Saturday, January 31, 2009

What will history say?

An old axiom states that history is written by the winners. With the epidemic of laws against felons and sex offenders sweeping across our nation, the marginalization and ostracism against those offenders continues to grow.

We are a nation founded in the precepts of freedom, in liberty, and in justice. As a constitutional republic, we are also founded in the ideal that no majority can override the rights of the minority. To modify the Constitution, that document itself mandates a supermajority (three quarters) of all states to ratify an amendment to that constitution.

Yet our legislators, in their zeal to 'protect', listen to those whom they do not represent. They listen to the industries, the special interest groups, and those who would profit from the power that is granted by the people, and write laws in the interest of that protection that voids our liberties, weakens our freedom, and continues to erode our rights.

It is a truth that no law can operate in a vacuum. Each law interacts with all other laws. Each freedom, each right, is affected by each law. A law is a line in the sand, a barrier, a wall. It states 'cross this at your peril, for civilized society has determined this barrier to be needful for its health'. It is for that reason that the sanctions are sanctions writ by society at large, not sanctions written with the victim in mind. The law is, and must be blind to the victim, in spite of all the arguments for opening its eyes to that consideration. When retribution enters into the rule of law, law itself fails.

Like lines in the sand, eventually there comes a place where there is no more room for lines. The edges of those lines becomes harder to discern. Lines are drawn outside of the original boundaries. How long does it take before those lines gain space, and encircle the will of the society which created them?

Certainly, one cannot argue for a world without law. Such a world would be chaos. Law was made to be limited, made to be bound to the will of the society itself, and that law no longer is. Retribution has become the watchword of the day, and the chaos is coming.

The hands of the people are tied. Those that write law have determined (outside of constitutional authority) that the rights enjoyed in the constitution do not necessarily apply to those convicted of a felony. That assumption has expanded since the 1930s, to where it may not apply to those convicted of a misdomeanor, nor to those who are accused.

I listen, carefully to the news, and hear people argue about the nature of crime. I hear people, filled with hatred, say that no person, once committing a crime, should be freed. Their victim will never recover, they argue, so why should the perpetrator?

Let us explore, for just a moment, this argument. By this argument, there are several postulates. The first is that the victim will never recover. The second is that the perpetrator's punishment should be linked to the victim's suffering. Here is where this fails the rule of law. Law states that any punishment should be (must be) discrete (with a well-defined ending), proportionate, as well as consider the conditions of that perpetrator, as part of the balance of justice. If we tie punishment to the recovery of a victim, who determines what recovery is? How is it defined? What are its parameters, and can they even be defined? What happens if, by coercion or choice, the victim decides no punishment is warranted? What happens if, by coercion or choice, the victim manipulates the system?

The writ of law has been clear upon this subject for well over eight centuries. It is the society that determines the punishment, the society that implements it, and the perpetrator that pays in full the judgment of society, and then it is ended.

No rights may be removed, save for the duration of the punishment, and the probation or parole period, should they be released from the imprisonment part of the punishment early. No additional punishment can be levied upon them by society, as well.

What is punishment? Punishment, by definition, is any sanction, any limitation, any restriction placed upon a person outside of his or her free will, by the acts of another in response to an action. It is an imposition by another for the judgment of being guilty of any crime or status.

How then, is removing rights not a punishment? How is it not a sanction, a limitation, a restriction? How is it legal, and a civil regulation?

Lest we forget, civil law under the common law deals only in issues of express or implied contract, and remediation of that wrong under civil law is limited to monetary fines, or restitution of the express contractual terms, or obligations. Civil agreements cannot be imposed upon another, but only met with full, knowing, and consentual agreement. Thus these laws, these regulations, are not civil law. They are, by definition, punishment imposed via criminal law. They attach full criminal penalties, full criminal sanctions outside of the protection of a criminal court, and often without trial.

The Federal government, meanwhile, speaks glowingly of the need to protect... without being granted police powers. The states have soverign immunity for failure to protect, as well as their prosecutors, judges, and defense attorneys for failure to function as their job requires. At this point, the only protection existent lies in the hands of the people, by whatever means necessary within those rules of society.

Denying any part of that society the right to self-protection, at that point, simply creates a new victim class that lacks any protection whatsoever. The current push to restrict felons, misdomeanors, and other criminal activities in their rights, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of religion ought to ignite a greater fear in the minds of Americans....

It should ignite a fear for their own liberties, their own freedoms, their own lives. As lines are drawn more and more into the sand, surrounding the people, soon they, too, will be unable to move without breaking a law.

And they, too, will find themselves without protection, including that protection that was instituted against their own government.

The militia is, and was, every able-bodied citizen subject to call to duty to protect their country. It matters nothing what the past has held. You can be called to serve, as a felon, as a politician, as a barber, as a police officer, to protect our country on the field of open battle. You can be mustered by the governor of your state and placed into service even if you are ninety years of age if you have a unique skill that is required for the protection of your community and state.

Lest we forget, ladies and gentlemen... that protection also extends against the Federal Government, and those governments of the states themselves. Should they cease to serve the interests of the Constitution, and of the people it represents, then they have engaged in tyranny against justice and against law, the greatest treason any man is capable of. Should the law be ground under the heel of government, and placed subservient to it, then that is the definition of a tyrant.

I, for one, would rather our nation be remembered for free people, willing and able to take upon themselves any burden, any task, including that most bitter task of correcting the mistakes of our own government, by remonstrance, by petition, or by rebellion.

That is our duty. Read the federalist papers. As I have said before... all I have stated lives therein, and a well-armed public is required for liberty and prosperity.

The founding fathers specifically stated that all of the protections in the bill of rights were placed already in the constitution, and that anything not specifically stated was specificially denied. This prohibition could only be in one place, article 1, section 9 of the Constitution, and denied equally to the states under article 1, section 10. No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.

I do solemnly swear to uphold and sustain the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same.

This takes precedence over any orders by the President. The president's orders are limited to orders that are constitutional, and authorized under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and regulations. This is an adjunct, it is not 'any of the above' it is 'all of the above.' The constitution itself takes precedence over all, being the foundation of the UCMJ, as well as those very regulations and the power of the office of the executive.

We are not bound to deal with illegal, illegitimate orders written outside of constitutional authority, and any act, writ, legislation, or action taken outside of that constitutional authority is void. No court is bound to try it, no officer is bound to enforce it, for the unconstitutionality dates not from the time when it was stated to be void, but from its inception.

Remember as well, that a power is strictly interpreted, and any doubt between a power and a right must fall to the people's rights, according to the jurisprudence of the founding of the Constitution. That constitution gives no power to restrict the rights, liberties, freedoms, opinions, speech, or association of any person, group of people, or the whole for any reason.

Should we continue down this road, should we continue to basely, and supinely lay upon our backs to accept the dictates of an ever more extreme congress, president, and supreme court, we would be as guilty as they of treason against the rule of law, and when they fell, as they inevitably will, we would be remembered as those who let them maintain their tyranny.

No comments: