Rick Stanley RATIONALE FOR LETHAL FORCE AGAINST GOVERNMENT AGENTS WHO USURP POWER
- From: "Cole Firearms Inc." <colefirearms11@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 01:29:35 GMT
Rick Stanley
Constitutional Activist
E-mail: rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
We the People Scoop 05/18/06
========================================================================
WE THE PEOPLE SCOOP - TO EXPOSE!
** Visit the website: http://www.stanley2002.org
** OR Our NEW Offshore Site at http://www.wtpconstitutionalactivism.org
** Like the Scoop? Forward it to everyone you know!
========================================================================
OPINION RELEASE: RATIONALE FOR LETHAL FORCE AGAINST GOVERNMENT AGENTS WHO USURP POWER
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Mancus" <pmancus@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RATIONALE FOR LETHAL FORCE AGAINST GOVERNMENT AGENTS WHO USURP
> POWER
>
>
> Dear All:
>
> I have read hundreds of U.S. Supreme Court decisions. As a
> generalization,
> with few exceptions, the ones that are closer to 1776 are, at least to me,
> more
> persuasive, and, for the most part, they tend to more consistently uphold
> individual liberty against government usurpations of power than the ones
> farther
> removed from 1776, and, the farther one is from 1776, the worse it gets,
> generally, for individual rights.
>
> The quotation below is from a 1884 U.S. Supreme Court decision. I
> submit
> this court got it right.
>
> If you A) Know the history of the Federalist v. Anti-Federalist
> debates, B)
> the Preamble to the U.S. Bill of Rights, C) the true historical, cultural,
> and
> legal meaning of "the Militia" from long before and long after 1776, D)
> the
> exact wording of the Second Amendment, E) the accepted Rules of
> Constitutional
> Construction, and F) if you remain intellectually honest and faithful to
> the
> exact text of the Second Amendment, I submit to you that, without
> exception,
> every intellectually honest, reasonably constituted person, is forced to
> interpret and apply the Second Amendment to mean that 1) there is indeed
> an
> absolute, unqualified, individual right to arms guaranteed by that
> amendment
> which is 2) 100% free from any governmental prior restraint and that,
> literally,
> government has no power, none whatsoever, to infringe against that right
> and all
> such prior restraints are unconstitutional, and 3) therefore, any govt
> official
> [law maker, police chief, cop, member of the U.S. Armed Forces, or judge,
> etc.]
> who opines differently, or, who ever tries to defang you pursuant to any
> "legal"
> pretext for so doing, is a Domestic Enemy of the United States
> Constitution, a
> Traitor, an Enabler in the Further Destruction of the Real Constitutional
> Rule
> of Law, and your Enemy, regardless of his or her intentions, orientation,
> and/or
> the uniform he or she might wear.
>
> You are each well advised to read the U.S. Supreme Court passage below.
> It
> should be noted that it is unlikely that a 2006 U.S. Supreme Court
> decision
> would reflect what is stated below. Instead, a 2006 U.S. Supreme Court
> decision
> would probably be heavily biased in favor of statism, justifying more
> government
> usurpations of power to consolidate more power in favor of government at
> the
> expense of eroding more individual liberty.
>
> If you ever wanted a moral and/or a legal rationale to use lethal force
> to
> enforce your rights against government agents who usurp power when they
> refuse
> to take your rights seriously, the quotation below is a good foundation
> for that
> rationale, albeit not a complete one or a totally satisfactory one.
>
> "The Constitution of the United States was ordained, it is true, by
> descendants
> of Englishman, who inherited the traditions of English law and history; .
> . . ¶
> The concessions of Magna Carta were wrung from the King as guaranties
> against
> the oppression and usurpations of his prerogative. . . . ¶ In this country
> written constitutions were deemed essential to protect the rights and
> liberties
> of the people against the encroachments of power delegated to their
> governments,
> and the provisions of Magna Carta were incorporated into Bills of Rights.
> They
> were limitations upon all the powers of government, legislative as well as
> executive and judicial . . . . ¶ Applied in England only as guards against
> executive usurpation and tyranny, here they have become bulwarks also
> against
> arbitrary legislation; but, in that application, as it would be
> incongruous to
> measure and restrict them by the ancient customary English law, they must
> be
> held to guarantee not particular forms of procedure, but the very
> substance of
> individual rights to life, liberty, and property. . . . ¶ Due process of
> law is
> process according to the law of the land. . . . ¶ According to a
> recognized
> canon of interpretation, especially applicable to formal and solemn
> instruments
> of constitutional law, we are forbidden to assume, without clear reason to
> the
> contrary, that any part of this most important amendment is superfluous. .
> . . ¶
> Due process of law . . . refers to that law of the land which derives its
> authority from the legislative powers conferred upon Congress by the
> Constitution of the United States, exercised within the limits therein
> prescribed, . . . . ¶ It is not every act, legislative in form, that is
> law. Law
> is something more than the mere will exerted as an act of power. . . .
> Arbitrary
> power, enforcing its edicts to the injury of the persons and property of
> its
> subjects, is not law, whether manifested as the decree of the monarch or
> of an
> impersonal multitude. And the limitations imposed by our constitutional
> law upon
> the action of the governments, both State and national, are essential to
> the
> preservation of public and private rights, notwithstanding the
> representative
> character of our political institutions. The enforcement of these
> limitations by
> judicial process is the device of self-governing communities to protect
> the
> rights of individuals and minorities, as well against the power of
> numbers, as
> against the violence of public agents transcending the limits of lawful
> authority, even when acting in the name and wielding the force of
> government. .
> . . ¶ 'It must be conceded that there are such rights in every free
> government
> beyond the control of the State. A government which recognized no such
> rights,
> which held the lives, the liberty, and the property of its citizens
> subject at
> all times to the absolute disposition and unlimited control of even the
> most
> democratic depository of power, is after all but a despotism. It is true
> it is a
> despotism of the many, of the majority, if you choose to call it so, but
> it is
> nevertheless a despotism. . . . " [Emphasis added.] Hurtado v. People of
> California (1884) 110 U.S. 516, 530-537
>
> Since so many Legislators, Presidents, Cops, Mayors, Governors, City
> Councilmembers, Board of Supervisors, and Judges, etc., no longer take the
> rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights seriously, and have allowed many
> of
> them, selectively, to be seriously UNDERENFORCED, the Bill is no longer "a
> bulwark" against anything, and we live under a despotism. And we might as
> well
> give our Constitution to Iraq because we do not use it or follow it, and
> they
> need one.
>
> "Here," in 2006, the Bill of Rights, and the entire Constitution, is
> viewed
> by too many in our governments, only as an obstacle to be defeated, to be
> outflanked, to be interpreted away, to be ignored, to be loathed, to be
> dismissed as being out of date, and as threat to our way of life, as
> determined
> by THEM.
>
> If you refuse to stand up, and if George refuses to stand up, who will
> breathe life into these rights and make they come back to life? And
> vibrate? And
> shine? And be real, again?
>
> Ultimately, when government actors refuse to reform themselves and
> refuse to
> take these rights seriously, YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS. You have only the rights
> you
> are willing and able to kill for to enforce.
>
> The pending Butcher's Bill for a reinvigorated Liberty will be huge.
>
> I challenge any police chief or lawmaker or opinion elite to read this
> quote
> and the above referenced materials and try to prove me wrong.
>
> -- Peter J. Mancus
======================================================================
Disclaimer: Information shared in the Stanley Scoop is not necessarily
the opinion of the editor or staff. It is shared for information
purposes only and it is recommended that you come to your own conclusions.
======================================================================
Live Free or Die! Liberty in our Lifetime!
We the People Scoop
http://www.stanley2002.org
http://www.wtpconstitutionalactivism.org
Reply to: rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Listen to: Standing Up for America Radio Show with Rick Stanley
Every Sunday, 6pm MST for 1 hour
On Truth Radio Network
to listen, click here: http://www.truthradio.com
Sponsored by:
Stanley Fasteners and Shop Supply http://www.stanleyfasteners.com
Also check out The Revolutionary Coalition!
This group is working to unite all third parties that defend the
constitution, independents, and non-voters (making up 60% of
Americans) into one SUPER THIRD PARTY!
On Yahoo groups at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheRevolutionaryCoalition
This group has a single line platform: "To defend our (Natural)
God-given, unalienable, Constitutionally protected and guaranteed
rights."
Subscribe by sending email to:
therevolutionarycoalition-subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe to the We the People Constitutional Activism Scoop,
send a message to subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
If you wish to unsubscribe from We the People Constitutional Activism Scoop,
send a message to unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
All other changes for personal attention, such as changing your email address, send to
webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Be aware that you may be receiving mail forwarded from a group,
in which case you may have to visit http://groups.yahoo.com to unsubscribe.
Please also note that mail sent to our "reply to:" address,
newsletter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is usually ignored....
.
- Prev by Date: Re: NRA Wants Gun Pledge From Police, Mayors
- Next by Date: John Lott If McCain’s going to claim he’s a conservative on guns, then he’s got some explaining to do.
- Previous by thread: Quit lying to the American people
- Next by thread: John Lott If McCain’s going to claim he’s a conservative on guns, then he’s got some explaining to do.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
