What is strangely missing from the discussion below are the innovations of recent years:
a) Kill lists by presidential authority, asserted by Obama
b) Indefinite detention of US citizens by the military, also asserted by Obama.
With it, the courts could be open, but what purpose they are open for remains unclear, since due process was abandoned in favor of dictatorial powers.
JZ
_
Regarding Ex parte Milligan
My friend Dr. Lowell Becraft ("Larry" expressed his concern that so
many PNJ's - Patriot Nut Jobs - I call them PMM's or Patriot Myth
Mongers) complain that the US operates under martial law. He
wrote:
"In the case of Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2
(1866), the Supremes were required to determine what constituted “martial law,”
and in essence the Court concluded that it was essential that an army be in the
field (meaning the locality where martial law prevails) and that the courts be
closed because of the chaos. That case may be read here: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/71/2/case.html.
Where I live, there is no army in the field, and our courts are open. In fact, I
know of no place in America where an army is in the field, and anarchy is so
prevalent that the courts must be closed.
"
I, Bob,
responded:
The courts do seem open, but to many they have
become meaningless as tools of obtaining justice/redress because
1. Most don’t know the law
or procedure
2. Most cannot afford legal
counsel
3. Court and transcript and
advocacy/case worker fees have become so exorbitant that most cannot afford
them
4. Judges seem to favor lawyered
litigants over pro se litigants
In other words, for most, courts have effectively become NOT open.
That is one reason so many have showed up in the field.
I am unusual. Because I don’t work,
I actually have the discretionary time for studying law and procedure, but even
I would have a terrible time facing off against an experienced
attorney.
THE COURTS ONLY SEEM OPEN.
Larry: "But not because of martial law."
Bob: "Then
why?"
Larry: "The best description is that it is a power structure that
protects the powerful; but it is not martial
law."
Bob: "Doesn’t that equal “martial law?” The powerful
remain protected by militant force against the non-powerful who have, as a
consequence, no say in government except to the extent the powerful
allow?"
Larry: "Read the case:
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/71/2/case.html.We have lots of
people that now believe we have martial law. When the real thing comes along,
there will be no resistance because people thought it had already
arrived."
Bob: "I have always visualized martial law as evidenced by
soldiers patrolling the streets. Who needs them with bomb-dropping drones
patrolling the skies?"
Larry: "Excellent point, and drones may very well
replace soldiers."
Now, I respond more fully, taking the time to
honor the Ex parte Milligan opinion Dr. Becraft cited above.
The opinion in Ex parte
Milligan - 71 U.S. 2 (1866) makes the most excellent
point that in martial law, military tribunals, not the judicial courts, try
people accused of a crime in the jurisdiction of the military. It also points
out the process for using writ of error to appeal denial a petition for writ of
habeas corpus, and the fact that the US must timely indict/present or discharge
the prisoner. It makes apparent the fact that only Congress can authorize the
military to arrest and try folks in some territory of the US during
insurrection/war/rebellion, and that the right to trial by jury always exists.
It shows that grand juries must indict/present except in cases arising among
military or militia forces during war or public danger.
And, I rather
enjoyed the Chief Justice's instruction about the meaning of certain legal terms
including cause and suit, and the fact that an ex parte habeas proceeding
constitutes a cause/suit of the prisoner against the captor, typically some
agent or agency of the Government. I also appreciated the Court's opinion that
Congress, not the President, has final say over empowering the President to
suspend of the right of petition for writ of habeas corpus in times of
publicly dangerous national emergency. The Chief Justice poignantly penned:
"The
suspension of the writ does not authorize the arrest of anyone, but simply
denies to one arrested the privilege of this writ in order to obtain his
liberty... It
was the manifest design of Congress to secure a certain remedy by which anyone
deprived of liberty could obtain it if there was a judicial failure to find
cause of offence against him...
authority
was given to the judges out of court to grant relief to any party who could show
that, under the law, he should be no longer restrained of his
liberty...
The
power of punishment is alone through the means which the laws have provided for
that purpose, and, if they are ineffectual, there is an immunity from
punishment, no matter how great an offender the individual may be or how much
his crimes may have shocked the sense of justice of the country or endangered
its safety. By the protection of the law, human rights are secured; withdraw
that protection and they are at the mercy of wicked rulers or the clamor of an
excited people. "
Thus, must the
prisoner who evades summary execution wait out the term of the emergency for
restoration of the right to petition the court to issue the writ so that the
prisoner might prosecute the cause of liberty before the court against the
captors. And at that time, the court has the legal duty, not the prerogative,
to grant the writ and order the release of the prisoner if the Government cannot
show legal merit under the Fourth Amendment for the detention. And that means,
under the law, that the Grand Jury sitting after the capture must indict or
present against the prisoner, or the court must order the prisoner's
release.
My Favorite Excerpt from Ex Parte
Milligan
Every actual and wanna-be Citizen
should read and embrace this, my favorite excerpt from Ex Parte Milligan,
for it illustrates the central core motive behind the Colonist's rebellion
against the British Crown, and every rebellion against authority before or
since.
Page 71 U. S. 118-121
The controlling question in the case is
this: upon the facts stated in Milligan's petition and the exhibits filed, had
the military commission mentioned in it jurisdiction legally to try and sentence
him? Milligan, not a resident of one of the rebellious states or a prisoner of
war, but a citizen of Indiana for twenty years past and never in the military or
naval service, is, while at his home, arrested by the military power of the
United States, imprisoned, and, on certain criminal charges preferred against
him, tried, convicted, and sentenced to be hanged by a military commission,
organized under the direction of the military commander of the military district
of Indiana. Had this tribunal the legal power and authority to try and punish
this man?
No graver question was ever considered by this court, nor one
which more nearly concerns the rights of the whole people, for it is the
birthright of every American citizen when charged with crime to be tried and
punished according to law. The power of punishment is alone through the means
which the laws have provided for that purpose, and, if they are ineffectual,
there is an immunity from punishment, no matter how great an offender the
individual may be or how much his crimes may have shocked the sense of justice
of the country or endangered its safety. By the protection of the law, human
rights are secured; withdraw that protection and they are at the mercy of wicked
rulers or the clamor of an excited people. If there was law to justify this
military trial, it is not our province to interfere; if there was not, it is our
duty to declare the nullity of the whole proceedings. The decision of this
question does not depend on argument or judicial precedents, numerous and highly
illustrative as they are. These precedents inform us of the extent of the
struggle to preserve liberty and to relieve those in civil life from military
trials. The founders of our government were familiar with the history of that
struggle, and secured in a written constitution every right which the people had
wrested from power during a contest of ages. By that Constitution and the laws
authorized by it, this question must be determined. The provisions of that
instrument on the administration of criminal justice are too plain and direct to
leave room for misconstruction or doubt of their true meaning. Those applicable
to this case are found in that clause of the original Constitution which says
"That the trial of all crimes, except in case of impeachment, shall be by jury,"
and in the fourth, fifth, and sixth articles of the amendments.
The
fourth proclaims the right to be secure in person and effects against
unreasonable search and seizure, and directs that a judicial warrant shall not
issue "without proof of probable cause supported by oath or affirmation."
The fifth declares "that no person shall be held to answer for a capital
or otherwise infamous crime unless on presentment by a grand jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual
service in time of war or public danger, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law."
And the sixth guarantees the right
of trial by jury, in such manner and with such regulations that, with upright
judges, impartial juries, and an able bar, the innocent will be saved and the
guilty punished. It is in these words:
"In all criminal prosecutions the
accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury
of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which
district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses
against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,
and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence."
These securities
for personal liberty thus embodied were such as wisdom and experience had
demonstrated to be necessary for the protection of those accused of crime. And
so strong was the sense of the country of their importance, and so jealous were
the people that these rights, highly prized, might be denied them by
implication, that, when the original Constitution was proposed for adoption, it
encountered severe opposition, and, but for the belief that it would be so
amended as to embrace them, it would never have been ratified.
Time has
proven the discernment of our ancestors, for even these provisions, expressed in
such plain English words that it would seem the ingenuity of man could not evade
them, are now, after the lapse of more than seventy years, sought to be avoided.
Those great and good men foresaw that troublous times would arise when rulers
and people would become restive under restraint, and seek by sharp and decisive
measures to accomplish ends deemed just and proper, and that the principles of
constitutional liberty would be in peril unless established by irrepealable law.
The history of the world had taught them that what was done in the past might be
attempted in the future. The Constitution of the United States is a law for
rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of
its protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances. No
doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of
man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great
exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or
despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false, for the
government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it which are
necessary to preserve its existence, as has been happily proved by the result of
the great effort to throw off its just authority.
All of this
means that Government employees must remember the purpose for their existence as
part of Government. They exist because the LAST government didn't heed its
responsibilities to the people, so the people rebelled and established a new
government to replace the old one. They should remember this because it could
happen again and again and again till people start becoming sublimely ethical
and need no government. It seems axiomatic that all governments eventually
become corrupt and self-destructive through abuse of the governed who inexorably
rebel or subject the government to external attack and dissolution.
War Powers, Trading with the Enemy, and Dilution of Rights
Neither the foregoing excerpt nor any thing else in the Ex parte
Milligan opinion or dicta deals with the question of how to hold tyrants/gerps
accountable for their torture and abuse of Citizens under color of law. I an
only suppose from their silence on the obvious point that Citizens must do it
by whatever means they find least dangerous and most expedient. After all, not
everybody like Milligan whom a Military Commission orders to die manages to
survive the ordeal. If one shall survive, one should do so in the first place
by evading detection and capture as a rebel. The American Revolution loudly
exclaimed the question of a people's or an individual's right to rebel against
an evil oligarchy -they, and we, have every right to do so. The undaunted power
of the present US Government makes it virtually impossible to do so, even
against oligarchies operating inside it or adjacent to it or in control of it
surreptitiously or under color of law.
Now, how does the Citizenry
convince the FBI of the necessity to hunt down and excise Gerps as its first
order of business, senior to all other orders? After all, the FBI has no moral
authority to act against citizens who have legitimate unresolved complaints
against Gerps, gerpitude, and other loathesome acts or actors of ommission or
malfeasance in Government. But that does not stop the FBI from acting against
those Citizens, as far as I can see.
Even in the case of the Civil War,
on which the Ex parte Milligan issue hung, many question the constitutional
authority of Lincoln to prosecute that war against states who merely exercised
their God-given right to secede from the union for the Northern States' and
President's violation of the very contract that united them. In essence the
Civil War might have amounted to no more or less than the Battle of Hastings on
a grand scale, where the Norman King William the Bastard murdered the King of
England, with nephew and son, then simply stole the land of England and made it
into a Norman province.
I have read provisions in the Florida
Constitution that show the bootprint of the US Government in the wake of the
Civil War - abortions like the loyalty oath (see below), the elimination of
Grand Jury power to investigate all purported crimes and misdemeanors instead of
merely capital crimes, elimination of the provision elucidating the right of the
people to alter or abolish their form of government by whatever means they deem
expedient, and forcing universal adult male suffrage on the state without regard
to elector competence.
And many Citizens today complain that the Trading
with the Enemy Act of 1917 and War Powers Act of 1933have imposed perpetual
martial law on the people of the rebel states of the Civil War era, and that
such law stands in force today.
According to this
site, Gene Schroder explained the War Powers Act this way:
“Once the government gains ‘emergency’ power, it is reluctant to relinquish
that power. During the Wars of 1812, 1847, 1861, 1917 and 941, the ‘emergency
war powers’ were gradually and insidiously defined. However, on March 9, 1933,
our government declared a National Emergency and, based on the public’s
ignorance and the complacency, took permanent control of the people. Since March
9, 1933, the United States has remained in a continuous state of declared
National Emergency. Since that time, the American people have lost their rights
to government, and these rights have not been restored. The American government
now claims the power of right, and rules the people by Statute – not the
Constitution – in all cases. Under emergency powers, government can do whatever
it deems ‘necessary’. The courts change from protectors of the people’s
unalienable Rights to enforcers of the government’s statutes.
"However,
if the ‘national emergency’ were ended, government abuse and injustice would
also end. When the American people demand that congress end the ‘national
emergency’ they will restore the U.S. Constitution, and regain their rights,
freedom and property…”
And Al Adask wrote that the Trading
with the Enemy Act of 1917, which allowed Government to tax foreigners to
prevent them from buying American war materiel, has remained in force through
the actions of each successive American President. The presidents keep
creating/declaring national emergencies (e.g., Korean War , VietNam War, Balkans
War, Iraq War, Afghanistan War, War on Drugs, to justify it. Adask
wrote:
“The ‘President’s’ role in ending the national emergency is crucial
because, although congressional approval was required to initially grant the
emergency powers to the executive, once these those virtually absolute powers
were granted, no one but the almighty President Dictator himself could return
them. In other words, if every representative and senator in congress voted
unanimously to end the national emergency, the vote would carry as much weight
as if they had voted to end aging, gravity and death. Just as the people in the
Bible once insisted on having a King (and came to regret it), the 1933 congress
also created an American ‘King’. And so long as that ‘King’ rules, we shall
regret it because we are all relegated to status somewhat like a POW… End the
national emergency and almost every ‘alphabet-agency’ will simply disappear
since they have no constitutional foundation. OSHA, FDA, FCC, CIA, FBI, FTC,
NASA, TVA and even the IRS will be gone…”
I suppose I don't
need to bring up the Patriot Act which allows arrests, incarcerations, and
suspension of Habeas Corpus rights for "domestic terrorism" at the whim of the
Executive Branch employees like FBI agents, without a court order.
These
various acts limiting the rights of people and giving unconscionable power to
government operatives, in concert with breaches of the 2nd Amendment right to
keep and bear arms, and numerous court orders suppressing the right to publish
and sell opinions on taxation powers and rights, all operate as a civil
substitute for martial law. And, the FBI, federal Marshals, Internal Revenue
Criminal Investigation Division, Department of Homeland Security, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Drug Enforcement Agency, etc provide the muscle and
arms (including drones) to back that power. What need does America have for the
military to suppress insurrection/rebellion when civil authority has such
muscle?
The Florida Constitution on Martial Law and
Rights
The process of presenting or indicting
does not appear obvious from the opinion, but the Florida Constitution does. It
subordinates the military to civilian power. Thus, while the Legislature could
empower only military personnel to make arrests, civilian authority also make
them. But we know from history that powerful military rulers often ignore
civilian authority and do as they please, killing or imprisoning whomever they
consider a threat to their power and organization.
That's just one
problem with "spy in the sky" drones. We the people haven't a clue who owns
that drone. Do we-the-people of the nation or a state have the right to shoot
down a drone as an enemy aircraft, even if the US has declared no war against
anyone including US rebels? Eventually the populace might develop inexpensive
drone technology and deploy it just for the purpose of killing spy drones that
fly too high for the naked eye to see them. Do Citizens have the right to
destroy the means by which government and non-government entities violate their
privacy rights? Must the citizens bring that issue to a court of the very
government doing the spying?
And what if the Exexutive Branch (military
or otherwise) surreptitiously subsumes civilian authority including sheriffs,
police, and judicial courts (WITHOUT informing the people generally and
publicly)? In such a situation, normal sheriffs and police patrol the
countryside and cityscape, apparently normal judges and clerks rule the courts,
but they follow dictates of rulers hidden from the people. Does the
non-declaration of war or martial law prohibit assertion of martial law
according to the Law of Nations?
My point: many citizens argue that for
all practical purposes precisely that has happened when they cannot get just
rulings, as in income tax crime prosecutions, evidenced by better than 95% DOJ
successes. That makes it seem that the judges collude with US Attorneys to let
the IRS win those cases. It also indicates broad disagreement with the meaning
or constitutionality of the tax code, not mere flouting of the law by the
citizenry. Such an enormous margin of victory for the DOJ signifies
collusion/corruption in the courts, or a condition of martial law where the
courts operate by loyalty to some rules or code other than the plain words of
the Constitution.
Let me drive this point home with some excerpts from
the Florida Constitution regarding the loyalty oath, treason, privacy, courts,
and martial law:
Article I
SECTION 7. Military power.—The military power shall be subordinate to
the civil.
SECTION
15. Prosecution for crime; offenses committed by children.—
(a) No person shall be tried for capital crime without
presentment or indictment by a grand jury, or for other felony without such
presentment or indictment or an information under oath filed by the prosecuting
officer of the court, except persons on active duty in the militia when tried by
courts martial.
(b) When authorized
by law, a child as therein defined may be charged with a violation of law as an
act of delinquency instead of crime and tried without a jury or other
requirements applicable to criminal cases. Any child so charged shall, upon
demand made as provided by law before a trial in a juvenile proceeding, be tried
in an appropriate court as an adult. A child found delinquent shall be
disciplined as provided by law.
SECTION
16. Rights of accused and of victims.—
(a) In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall, upon demand, be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and shall be furnished a
copy of the charges, and shall have the right to have compulsory process for
witnesses, to confront at trial adverse witnesses, to be heard in person, by
counsel or both, and to have a speedy and public trial by impartial jury in the
county where the crime was committed. If the county is not known, the
indictment or information may charge venue in two or more counties conjunctively
and proof that the crime was committed in that area shall be sufficient; but
before pleading the accused may elect in which of those counties the trial will
take place. Venue for prosecution of crimes committed beyond the boundaries of
the state shall be fixed by law.
(b) Victims of
crime or their lawful representatives, including the next of kin of homicide
victims, are entitled to the right to be informed, to be present, and to be
heard when relevant, at all crucial stages of criminal proceedings, to the
extent that these rights do not interfere with the constitutional rights of the
accused.
SECTION 18. Administrative penalties.—No administrative agency, except the
Department of Military Affairs in an appropriately convened
court-martial action as provided by law, shall impose a sentence of
imprisonment, nor shall it impose any other penalty except as provided
by law.
SECTION 20. Treason.—Treason against the state shall consist only
in levying war against it, adhering to its enemies, or giving them aid and
comfort, and no person shall be convicted of treason except on the
testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or on confession in open
court.
SECTION 21. Access to
courts.—The courts shall be open to every person for redress of any
injury, and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or
delay.
SECTION 23. Right of privacy.—Every
natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental
intrusion into the person’s private life except as otherwise provided
herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public’s
right of access to public records and meetings as provided by
law.
Article II
SECTION
5. Public officers.—
(a) No person holding any
office of emolument under any foreign government, or civil office of emolument
under the United States or any other state, shall hold any office of honor or of
emolument under the government of this state. No person shall hold at the same
time more than one office under the government of the state and the counties and
municipalities therein, except that a notary public or military officer may hold
another office, and any officer may be a member of a constitution revision
commission, taxation and budget reform commission, constitutional convention, or
statutory body having only advisory powers.
(b) Each state and county officer, before entering upon the duties of the
office, shall give bond as required by law, and shall swear or
affirm:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm)
that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and
Government of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am
duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the state; and that I
will well and faithfully perform the duties of (title of office) on which I
am now about to enter. So help me God.”,
and thereafter shall devote personal attention to the duties of the office, and
continue in office until a successor qualifies.
(c) The powers, duties, compensation and method of payment of state and county
officers shall be fixed by law.
SECTION 6. Enemy attack.—In
periods of emergency resulting from enemy attack the legislature shall have
power to provide for prompt and temporary succession to the powers and duties of
all public offices the incumbents of which may become unavailable to execute the
functions of their offices, and to adopt such other measures as may be necessary
and appropriate to insure the continuity of governmental operations during the
emergency. In exercising these powers, the legislature may depart from
other requirements of this constitution, but only to the extent necessary to
meet the emergency.
Article V
SECTION
1. Courts.—The judicial power shall be vested in a supreme court,
district courts of appeal, circuit courts and county courts. No other courts may
be established by the state, any political subdivision or any municipality. The
legislature shall, by general law, divide the state into appellate court
districts and judicial circuits following county lines. Commissions established
by law, or administrative officers or bodies may be granted quasi-judicial power
in matters connected with the functions of their offices. The legislature may
establish by general law a civil traffic hearing officer system for the purpose
of hearing civil traffic infractions. The legislature may, by
general law, authorize a military court-martial to be conducted by military
judges of the Florida National Guard, with direct appeal of a decision to the
District Court of Appeal, First
District.
*****************end of excerpts
*******************
You might note from the above bold language some
alarming realities.
- In a time of military emergency/war Congress can suspend the operation of
the Constitution and its protections/guarantees. In other words, the
constitution contains the seeds of its own meaninglessness and destruction.
- All public officers swear "loyalty" (to support, protect, and defend) the
constitutions AND GOVERNMENT. That's like swearing loyalty to the enemy
(government) when small or large oligarchies of Government Perpetrators of
crimes (GERPS) have subsumed the normal, constitutional function of government
into their private, personal super-government cliques.
- Even the provision defining treason uses terminology that makes it seem that
the authors of the Constitution never considered the fact that some one
oligarchy or many oligarchies might wrest lawful authority and operate certain
government functions according to their whim rather than law or ideals of good
government. Doesn't taking control by stealth or flouting of constitutional
obligations constitute a form of war or treason?
- The Constitutions should never let public officers swear loyalty to "the
Government" for that amounts to swearing loyalty to the clique or individuals
running government.... In other words, the "good old boys network."
- And note that neither the Constitutions nor the laws of the US or the STATE
punish the violation of one's loyalty oath. What good is an oath of loyalty to
support the constitution if no penalty applies to violations of the oath? Did
the authors intend the "God" punish the Gerp malefactors in the Hereafter?
A Citizen's Marching Orders
I say all of the points above mean one thing: citizens must:
- Become educated to understand the ideals of
good government and Citizen responsibility - know the Constitution's
guarantees (not grants) of rights and limits on government
authority.
- Learn and obey the ideals of Citizen
Responsibility to keep an eye out for injustice, learn the law and court
procedure, become disposing to use the law to resolve inequities/illegalities,
and to abide by constitutional laws.
- Become politically active to ensure the
election and appointment of intelligent, educated people who will conform
government to those ideals.
- Associate with friends and neighbors to make
local communities strong, organized, armed and trained, and politically active,
as individuals and as communities.
- Stand firm as Citizens in demanding that
Government respect the Rights of the People.
- Remain forever, rigorously vigilant to discover
rogues and gerps in government and excise their behavior or them by normal
political and legal means if possible, practical, and not dangerous; and
otherwise excise them by any expedient means.
In the final analysis, I
want to say that if it looks, walks, quacks, and squirts like a duck, it IS a
duck. Clever people in Government do what they can to impose order and
discipline on a people without appearing to do so - in other words, without
calling in the Military or National Guard. Why? Because war costs so dearly in
terms of life, time, money, lost productivity, other lost opportunity, and
possible loss of power. It generally takes a lot of abuse by government to rile
a populace into open, widespread revolt.
Government operatives do
their best to label as insane, rabid criminals any and all who rebel against
authority, even abusive, unconstitutional authority. That alone functions as a
kind of "martial law" in its effect of suppressing general rebellion. And make
no mistake - it can have every bit as unconstitutional, egregious, and wrong a
nature as does unjust martial law by a corrupt and criminal government
enterprise just trying to preserve its power and save the skins of its
oligarchs. Even a child would rightly question the possibility of obtaining
reliable justice from courts that form part of the very fabric of government
that abuses people under color of law. Congress allocates half a billion
dollars a year to pay secret cash awards to government employees who "do a good
job." Only a fool would believe that never includes judges, juries, and
prosecutors who work to convict and imprison Citizens wrongly.
The nuance
of difference between a corrupt system of prosecutors / courts and
corrupt/abusive military authority matters not a whit to the targets of the
abuse. To the the victims, the power brokers have cut both classes of abusers
from the whole cloth of corruption to make a garment of tyranny. And that
justifies any form and means of rebellion the victims may
choose...
Provided, of course, the victims have not brewed their own
witch's stew of "bubble bubble toil and trouble." They can do that by
embracing and perpetuating patriot myths that make people want to rebel just for
the hell of it. Or just so they can get out of engaging in gainful employment,
paying taxes, mortgages, and credit card debts, becoming properly licensed under
the law, or otherwise obeying practical and constitutional laws.
This
point shows why I have articulated the Citizen's Marching Orders above. They
guide the Citizen in playing the proper role in an ordered, honest society. And
that requires that Citizens heed their own duties to learn, use, and obey the
law BEFORE complaining much about Government.
Have you done that? If
not, get busy. That job belongs to you and everyone else who would hold
Government accountable for wrongdoing. DO it. Care for the telephone pole in
your own eye before breaking your arm to point out the fleck of dust in your
Government's eye.
Bob Hurt
