CONSTITUTIONAL REFUTATION OF THE PATRIOTS, ETC.

1. Throughout the Constitution, we see a steady and overt erosion of every form
of sovereignty of the states, using clauses of the sort recognized (by denouncers 
of the European Union, etc.) as for such purpose. These are so many that I will
give you the cites to look up for yourself, rather than quote them at length. Briefly,
they eliminate all border controls; all right to exact tariffs or import duties across
state lines; forbid dealing with nations (also called states then and now) outside the
Union, except through the U.S. federal government; and forbid the coining of money and
the keeping of troops in peacetime. (The militia was housed by the states, but for a
common usage.)

I.e., Article I:
        Section 8, par. 3, 9-15, 18;
        Section 9, par. 5,6;
        Section 10, inclusive, especially par. 3;
      Article IV:
        Section 2, par. 1, 2;
      Article VI,
        par. 2.

This shows that retention of anything much like "sovereignty" by the states was the
last thing on the framers' minds. Their antsy caution about signing, and demand of a Bill
of Rights, shows that they knew they were silgning away most of their "sovereignty."

2. I have already heard someone answer me by citing the 10th Amendment, 

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it
to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Trouble is, there is little of any importance that is not dealt with by the Constitution;
all the key issues of the patriot/militia movement were settled from the start, and
the opening wedges for federal activity at local levels were there.

In other words, the Patriot movement is pretty much condemned by the 10th Amendment;
they deal in precisely those matters that ARE "delegated to the United States by the
Constitution," and those that ARE "prohibited by it to the States."

3. The 14th Amendment has been a tool for correcting some abuses and corruption, using
federal involvement at state and local levels, and has therefore been a major target 
and similar propagandists (incl. racists, etc.) for decades. They call it illegal, 
because all the southern states, and three of the northern states rejected it,
leaving it not ratified by the requisite 2/3 of the then number of states. (The
southern states, at who it was aimed, were ignored, though technically rejoined.)

There are two problems with this view. First, the 14th Amendment is almost irrele-
vant, since its contents are merely a louder restating of things already in the 
Constitution, but ignored by the Southern dominated Supreme Court until then. 
Everything the patriots condemn it for, could be done by the scattered clauses in the
original body of the Constitution.

The real problem these people (or those who hooked them on these arguments) have
with the 14th Amendment, is the intent and use of it to stop racial discrimination, 
segregation, exploitive practices in share cropping that resulted in a retention in 
all but name of slavery, intereference with Black voting, and laws against 
interracial marriage.

(The pre-Civil War whites, especially of the upper classes and slave owners, had
been "race-mixing" all along, the hypocrites. This is the main source of white blood 
in the Afro-American population, except for recent developments. Not all relation-
ships were rape, or coerced or exploitive, but those that were morally legitimate 
were not allowed to get legal legitimacy.)

In general, "principles" and "issues" in law are argued to exploit the moral high
ground and especially when there are conflicting principles, to get your way. Take
a look in any law school, and many law texts. Explicitly that tactical approach is
taught. The whole thing is largely a sham.

But if the 14th were done away with, most of what it has accomplished could be 
supported out of the following:

Art. IV Sec. 2, par. 1. "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the 
privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."

The state's rightists argue that the 14th for the first time applied the Bill of
Rights to the states, telling them how to deal with their own citizens. (So what is
so bad in telling states that they shall not, any more than the federal govet.,
deprive any person of life, liberty opr the pursuit of happiness without due process?)

Even if it were true, what is the point of a Bill of Rights against a distant federal
government you will have little to do with, and no protection against tyranny at 
a state or local level? And it is precisely at this level that the worst scandals
keep surfacing, usually after years and years. E.g., most of the big Clinton scandals 
do NOT date from his presidency, but from his years as governor of Arkansas.
Not that the federal level is inherently more virtuous, but it is more in the 
limelight and therefore more to the career interests of its members to attack
corruption, etc. Federal level hanky panky gets nationwide news attention, sometimes 
appears in the foreign press. What goes on in some backwater does not.

One could also argue "equal access" easier from the wording in Art. IV, Sec. 2, 
par. 1, than from the "equal protection" clause in the 14th Amendment. And do 
not be deceived: That is the real target the original designers of arguments 
against the 14th Amendment want to get rid of. 

Reiterated in the 14th Amendment is the treaty law clause, of Art. VI, par. 2, 

"This constitution,...and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the 
authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land;..."

We will return to this clause again later. The point here is, that acing out the 
14th will not disentangle us from any treaties, or keep them from having state
level and local impact, if so written as to be able to do so.

Another complaint of the anti 14-ers, is that it incl. a clause empowering Congress
to legislate further as necessary to enforce it. This is viewed as another foot in 
the door for federal involvement at the state level.

Unfortunately for them, Art. IV, Sec. 8, par. 18 also
gilves Congress the power

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the
foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government
of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Secondly, the 14th Amendment was aimed at the southern states, who hypocritically claimed
to be rejoined and nonbelligerent, yet were conducting themselves in a manner
consistent with their recent independence. The 14th was to rope them into line, and it is
hardly reasonable that the targets of a law be allowed to decide on the same, when
it is a clear cut case of evil doing. Reconstruction was unleashed, in some cases more
than neccessary, to make the southern states' claim they were rejoined to the Union 
into a reality, which it evidently in southern practice wasn't. 

3. A current problem raised is federal presence in Montana about The Freemen.
Art. IV. Sec. 4 says that the fed. is to guarantee a republican form of government to
each state, which doesn't sound like the sort of government (mobocratic democracy) 
that The Freemen envision for the area, and to protect them against invasion. The Freemen
having seceded, went on an imperialistic rampage, beginning to annex nearby public roads 
and public and private property, not all of it on the basis of their ridiculous liens,
either, I understand. This had the neighbors ready to attack them with guns.

At this point, we have a declared sovereign petty nation, attacking the U.S. in the
form of attack on the nearest state, Montana. On that ground alone, the FBI is perhaps 
inappropriate - it should be the Army.

This clause goes on to say that the state legislature, or if not convenable, the executive
(i.e., the governor) can request federal help against domestic violence. In those days, 
that meant riots and so forth, not family brawls and spousal and family and under-the-
same-roof abuse.

Art. II, Sec. 9, par. 15, gives the Congress power "To provide for calling forth 
the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions."

The Freemen were certainly breaking some laws, and engaging in insurrection (in the
form of secession), and invasion. The President is clearly stated to be the commander-
in-chief of the militia as well as of other forces; and though the militia, a kind of
citizen-soldiery reservist type thing, is maintained by the states, it is under the
command of and at the disposal of the federal government, in the person of 
the President. Private armies are not legally the militia, and any and all able bodied
man could be drummed into a militia if we have one, but the practice of keeping one has been
superseded by keeping a standing army. In any case, this clause is a basis for any kind 
of federal law enforcement necessary.

Standing armies were feared as a drain on funds and a hazard to freedom. Art. V, Sec. 8,
par. 12 limits the term of any appropriation of money for the railsing and support of 
armies to no more than two years, whichis why we can fight over military appropriations
so often. The milita was apparently to be a fallback measure in an emergency when the
army was too scattered or non-existent. Only the Navy is to be provided and maintained,
Sec. 3 wording, a more premanent sounding thing.

That the milita did not represent the states is shown by Art. I, Sec. 2, par. 3,

"No state shall, without the consent of Congress,...keep troops,... in time of peace."

If an armed body conducting military exercizes and studying the use of explosives,
guerilla warfare, and legally or otherwise stockpiling up to date military equipment
or things convertible to such, (aka "militia") doesn't qualify as "troops," I don't
know what does. Obviously the states housed, trained and officered the milita (SINGULAR 
plural phrasing there, note!) of the United States, but it was not a bunch of state vs. 
fed. armies.

The 2nd Amendment refers to the need of a milita for "the secuity of a free State,"
but separate States of the U.S. are not necessarily implied here, because it is often 
forgotten that "state" was a term used for any country or nation, and since "the
people" instead of the "the people and the states" or "the people of the several states," 
or "the states" is referred to, it follows that the "free State" referred to is the
United States, itself a state among the other states of the world.

4. Back to Article VI, par. 2:

"This constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in
pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority
of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every 
state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state
to the contrary notwithstanding."

Lets look closer: "This constitution, and the laws of the United States,...and all 
treaties made,...shall be the supreme law of the land;...anything in the 
constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
Last Modified February 23, 1995

Please send comments or suggestions about this page to: webmaster@advweb.com

This web page created by