The Second Amendment and the States

The Second Amendment and the States
Written by Patrick Krey

 09 June 2009

There are few topics that can divide people who are normally ideological bedfellows like the legal doctrine of the “incorporation” of the Bill of Rights against the states and the Second Amendment. This subject is rearing its head again with the upcoming appointment of a new Supreme Court justice as well as federal courts' recent conflicting opinions in regards to the Second Amendment. The Wall Street Journal reports that on June 2nd, “A federal appeals court in Chicago ruled … that the Second Amendment doesn't bar state or local governments from regulating guns, adopting the same position that Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Barack Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, did when faced with the same question earlier this year.”

This ruling contrasts with a recent ruling by “the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ... that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states and local governments” — in other words, states and local governments are bound by the Second Amendment. Which court is correct?

To understand the debate in this topic, it helps to briefly review constitutional history. When the Constitution was first proposed, opponents of the new document criticized it for lacking a bill of enumerated rights, which were common in virtually every state constitution of the time. In response to these complaints, proponents of the new Constitution agreed to add a series of amendments in the first Congress that would codify restrictions on the federal government to infringe certain fundamental rights. The resulting first 10 Amendments, collectively referred to as the “Bill of Rights,” were ratified on December 15, 1791.

It is important to note two little-known historical facts regarding the proposal and ratification of the Bill of Rights. Alexander Hamilton, himself a prominent advocate of a liberal reading of the necessary and proper clause as well as a loose construction of the Constitution, argued that a Bill of Rights would be dangerous because it would imply that without such an enumeration of rights, the new government might actually have the power to infringe on these rights and might even now open the door for the government to regulate in these areas. In Federalist # 84, Hamilton wrote:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? … I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government.

Hamilton basically was saying that the national government lacked the power to do any of the things that the proposed Bill of Rights were prohibiting, and codifying these restrictions might lead some to argue that the national government could actually regulate in those areas, which he felt was completely unconstitutional.

In addition, James Madison, widely regarded as “The Father of the Constitution,” wanted to have the Bill of Rights restrictions to be held against the states but was rebuffed in this effort because of widely held reservations to further empower the new government over the states. The first Congress refused to even submit such a proposal to the states for ratification because it was so unpopular. As a matter of fact, numerous states had gun-control laws on the books at the time, as well as state-chartered religions. It was not that the citizens were necessarily opposed to state involvement in these matters but rather did not want any federal intrusion.

These two historical facts illustrate that, at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, it was recognized by the Framers and Ratifiers that the national government had no authority to enforce the Bill of Rights against the states, and whatever authority it did have was clearly delineated in the text of the Constitution itself. Therefore, the Bill of Rights did not give the national government any new powers but simply reiterated important restrictions upon it and not the states. This understanding is consistent with the position that not only does the Second Amendment protect an individual “right to bear arms” against federal action but also that the national government lack any power whatsoever to regulate within this area. Additionally, the states are free to regulate (or not regulate) in that area based on their own state constitutions.

The fact that the Bill of Rights did not apply against the states was not modified until after the ratification of the 14th Amendment and the judicial creation of the incorporation doctrine. The incorporation doctrine refers to the court selectively “incorporating” certain amendments in the Bill of Rights against state governments via a liberal reading of the 14th Amendment — completely contrary to the original understanding at the time of its ratification as explained by widely respected legal scholar Raoul Berger in Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment. As the late Congressman Larry McDonald explained, the rationale behind the incorporation doctrine “runs completely contrary to thoughts and purposes of the original framers.... Their intent was to limit the rights and powers of the federal government, not to help expand them.”

The courts liberal interpretation allowed the federal courts to widen their jurisdiction and judicially review numerous state laws. Some libertarians welcome this development in constitutional history as a great opportunity to spread freedom because it gives advocates of individual liberty “two bites at the freedom apple — one under his state constitution and one under the U.S. Constitution.” Sadly, the constitutional record of incorporation is not something many advocates of individual liberty can be proud of.

Constitutional historian Kevin R.C. Gutzman details the sordid history of the incorporation doctrine:

This is what the Incorporation Doctrine has given us: in place of reservation of these areas of law to state governments for regulation via legislative elections, we get seizure of control over them by unelected, unaccountable, politically connected lawyers (that is, federal judges) who purport to substitute “reason” for the (one infers) “unreasonable” regulations crafted by elected officials.... It was under the cover of the Incorporation Doctrine that federal courts recently invented a right of child rapists not to face the ultimate penalty for their crimes. It was under the cover of the Incorporation Doctrine, indeed, that a Supreme Court majority for several years banned capital punishment altogether. It was under the cover of the Incorporation Doctrine that the Supreme Court eliminated state prohibitions of various types of pornography. The Incorporation Doctrine also underlies the Court-created ban on prayer, even on moments of silence, in public schools. The Incorporation Doctrine has allowed federal courts to invent rights to burn flags, ban invocations at high school graduations, and establish essentially a national code of “acceptable” punishments.

Furthermore, it was with the help of the incorporation doctrine that the “politically connected lawyers” on the court were able to invent “penumbras” giving rise to the infamous Roe v. Wade decision, and there were even discussions at the height of judicial activism to engrain a right to a minimum wage within constitutional law. Libertarians should be careful what they wish for because the “interpreters” on the court do not always see eye-to-eye with their vision of liberty.

Ironically, libertarian proponents of incorporation who usually are almost universally opposed to state power, let alone massively centralizing power in a super state, are in effect advocating the use of a larger, more powerful central government (via its court system) to force smaller governments to “be more free” without recognizing the fact that freedom means different things to different people. Such a contradictory line of thought is in direct conflict with the proud Jeffersonian decentralist tradition of those who founded our constitutional republic.

This leads us back to gun-rights activists who are currently expending numerous resources trying to get federal judges to incorporate the bill of rights against the states. Ironically, years of money spent trying to get federal judges to advance the cause of gun rights resulted in the disappointing Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller where the “conservatives” on the court acknowledged that the Second Amendment protects an individual right “to bear arms” but that right is not “unlimited” and there is still room for reasonable restrictions on gun control. As renowned constitutional attorney Edwin Vieira, Jr. wrote last fall in The New American, “Could Heller allow gun regulation to the point that the regulation could become a prohibition for all practical purposes? What effect will it have, if any, on existing or future gun laws in other jurisdictions throughout the country?”

The Heller decision was disheartening to gun rights advocates who believed that vast amounts of money spent on endless legal challenges would engrain an unlimited right to gun ownership in our constitutional law. Related efforts to incorporate the limited protections of Heller against the state will face similar frustration. Those who put their faith in “politically connected lawyers” to uphold their rights and advance the cause of freedom will continue to be disappointed. Perhaps these activists will now realize that federal judges are not reliable friends of individual liberty and instead will focus their energy on a much more realistic goal of making Congress constitutional.

[x] close

Powered by ScribeFire.

Oh Say Can You See?

The American Flag

Written by John White
May 2009

The start of a baseball game, a football game, a NASCAR race, or a rodeo is predictable: crowds turn to face the American flag; men doff their hats; women put their hands on their hearts; and the “Star-Spangled Banner” is sung. And if you take your eyes from the flag for a few moments and look around, and at the same time listen, you may experience something rather profound. Whether clean-shaven or unshaven, whether yuppies or in boots and hats, whether holding children in their arms or apparently alone, Americans of all ages have tears forming in their eyes and catches in their throats as they sing and they stare at the American flag.

Even men, the more stoic segment of society, are choked up with emotion, and you can “feel” a unity among Americans. The same type of response can often be experienced at parades when a color guard marches by carrying the Stars and Stripes — no matter what the music being played.

What is it about the American flag that provokes such a response? Well, the answer is “everything.” The flag of the United States of America is an emblem of our country’s ideals, principles, values, and traditions. It is the sense of America’s history and its vast contribution to human betterment, including the service many Americans gave to the country’s armed forces and the bloody cost of protecting and preserving that contribution. It represents the total experience of America and the American people from the founding of our nation to the present. It also represents our philosophy of government — a recognition that life, liberty, personal sovereignty, individual rights, human dignity, and the opportunity to pursue happiness are given to us by God because that is the only basis that can guarantee those blessings for everyone. Last of all, it represents our great traditions, institutions, and ideals: national sovereignty, representative government in a constitutional federal republic, the rule of law, and people of diverse backgrounds living and working together as free citizens.

It is the symbol of the most enduring free people who have ever lived.

And although our flag is a symbol, it is also considered to be a living thing. President Woodrow Wilson said, “Though silent, it speaks to us — speaks to us of the past; of the men and women who went before us and of the record they wrote into it.”

Other icons of American freedom — the Liberty Bell, Independence Hall, the Capitol, the Statue of Liberty, the bald eagle, Uncle Sam — have their places in our hearts. They convey the meaning of our national experience in various ways and serve well the process of citizen education about our precious heritage. But the majesty and grandeur of the flag flying freely against the sky is the most powerful focal point for Americans who carry forward the dream of liberty and justice for all.

The official name of our flag is “The Flag of the United States of America.” It is also referred to as the National Flag, National Ensign, National Color, and National Standard. However, as with a good friend, Americans speak of our flag by nicknames: the Stars and Stripes; the Star-spangled Banner; Old Glory; the Red, White, and Blue. It is the fourth oldest national flag in the world, after Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands.

In an earlier era, when warriors marched into battle behind their regimental and national colors (and children played “Capture the Flag,” knowing what that meant), our flag was regarded by our soldiers as the rallying point of action. It represented everything for which they fought — home, corps, and country — and it contained the honor, valor, and hopes of every man around it. “Our flag must never falter, touch the ground in defeat or be lowered to an enemy,” they silently said, and they guarded it courageously, even unto death. The greatest shame in battle was to surrender one’s flag to a victor, but the American flag has been unvanquished.

Yes, we’ll rally round the flag, boys, we’ll rally once again,
Shouting the battle cry of Freedom
— “The Battle Cry of Freedom,” George Frederick Root, 1863

The great American heritage of freedom is the most precious possession of the entire world. Because our flag embodies that glorious achievement and ideal, it is worthy of our honor, our affections, our deepest sacrifices. We revere the flag, not through unquestioning worship but from a deep appreciation of our national heritage and from gratitude for our good fortune to be Americans. What other nation in all of human history has stated, as the Preamble to our Constitution does, that it was founded “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”? In our flag we see our nation itself and the proud history upon which it stands.

Equally important is how others see our flag. Floating from the lofty pinnacle of American idealism, it is a beacon of enduring hope to the oppressed of all lands. It floats over an assemblage of people from every race, creed, and color whose united hearts constitute an indivisible and invincible force for the defense and aid of the downtrodden. It proclaims liberty and justice for all people.

The Design of the Flag

When our flag was created on June 14, 1777, no records were left to explain the meaning of its colors. Their meaning was first stated in 1782 in a report to Congress by the committee charged with designing the Great Seal of the United States. Charles Thomson, secretary of the Continental Congress, stated that the seal’s escutcheon has the same colors and meaning as those of the flag. He wrote, “White signifies purity and innocence, Red hardiness & valor, and Blue … signifies vigilance, perseverance & justice.”

Today it is more broadly — but unofficially — said that red stands for the courage, heroism, and sacrifices of the 44,000,000 men and women who have served in the armed services of our country, and for the blood shed to preserve our liberty; white stands for peacefulness and the purity of our high ideals; and blue, the color of the heavens, connotes the justice, strength, loyalty, and unity of all our states.

The stripes of our flag remind us of the 13 original colonies that constituted America as a new nation and gained us our liberty. The 50 five-pointed stars represent the 50 states bound together as one nation. The field of blue is technically called a canton, but is generally called the union or field of stars. According to a booklet about the flag published by the U.S. House of Representatives in 1977, “The star is a symbol of the heavens and the divine goal to which man has aspired from time immemorial; the stripe is symbolic of the rays of light emanating from the sun.”

The U.S. Flag Code

The display of our flag is governed by law to assure that it is treated with respect. The U.S. Flag Code prescribes proper display of and respect for the Flag of the United States. It is a guide for all handling and display of our flag. It was established by U.S. Code Title 36, Patriotic Societies and Observances, Chapter 10, “Patriotic Customs.” However, the code is dependent upon voluntary conformance. It does not impose penalties for misuse of the flag. That is left to the states and to the federal government of the District of Columbia, though an activist Supreme Court has declared that citizens may disrespect our flag as a form of free speech under the First Amendment.

Before 1923, there were no federal or state regulations governing display of the U.S. flag. At that time the American Legion called for a National Flag Conference to draft a code of flag etiquette for civilians. Representatives of the Army and Navy, which had evolved their own procedures, and 71 private organizations met in Washington, D.C. Their purpose was to provide guidance based on Army and Navy procedures relating to display and associated questions about the U.S. flag.

President Warren G. Harding, in addressing the conference, said, “I hope that you will succeed in formulating a code that will be welcomed by all Americans, and that every patriotic and educational society in the Republic will commit itself to the endorsement and observance and purposes of the code that you adopt here today.”

The resulting National Flag Code was adopted by all organizations in attendance, although it had no official government sanction. Nevertheless, it represented the authoritative opinion of the principal patriotic bodies of the nation, both civilian and military. Over time, the National Flag Code became widely accepted. However, it was not until 1942 that Congress passed a joint resolution on the subject and made it the law of our land.

Promotion of respect for the flag and knowledge about it is required in most states, usually through flag exercises, programs, or instruction. However, in 1943, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette et al. that it is unconstitutional for state boards of education or local school boards to make the flag salute compulsory.

Flag Etiquette

The fundamental rule of flag etiquette is: treat the Stars and Stripes with respect and common sense.

The flag is flown at full-staff to indicate joy — the joy of being American. It is flown at half-staff to indicate mourning. In either case, it should always be aloft and free. It should be hoisted briskly and lowered ceremoniously. When raising the flag to half-staff, raise it to the top of the flagpole for a moment before lowering it. When taking it down for the night, raise it to the top of the flagpole again and then lower it to the bottom.

The flag should never be dipped to any person or thing, nor should it ever be displayed with the union down except as a signal of dire distress. When lowered, it should be received by waiting hands and arms, and should not touch the ground.

The flag should be flown daily from sunrise to sunset in good weather from public buildings, schools, permanent staffs in the open, and near polling places on election days. An all-weather flag may also be flown in bad weather. When a patriotic effect is desired, the flag may be displayed 24 hours a day if properly illuminated during the hours of darkness.

The flag should always be flown on national and state holidays and on those occasions proclaimed by the president. On Memorial Day, the flag should be displayed at half-staff until noon.

To store the flag, ceremoniously fold it lengthwise in half, then repeat with the blue field on the outside. Finally, while one person holds it by the blue field, another then makes a triangular fold in the opposite end, continuing to fold it in triangles until only the blue field shows.

The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever, nor should any picture, drawing, insignia, or other decoration be placed upon or attached to the flag, its staff, or halyard. The flag should not be embroidered on personal items nor printed on anything designed for temporary use and then discarded.

No flag or pennant may be flown above the flag or, if on the same level, to the right of the flag, except during church services conducted by naval chaplains at sea, when the church pennant may be flown above the flag during church services for the personnel of the Navy.

Never throw away a flag! When a flag is no longer of dignified appearance and cannot be repaired, or when a flag is so worn or soiled that it is no longer suitable for display, it should be destroyed in a dignified manner, preferably by burning. In military parlance, it is consigned to the flames in a brief ceremony.

The final flag etiquette lesson for readers is this: when the American flag passes by in a color guard, stop talking, stand at attention, and, when it is six paces away, cross your heart with your right hand until it is six paces past you. Men and boys should remove their hats. People in uniform should salute in the manner prescribed by their organization. If the flag is simply part of a float or is being carried in some way other than in a color guard, no action is necessary.

Although the flag of our nation has undergone many changes throughout our history, none of the earlier flags are considered to be obsolete. They are simply representative of an earlier era. They may be flown as “legal” and are entitled to the same respect as our current-day flag.


John White, the author/editor of 15 books, lives in Cheshire, Connecticut. He is a former naval officer.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Liberty Flag of Schenectady (timesunion.com)
• Happy Flag Day 2009! (dontmesswithtaxes.typepad.com)
• Memorial Day Flag Etiquette: What You Need to Know (blippitt.com)

CLC Gets Grizzly Tonight Exploring Grassroots Politics and Current Events!

Join Shelli Dawdy and Sandra Crosnoe on Blog Talk Radio

this evening on The Constitutional Liberty Coalition Gets Grizzly

as we explore Grassroots politics and current events!

___________________

We hope to be joined by RJ Harris a constitutional liberty candidate in Oklahoma CD04 going after RINO Tom Cole in 2010. He will update us on his race and the Sooner Tea Party rally this week protesting Obamacare.  Join us for updates on our recent alerts that were sent out via email also. We'll review the status of Sotomayor's confirmation, Cap and Trade, Socialized Medicine, and the Pass Act.

______________________

Finally, we hope that Liberty Rider, Michael Maresco will have a minute to give us an update on his whereabouts and his plans.

He is there at the destination near the gateway to Alcatraz!

_______________

Have a Grassroots “tale” to share thoughts on stopping the Sotomayor Confirmation?

Call us! 646-915-9997

Tuesday nights at 8PM EDT * 7PM CDT *6PM MDT * 5PM PDT

STOP Sotomayor Now -- Vote this week!

STOP Nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to US Supreme Court

Position: Senate members should oppose her nomination, vocally.

Reasons:

Sotomayor has made public statements and issued rulings that indicate:

• Lack of respect for the right to bear arms


• Racial and gender bias


• Lack of respect for property rights


• Has indicated "empathy" is a higher priority than following the law

Further:

• Made a statement that appellate court judges make law


• Her testimony last week has troubling contradictions in contrast to her writings and the facts of her life.


• During her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she showed a surprising lack of technical legal knowledge during some questioning, particularly in an interchange with Senator Hatch.


• Has had a high rate of judicial error - 40%+ (her rulings were overturned)


• Supports abortion through her statement that Roe v. Wade is settled law

Principles:

• We should oppose those who are not clearly strict constructionists


• Supporters of the Constitution in the Senate need to start showing themselves


• Members of the Senate need to put the President on notice regarding this and future nominees to the Court

Status:

Conclusion of the hearings process, no clear date available regarding full Senate floor vote

Links:

Gun Owners of America has been closely watching and researching this nominee, providing very good general information (beyond the Second Amendment) on their site.

GOA's Executive Director Larry Pratt, was a guest on a special episode of the Blog Talk Radio show The Constitutional Liberty Coalition Gets Grizzly on Thursday, July 16 to discuss the Sotomayor nomination. Larry gave a good deal of detailed information about Sotomayor and why her nomination should be opposed. You can listen by clicking here.

Former Supreme Court Nominee Robert Bork made statements regarding Sotomayor and recent history on the confirmation process on Newsmaxx, Tuesday.

Wall Street Journal article on how little information was gleaned from Sotomayor's testimony.

______________________

SUGGESTED ACTIONS:

• Maintain pressure on US Senate and House representatives (contact them)


• On particular issues, contact your Governor, State legislators, county, and city representatives.


• Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper


• Forward this message to everyone in your contacts list

CONTACTING CONGRESS:

1. Call the office for your Senator or House representatives


2. Ask to speak directly with your Senator or Congressman


3. Be sure to give your zip code so they know you are a constituent


4. Be polite, but firm


5. The next best method to a phone call is a fax, the least effective is email (make the phone ring in the office!)

WHY CONTACT YOUR STATE & LOCAL REPRESENTATIVES?

• Several bills currently moving through Congress, if passed, seriously encroach on states' rights, and in turn will put a lot of pressure on county and city governments.


• It is essential that our state governments assert their sovereign rights


• Although State legislatures are not currently in session this is the period during which legislators have the time to consider issues that need attention, or bills they will sponsor.

_______________________________________________________

(for more details/links on these bills)

______________________________

"Health Care Reform" / Socialized Medicine

Several versions exist Was H.R. 676 now, H.R. 3200 (see summary article, linked)

Stated Purpose: To make affordable health care available to all

Position: OPPOSE

_____________________________________________________

The PASS Act H.R. 1291

Stated Purpose: To better protect the security, confidentiality, and integrity of personally identifiable information collected by States when issuing driver’s licenses and identification documents, and for other purposes.

Position: OPPOSE

____________________________________________________

HR 2454 (2998) American Clean Energy and Security Act - Cap & Trade

Stated purpose: Reduce carbon emissions, achieve energy independence

Position: Oppose

__________________________________________________________

S. 909 Matthew Shepherd Hate Crimes Bill

Purpose: Increases penalties for certain crimes committed against certain people, particularly based on sexual orientation

Position: OPPOSE

Looking Forward to Liberty - Ryan Underwood at Broken Arrow TeaParty July 4th

By request, here are my notes from today. Thanks to the
rain, the ink was disappearing as I was speaking!/ru

-----------------------------------------------------------

I am not here today to talk about politics.

Let me tell you why.

For example, I'm not really interested in discussions about
this tax or that tax, because it amounts to debating whether
we should prefer a ball and chain around our ankles to a
yoke upon our necks.

In any case, as long as you are forced to pay tax to keep
your own homestead, you are a serf; the amount of such a
tax only defines the depth of your serfdom. Why do we not
hear impassioned calls for a "fair property tax" -- which
would be none whatsoever?

The income tax forces you to share your profits with your
masters to further their own purposes. But even if you
object to the arrangement forced upon you, the property tax
says "you must work within whatever state profit-sharing
arrangement exists, or you will be homeless."

Some people would like to tell you that one political party
or another, one political organization or another, or one
mass media demagogue or another is the answer. We have been
told this for as long as I can remember, for my entire life.

They tell you this because the last thing they want you to
realize is that the answer is actually within each one of
us. What we have been failing to do is to ask the right
questions.

I think I would receive much agreement here if I were to say
that stealing is wrong, regardless of whether or not it has
been legalized.

But is it wrong for the State, in the name of "law and
order", to kill a man who resists stealing of his
possessions and furthermore refuses to be carted off to the
dungeon for mere defense of his property, with knowledge
that he would then both be in the dungeon and his property
would be taken to boot?

What about when the State lies about the value of a man's
property, so that its self-interested taking of the property
can be spun as having come at less cost to the taxpayers?

Let's go back a few generations with the "Ghost of Liberty
Past." The economic historian Murray Rothbard wrote
extensively about colonial America, revealing scores of
events that have fallen down the public-school memory hole.

One such event is the Crown making a gift to William Penn of
what would later become Pennsylvania. The part of the story
that is not told is that it took Penn almost two decades to
successfully establish a government in Pennsylvania, because
the Quakers were not only not interested in political
government, but refused to consent to it, refused to
cooperate, and were otherwise incorrigible in their love for
liberty.

Another event that has been largely forgotten, when it has
not been misrepresented, is Shays' Rebellion. The usual
story that is told is that farmers got themselves into debt,
declared war on the bankers, and were put down by state
troops with merely a dispassionate interest in "law and
order". Well, the usual story omits a very important
detail: the "debt" that the farmers accrued was in the form
of unpaid taxes to the state of Massachusetts to cover debts
the state itself had run up. The mercantile interests
behind the state government, who would have profited from
the taxes, raised the army that put down the rebellion, and
thereby kept the poor in servitude to the state-connected
rich.

These stories hint at the reasons why Thomas Jefferson said
a little rebellion now and then is a good thing. He didn't
mean post angry messages on Internet message boards. He
didn't mean go door to door and try to convince people of
the correctness of your political views. Nor did he mean to
provoke violent confrontation, as anger and frustration
tends to lead to. He meant intelligent, calculated
resistance to political power, together with your families,
neighbors, and friends.

Do you really want independence on this Independence Day?
Resolve to do like the Quakers did. Buy some fertile land
somewhere you wish to live, and as time goes by, buy even
more land from the surrounding areas. Sell plots within
your land to family and friends who share your beliefs.
When someone comes in from some faraway government
pretending to have the authority to order you around,
politely tell them to leave and not to return.

They are likely to return anyway -- given that government
will have no other gods before it -- but by owning a large
area of land settled with people who refuse their demands,
their attempts at controlling you will be like trying to
ride a bicycle through a bog. Your little enclave will be
successful at practical resistance where the single family
hiding out in a remote Idaho homestead would not be. A
thousand such enclaves would send Washington D.C. into
bankruptcy proceedings.

If you can't afford land, then find economic independence as
soon as you can. During the bailout votes, there was a lot
of talk about "Going Galt", which is to essentially stop
working in order to stop paying taxes. But, if you are
broke, the power elite will have their way with you, because
he who has the money makes the rules. You will not be able
to buy the land, tools, and other capital you need in order
to live an independent life.

My suggestion instead is to work hard AND pay no taxes.
There is a bustling community on Craigslist of people
buying, selling, and trading everything under the sun, with
no government regulations or taxes involved. Spend your
time when you are away from your corporate job in the
official economy learning to do something that is valuable
in the underground, unofficial economy. And if you have not
yet redeemed your Federal Reserve notes for gold and silver
coin, for heaven's sake, do so while you still can.

Maybe one day, we the people will have the power not only to
vote for a new crop of legislators, but to do as the kings
did when they would dissolve Parliament and send the whole
lot of scoundrels home for a year. Maybe we will one day
have the power to live our lives in our own style, following
our own moral code even when it is in opposition to the
moral code of government.

But until that day comes, declare independence in your head,
and get busy living the way you want to live. Nobody is
going to do it for you. Declare your independence!

--
Ryan C. Underwood
runderwo(at)mail.win.org

[Editor's note: We don't have video from this event yet, but will post when/if available]

D. R. I. P. USA

This is my take on our current situation:

The Tea Parties began as a grassroots effort on Twitter February 2, 2009. We have complete documentation of that fact on this blog. What has happened to the movement is usually what happens when politicians and their hacks get involved. Unfortunately, some of the people fell for the "power trip" and were seduced into collecting email lists, etc. PayPal buttons (etc) appeared overnight on blogs that were originally purely grassroots.

Tea Party pages popped up everywhere. When they start collecting money, to whom does it go? I am betting on the usual suspects. Some of us are very upset about this for obvious reasons. Once the Gingrich, Armey, and Rove (etc) people get involved we are back at square one! Our only hope as free people is to throw the incompetent thieves out of the House and Senate! At least let them know we are watching every flipping thing they do.

@DRIPusa (on Twitter) is the "mother ship". DRIP= Dont Re-elect Incumbent Politicians. The @--grassroots states will report on each of their Senators and as many of their Congressmen as possible. The Good. The Bad. The Ugly. We will leave no stone unturned and whatever crawls out, so be it.

We need people that are with us. People who realize the importance of this manuever. People who love our country and want to save our Constitutional Republic. Each state needs a manager for it's page, to post activities, and report how their representatives vote; tell who and what they are!!

Teaparty Grassroots is the main URL for each state. People are hungry for some form of uniformity. We must have uniformity to be united as a people.

We started @DRIPusa, 1 week ago. All 50 states now have a grassroots Twitter page. Our first mission is to STOP CapNtade in the Senate. We all work late at night to help organize with anyone that needs help. We are not paid for our efforts, nor do we back down from those that are. We do it for God, Family and Country.

If you would like to join us, and you agree with our philosophy, please let us know.We need real Patriots without significant encumbering political ties. Contact @DRIPusa if you would like to join us.