When the Government Breaks the Law

“The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!”
~Frederic Bastiat~

Merriam Webster’s Dictionary defines liberty as: the power to do as one pleases. But liberty is not absolute, it is bound the equal rights of those around you. If someone likes your car, can they just come up and take if from you? No, that would be theft. So liberty does have its bounds; and those bounds are defined by the equal rights of others.

Thomas Jefferson defined liberty thusly: Liberty then I would say that, in the whole plenitude of it’s extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will: but rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.

Some will tell you that the purpose of the law is to ensure that justice is served. I don’t necessarily agree with that; I believe the purpose of the law should be to ensure that everyone enjoys the fullest extent of liberty possible. The idea of crime is that there must be a perpetrator and there must be a victim. Who am I harming if I ride down the highway not wearing a seatbelt? Yet I can be issued a citation for doing so, and if I refuse to pay, I can be arrested, and if I resist arrest I can be shot and killed.

That is the premise for an article written by Stuart Hayashi, entitled The Invisible Gun; which, after I read it, inspired me to sit down and write this. In his article, Hayashi states, “It should be understood that, in order to prevent democracy from becoming a tyranny over minorities, individual rights must supersede all democratic voting and all regulations. Rights must come first. Laws should come second, and only to protect those rights; nothing more.”

Have you ever heard of victimless crimes? A victimless crime is when someone commits an offense which is punishable by law, but when there is no victim other than the laws passed by society. Riding a motorcycle without a helmet is one such law, as is the recreational use of marijuana. Whose rights are violated if someone climbs on their Harley and rides down the road without wearing a helmet? Yet they can be cited for doing so, and if the refuse to pay, arrested, and if they resist arrest, killed…all because they chose not to wear a motorcycle helmet.

I think that is exactly what Jefferson was getting at when he said that law is often but the tyrants will. Yet how many laws are there in which there is no clear victim, yet we can be fined or imprisoned for if we violate?

Yet our government was established when a written Constitution was put into effect by the consent of the people. This Constitution is not just a handbook, it is A LAW!!! If government has all these bureaucracies and agencies to enforce the laws they enact, where is our ability to enforce the Supreme Law of the Land upon those we elect? After all, a police officer may arrest any of us while we are in the act of committing a crime, correct?

Well why can’t we just march into Congress as they are voting upon a bill which is unconstitutional, and arrest every single one of them who votes YES on that bill? And what if they resisted our attempts to arrest them, what then? Would we then be permitted to use the same deadly force that their law enforcement officers are authorized to use against us?

This was Patrick Henry’s biggest fear about the government proposed by the Constitution, that there was no responsibility; no means of punishing those within it should they become tyrannical or oppressive. In his 7 June 1788 speech to the Virginia Ratifying Assembly, Henry stated, “Where is the responsibility — that leading principle in the British government? In that government a punishment, certain and inevitable, is provided: But in this, there is no real actual punishment for the grossest maladministration. They may go without punishment, though they commit the most outrageous violation on our immunities. That paper may tell me they will be punished. I ask, by what law? They must make the law — for there is no existing law to do it. What — will they make a law to punish themselves? This, Sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility — and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves.”

In 1785 a bill was introduced in Virginia which would have allowed Virginians to select which religious denomination their taxes would go towards. Yes, you read that right; in 1785 Virginia a portion of the taxes, or assessment, was to go towards religious instruction. James Madison opposed the bill, and wrote A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments to explain why.

A memorial is a written statement of facts in the form of a petition, and a remonstrance is a protest, objection, or disapproval. Therefore, Madison was protesting the Religious Assessment, and listing his reasons why. It’s interesting to note that Madison wrote this anonymously, not admitting to being its author until 1826.

In his Memorial and Remonstrance, Madison states, “The preservation of a free government requires, not merely that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained, but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great barrier which defends the rights of the people.

The rulers who are guilty of such encroachment exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are tyrants. The people who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them and are slaves.” (MY emphasis)

If we have not given government the authority to legislate upon an issue, then it turns around and does so anyway, making something a crime, then that law is tyrannical; and if we obey it without protest, we are slaves because we refuse to stand up and defend our liberty. It does not matter how well intentioned the law may be, if it is unconstitutional, they cannot enact it without violating the law.

Can you not grasp that simple principle?

You cannot believe how angry I get when I hear people say that they know their rights, then in the same sentence turn around and say they support our government in its attempts to do this or do that to make America safer, better, or whatever justification they provide for the laws they pass. If the authority to enact such laws are not specifically listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, IT DOES NOT EXIST; it is a figment of their imagination, or an unlawful interpretation of imaginary hidden, or implied powers.

But if you do not know the law, then there is no law; because it is YOUR duty to hold your elected representatives accountable for sticking to the specific powers granted them. If you keep voting for the same criminals over and over, such as those who live in California have done with the Wicked Witch of the West; Dianne Feinstein, then they have no one to blame but themselves when laws are enacted which violate their rights.

Even if we could just waltz right in to Congress and handcuff those who violate the Supreme Law of the Land, what lawyer would try them? Lawyers have not been taught true Constitutional, or Common Law for decades now. Instead the law classes they attend prior to taking the bar exam base all their teachings upon Supreme Court rulings which have interpreted the Constitution in so many ways that the limits it imposed upon government are no longer in existence.

You have to remember, the Supreme Court is part of government; it is not an independent and unbiased judiciary whose only concern is justice and the preservation of liberty. If it can, it will always vote to expand its, or government in general’s power beyond that which was intended when the Constitution was first written.

So what lawyer would act as prosecuting attorney, what judge would allow the case in his court?

And now, because the news media has instilled such a fear of guns in the overall mass of the people, they want to take away our last defense against tyrants.

On June 5, 1788 Patrick Henry also warned the Virginia Ratifying Assembly, “The Honorable Gentleman who presides, told us, that to prevent abuses in our Government, we will assemble in Convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. Oh, Sir, we should have fine times indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people. Your arms wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical; no longer democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?”

The law has been perverted, and the people have remained, for the most part, silent because it has been perverted to their benefit, or to make them more comfortable or secure. But what if it began being openly tyrannical and oppressive; what would YOU do then? Who would you turn to for justice?

Our government exists in name only, it’s soul; the reason it was established, long ago passed away; leaving us with but an empty shell of what purposes our government was supposed to serve. It calls those who resist its laws criminals, while they are the true criminals because the majority of the laws they have passed are not within their power to legislate upon. Yet the people do nothing.

As long as the two party system is alive and well, liberty and the Constitution are of no importance when people make their decisions whom to vote for; and that right there is at the root of all our problems.

You can keep flip flopping back and forth between a government controlled by Republicans or Democrats, but until you decide that you want a government that is controlled by the Constitutional limits imposed upon it, and stands for defending your liberty, not a damned thing is going to change.

And you can take that to the bank…

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.