nothing for us save to steal those rights which protect us from them?

How long must we turn our faces from acts of war?

A longer quote from above:

They first persuaded them to believe that he was a deity, and then to sacrifice to him those Rights and Liberties which their ancestors had so long maintained, with unexampled bravery, and with blood & treasure. By this act they fixed a precedent fatal to all posterity: The Roman people afterwards, influenced no doubt by this pernicious example, renew'd it to his successors, not at the end of every ten years, but for life. They transfer'd all their right and power to Charles the Great: In eum transtulit omne suum jus et poteslatem. Thus, they voluntarily and ignominiously surrendered their own liberty, and exchanged a free constitution for a TYRANNY!
It is not my design at present to form the comparison between the state of this country now, and that of the Roman Empire in those dregs of time; or between the disposition of Caesar, and that of ---; The comparison, I confess, would not in all parts hold good: The Tyrant of Rome, to do him justice, had learning, courage, and great abilities. It behoves us however to awake and advert to the danger we are in. The Tragedy of American Freedom, it is to be feared is nearly compleated: A Tyranny seems to be at the very door. It is to little purpose then to go about cooly to rehearse the gradual steps that have been taken, the means that have been used, and the instruments employed, to encompass the ruin of the public liberty: We know them and we detest them. But what will this avail, if we have not courage and resolution to prevent the completion of their system?
Our enemies would fain have us lie down on the bed of sloth and security, and persuade ourselves that there is no danger They are daily administering the opiate with multiplied arts and delusions, and I am sorry to observe, that the gilded pill is so alluring to some who call themselves the friends of Liberty. But is there no danger when the very foundations of our civil constitution tremble? - When an attempt was first made to disturb the corner-stone of the fabrick, we were universally and justly alarmed: And can we be cool spectators, when we see it already removed from its place? With what resentment and indignation did we first receive the intelligence of a design to make us tributary, not to natural enemies, but infinitely more humiliating, to fellow subjects? And yet with unparallelled insolence we are told to be quiet, when we see that very money which is torn from us by lawless force, made use of still further to oppress us - to feed and pamper a set of infamous wretches, who swarm like the locusts of Egypt; and some of them expect to revel in wealth and riot on the spoils of our country. - Is it a time for us to sleep when our free government is essentially changed, and a new one is forming upon a quite different system? A government without the least dependance upon the people: A government under the absolute controul of a minister of state; upon whose sovereign dictates is to depend not only the time when, and the place where, the legislative assembly shall sit, but whether it shall sit at all: And if it is allowed to meet, it shall be liable immediately to be thrown out of existence, if in any one point it fails in obedience to his arbitrary mandates. Have we not already seen specimens of what we are to expect under such a government, in the instructions which Mr. HUTCHINSON has received, and which he has publickly avow'd, and declared he is bound to obey? - By one, he is to refuse his assent to a tax-bill, unless the Commissioners of the Customs and other favorites are exempted: And if these may be freed from taxes by the order of a minister, may not all his tools and drudges, or any others who are subservient to his designs, expect the same indulgence? By another he is to forbid to pass a grant of the assembly to any agent, but one to whose election he has given his consent; which is in effect to put it out of our power to take the necessary and legal steps for the redress of those grievances which we suffer by the arts and machinations of ministers, and their minions here. What difference is there between the present state of this province, which in course will be the deplorable state of all America, and that of Rome, under the law before mention'd? The difference is only this, that they gave their formal consent to the change, which we have not yet done. But let us be upon our guard against even a negative submission; for agreeable to the sentiments of a celebrated writer, who thoroughly understood his subject, if we are voluntarily silent, as the conspirators would have us to be, it will be consider'd as an approbation of the change. "By the fundamental laws of England, the two houses of parliament in concert with the King, exercise the legislative power: But if the two houses should be so infatuated, as to resolve to suppress their powers, and invest the King with the full and absolute government, certainly the nation would not suffer it." And if a minister shall usurp the supreme and absolute government of America, and set up his instructions as laws in the colonies, and their Governors shall be so weak or so wicked, as for the sake of keeping their places, to be made the instruments in putting them in execution, who will presume to say that the people have not a right, or that it is not their indispensible duty to God and their Country, by all rational means in their power to RESIST THEM.
"Be firm, my friends, nor let UNMANLY SLOTH
Twine round your hearts indissoluble chains.
Ne'er yet by force was freedom overcome.
Unless CORRUPTION first dejects the pride,
And guardian vigour of the free-born soul,
All crude attempts of violence are vain.
Determined, hold
Your INDEPENDENCE; for, that once destroy'd,
Unfounded Freedom is a morning dream."

The liberties of our Country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have receiv'd them as a fair Inheritance from our worthy Ancestors: They purchas'd them for us with toil and danger and expence of treasure and blood; and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightned as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle; or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men. Of the latter we are in most danger at present: Let us therefore be aware of it. Let us contemplate our forefathers and posterity; and resolve to maintain the rights bequeath'd to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. - Instead of sitting down satisfied with the efforts we have already made, which is the wish of our enemies, the necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude and perseverance. Let us remember, that "if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom." It is a very serious consideration, which should deeply impress our minds, that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers in the event.
– Samuel Adams, Boston Gazette, October 14, 1771

"There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation."
James Madison, 1788

"To fight out a war, you must believe something and want something with all your might. So must you do to carry anything else to an end worth reaching. More than that, you must be willing to commit yourself to a course, perhaps a long and hard one, without being able to foresee exactly where you will come out. All that is required of you is that you should go somewhither as hard as ever you can. The rest belongs to fate...:"
     Oliver Wendell Holmes, 1884

Read more!