And on the site in Lexington, Mass., where the opening shots of the Revolutionary War were fired in 1775, members of Oath Keepers, a newly formed group of law enforcement officers, military men and veterans, "muster" on April 19 to reaffirm their pledge to defend the U.S. Constitution. "We're in perilous times … perhaps far more perilous than in 1775," says the man administering the oath. April 19 is the anniversary not only of the battle of Lexington Green, but also of the 1993 conflagration at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, and the lethal bombing two years later of the Oklahoma City federal building — seminal events in the lore of the extreme right, in particular the antigovernment Patriot movement.

The original militia movement took off in the mid-1990s, with the first large militias appearing in 1994 and growth continuing over the next several years. The movement reflected widespread anger over what was seen as the meddling of a relatively liberal administration in Washington — from gun control to environmental laws to a variety of other federal mandates. But what really ignited the movement was the bloodshed in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and Waco, Texas. In 1992, during a standoff between white supremacist Randy Weaver's family in Idaho and federal agents — a confrontation that began with Weaver's sale of an illegal weapon — Weaver's son and wife were killed, along with a U.S. marshal. The following year, some 80 members of the gun-loving Branch Davidian cult died in a fire that ended a 52-day standoff with federal agents in Texas.

http://www.splcenter.org/index.jsp

The Constitution was written almost by happenstance. Fifty-six highly educated, very religious men with thirty-five different views about government spent near eighteen weeks, six days a week, arguing, each for his own and his state’s interests, defining the necessary components of a central government, proposing methods and procedures, processes and systems, ammendments and resolutions, arguing, agreeing, getting angry, walking out, and after eighteen weeks, it all came together to their amazement. Had they really hammered out a workable form of governence? Had order actually come from the chaos? If so, how? Why?

The Founders were keenly aware of the gravity of what they were there to do, and they were very well familiar with the workings of committees, principles of government, and the philosophies of the great thinkers of old. They were also aware that they would have to live with the results of their work. They were, also, for the first time in the history of mankind, able to actually found a new nation on principles they held dear instead of the dictates of authority not of themselves.

Historically, nations and governments had been based on historic events such as being conquered, the birth or death of rulers, etc. The rights of men had been handed down by those kings and conquerers. America, it was decided, would be founded on principles of higher origin.

The Founders were men of God. Thirty-five of them were Christians of the protestant variety, a few were Catholic, a few were just believers. This collective belief in a higher power, in Nature’s Laws, instilled in them a humility, a sense of humanity and charity that had its own unique influence on their work product. It determined the character of the principles that would form the basis of the new nation.

 On the final day of the convention, the true result of their work was not immediately apparent to most. In fact, there were only two men who, having had the luxury to observe more than participate, realized just what had happened over the past few months, and what the result of it all meant. They were George Washington and Benjamin Franklin. Even Hamilton, and to a lesser degree Madison, didn’t become aware of the full meaning of their work for a day or so after.

With an attitude of equality among them, and a mutual respect for each man’s intelligence and character, and, even more relevant, the dedication to the sovereignty of the individual, the wishes and needs of each delegate, and their constituents, had been recognized and provided for and a blueprint for a central government both national and federal in its style, had emerged. Madison, having read the final embossed document, is said to have expressed sincere astonishment that the best of both nationalist and federalist precepts had been melded into a new and unique experiment of self governence. He was both proud and confident in the work of the convention.

The Constitution was sent to the state legislatures to be debated and ratified. There was much consternation, though, among the citizenry over the Constitution, as it was seen by the people to create an all powerful, sovereign national government that would be overlord to the states, and it was feared that it would be oppressive. Through a series of articles titled the Federalist, Madison, Hamilton, and John Jay, writing under the pen name Publius, explained in detail the intricate weaving of the Constitution’s structure, its fundamental principles, its limits on the new union, and the effect it would have on the lives of the people.

The people saw that the Founders believed the individual to be the very basic element of society, and had founded the nation on that premise, that government is based on the consent of the governed, the people.

Because of their dedication to higher principles, the sovereignty of the individual, they had agreed to adhere, in their deliberations, to what are now known as the First Principles. They are…

These First Principles were the lessons taught by the Federalist Papers. As a result, the people came to see the Constitution as not only creating the central government they needed, but even more as the guarantee that their freedom would be supreme, that they could live free from the fear of tyranny, under the law of the Constitution.

For the first time in history, a population took to their bosom the law of the land, putting their faith in the Constitution as "their Constitution." That sense of being protected and free from domination has prevailed through the two centuries since its creation.

The Constitution, in the hearts of Americans, holds almost equal value with the ten commandments, the promise of the grace of God, and their own sense of self-worth. As long as it is the law of the land, no matter how far from its meaning the government strays, the dedicated action of a single patriot to enforce its authority is all that is required for the people to prevail over those deviating from its mandate.

It is, quite literally, a document of the people, by the people, and for the people.

God Blessed America. May he forever continue that blessing.

Glenn Flowers

POSTSCRIPT: The two words, liberty and freedom, are generally thought to be synonomous, and, for the most part, that is not considered to be wrong. But, the Founders had a definite and different meaning of each. Freedom is seen as being a generic, all encompassing notion of unrestricted choice. Animals, as well as man, enjoys freedom and it is a fundamental character trait in all sentient life forms. Liberty, on the other hand, is uniquely human. Liberty implies a self-imposed restraint on freedom, such as is commonly considered wise and prudent. A self-governing, personally responsible freedom that only man can know. It is, to most, a higher, more enlightened manifestation of freedom.

Liberty, or death. No difficult choice there.

During the Federal Convention of 1787, the Founders argued over every conceivable aspect of the document they were creating. Some, being from England, argued against a single person as the Chief Executive. Others, from the smaller states, insisted on enumerated, clearly defined and limited powers for the central government. The great majority, though, had no objection to what has become known as the "seperation of power". In fact, the concept had been written into the Constitution in a haphazard manner, but was added wherever it was missing and in a more bold and intentional way before the document was signed. Indeed, the seperation of powers of the three branches of government had been the very framework upon which the founders acted, albeit in an eerie and unconcious way.

The seperation of powers, these words are not in the Constitution, was the method used by the founders in the attempt to prevent our elected officials from creating a tyrranical, elitist despotism in government. Madison defined tyranny as all powers, legislative, executive, and judicial, being in the hands of one group or person. The seperation of powers was to prevent that from happening.

Not only were the powers of the branches strictly defined but auxilliary checks were given to each branch that would limit the autonomy of the branches. For example, the executive was given the right to appoint his cabinet members, diplomats and ambassadors, and justices to the Supreme Court. But all of these appointments were to be subject to the approval and advice of the Senate. Congress was given the huge power of writing all of the nation’s laws, subject to the veto power of the executive and the ratification by the Senate. Congress, by a two-thirds vote, could override the president’s veto and pass the law. The founders wisely did everything they could to limit the possibility of one person or branch becoming all powerful.

It was this seperation of power that overcame many popular objections to the Constitution during the ratification by the states. It was also one of the main reasons the people have come to believe that the Constitution is their document, their insurance of their rights being protected.

Today, the seperation of powers still operates to some degree, but the seeming ignorance of the Constitution, the almost dictatorial attitude of Congress, especially its leaders, and their ability to get away with more and more criminal activities are all due to the changes made by the courts and the laws passed by Congress in the way in which the seperation of powers is perceived. The fact that the Constitution does not contain an expressed injuction to preserve the boundaries of the three branches is impetus for those bent on consolidating power to themselves.

The result of this curruption of the seperation of powers is what we see happening in our government, especially in Congress, today. Vaguely written, ill defined legislation leaves the details to the bureaucracy created by the bill. Bills redefining the powers of the judiciary and executive more often than not, are commonly passed. The result is Congress has become the de-facto regulator of all things executive, and the judiciary has become the law makers. This is most obvious in the consideration of abortion, pornography, school prayer, the death penalty, and immigration law and their enforcement.

This maldistribution of power received its biggest boost with the election of Woodrow Wilson as president in 1912. Since then, a faction loosely called the "Administrationists", has pushed further and further the Constitution’s seperation of power doctrine toward the brink of destruction. In essence, they have been unopposed in their work.

Wilson, an academic in all that that infers, believed the seperation of powers was a deadlock to government efficiency. He and his followers were of the belief that the Constitution should be a living document as history had shown how much time had changed man’s ideologies about himself, and all other aspects of his world. They saw the Constitution as being a religious like set of commandments that society had outgrown with the advances in understanding and man’s ability to reason rather than simply observing. He and his followers often stated the following about the Constitution, "The more open-eyed we become as a nation to its defects the better." They believed that man received his rights to life, liberty, etc., not from God or nature’s laws, but from those in power. Yet he espoused the theory that government was not a written set of mandates, but was a living, breathing entity susceptible to outgrowing certain premises.

In Wilson’s view of government, only the consolidation of powers under one branch would provide the most efficient government. He believed that the only seperation should be between the politics and the administration of government. Therefore, he held that two branches should comprise government, the executive and the administrative. The executive would be the only elected position and would be the "people’s delegate" in government. It would be the President’s sole responsibility to sell the policies of the administration to the people, and to convey the wishes of the people to the administration. This executive would, seemingly, be perpetually in campaign mode, selling the policies to the people, forming interest groups that could convince others of the benefits of the policies. A cheerleader, the executive would have no real administrative duties, but would be essential if civil disruption were to be avoided.

The administration’s major responsibility was to foretell the future and set in motion policies that would be effective in bringing the nation into that future. There would be no laws except those conferring the power to legislate upon the administration, and as few as necessary to regulate society. The everyday administration of the activities of the people would be per diem, or on an as needed basis and would be revisable, also as needed, or, as they saw fit.

To Wilson and the Administrationists, the future of the nation was to be decided according to what they saw as historically becoming the future, and not having anything to do with the rational, Constitutional standards addressing the nature of human beings. The duty of government, in their eyes, was to be attuned to the time and spirit of the future and to guide the nation where those events showed it to be headed. No thought was given, in fact it was specifically ommitted, that the duties should ever provide for common security or to secure the inalienable rights of men. Such idealistic thought was, to their way of thinking, responsible for selfishness in man, poverty, war, and all injustices so prolific in the world. Only a trained class of elitists, scientifically determined as non-partisan could bring about the perfection the Constitution had failed to achieve.

We, when analyizing the properties of one form of government as opposed to some other, are more apt to choose that form which elevates the common person, defining and insuring the retention of human rights as are the nature of all persons ever born, than a form which is impersonal, abstract, and, in anyway authoritarian. Indeed, those very qualities of humane governence, drafted by and for the People of the nation, are the reasons why the people of these United States have, for so many years, seen the Constitution as their own insurance policy against tyranny and the loss of their freedom. Only by the corruption and ignorance of the principles inherent in the Constitution have evil men, bent on tyranny and a greedy consolidation of power, made the few inroads they have to their purposes. The Constitution, as written, is still very much appropriate and timely for the purpose for which it was created.

The fact that the Constitution embraces the idea that there is a higher power than man is what makes it so personally acceptible to men of decent character. The robotic, un-godly processes of Administrationism, Socialism, Communism, Fascism, etc., and the policies resultant therein, are the very reasons they are soundly rejected and despised by those same decent humans.

Following the advice of a trusted, fellow blogger, I have decided, for at least the near future, to concentrate my critique of the present members of the federal government to the actual stupidity and miscalculations, and consequences of their decisions, and, for at least the near future, forgo any mention of what I believe to be their underlying motives. I do this in an attempt to, possibly, convince those who would otherwise brand or have already branded we Conservatives as conspiracy nutts for offering outrageous motivational theories, that regardless of motivation the outcome is disastrous. Having my best friend, a former devout Conservative and war veteran, tell me he believes none of what I proved to him, I must admit there are those who voted for this inept manchild candidate who won’t ever admit that they could have and should have known what Obama was beforehand. It is just too demeaning.

So, BLOGGERS! Do not attempt this at home, this was performed by an experienced blogger with nothing left to fear!

This new methodology will take the style of a new, separate blog named,

a standard line by Sgt. Joe Friday of original DRAGNET fame (for members of the X and Me generations and those in Rio Linda, CA).

Glenn Flowers

PS: I have no dreams of actually changing the minds of any hardcore, leftist Deficrats. I am not insane nor do I have illusions of grandeur. Well, not serious ones, anyway.

Those delegates who comprised the convention held in 1787, met for the purpose of revising and ammending their confederation’s constitution to make it possible for that confederation to succeed in the tasks that it had been created to perform. No authority to collect taxes, enforce laws of the union, regulate the actions between states, all rendered that confederation impotent leaving the people vulnerable to those perils the union intended had been created to avoid.

The Federal Convention of 1787 was called with great expectations. But even before the first meeting of that convention problems arose that would portend the mood of the next three months. Having been scheduled to convene on May 14, there were only five states whose delegates had arrived by that date. Not being a majority number, they were forced to await the arrival of more delegates. It was not until the 25^th that enough of the delegates to constitute a majority of states were present. This, also, had been a major factor in the decision to hold the convention in the first place, the lack of participation in the business of the confederation had made the acts of doing its work impossible most of the time.

Once convened, the problems continued. The failure of some delegates to conduct the business of the convention in accordance with the established protocols caused delays and excited emotions serving to build animosities between the delegates. Any hope for a solution resulting from common need, unity in purpose, national pride, or sense of duty was dashed. Instead, dissension, paranoia, self interests, and jealousy all plotted to divide the convention against itself and send the delegates home with no solution to their needs.

Having rid themselves of a destructive and tyranical king, the states of America had a huge pride in their independence and self reliance. That all of them had instituted state legislatures and constitutions were testimony to that insistance on self determination. That need for freedom from excessive intervention on their lives was carried into the convention where it was met with an opposing philosophy on what was required in a central or national union. There were present men who were educated and experienced in the means of government who held the belief that no two authoritative entities could suffer the existence of the other. In their minds it was not the way governments were known to operate effectively. The main authority, they contended, had to be sovereign and its powers absolute. Any lesser bodies must exist only for those small and insignificant purposes to which the main body had no compunction to address. Mr. Randolph, Alexander Hamilton, and Mr. Mason were among these.

Over the life of the convention proposals for ammendments to the confederation’s constitution, and for replacing that with a new more effective construct were many and varied. A system of, by, and for the people was not even imagined at first.

Mr. Randolph of Virginia had proposed a plan to be used as a template for constructing a national union. It came to be known as the Virginia Plan. It was the object of most of the debate during the convention. Its articles and clauses were not agreeable to all.

The insistance of many for a government sensitive to the wants and desires of the individual and the separate states was met with equal demands for a strong, all powerful central authority. Motions were made by both factions only to have them rejected and previously rejected proposals resubmitted. Days, even weeks were spent on minute but relative details such as who would choose the members of the second legislative body, what would be the term of service for the executive magistrate, how many executives would there be, what would be the powers of the legislature, and what power would the states have over the main government.

There was never a moment during the convention that could be said to be a turning point. No man stood and spoke to the difficulties and inspired cooperation. No changing of a mind from its cherished ideals was evident. Rather it was because these men had the differences they did that the Constitution is what it is.

Objections to a particular clause, sentence or words of the plan were considered and the mind of the convention on it was determined. According to that determination the objection was ignored or a solution sought. With only the dedication to their purpose and the willingness to make small but reciprocal changes, the Constitution took shape as a unique document in governmental history, providing both a powerful and effective federal government capable of supplying the services needed by the individual states, and, at the same time, insuring those inalienable rights of individuals would not be trod upon. While granting powers to the main body, the states retained the residual powers to themselves. Due to hard work, a commitment to their purpose, and a love of freedom the convention had, amazingly, produced a result generally accepted by all.

If viewed in the perspective of the attitudes presnt in the beginning versus the same in the end, it is obvious that a maturing had occurred in many delegates. It is also apparent that a conciliatory nature had been fostered in the personalities of those who had been arrogantly confident in their formal knowledge and a realization by them that they were, in this endeavor, making history. Mr. Hamilton is particularly evident of this evolving nature.

On September 15, 1787, with a few members still having objections to several items, the motion to put the draft of the constitution to a vote for approval was made and seconded. The vote was unanimous among the states with only a few delegates in the negative.

It was then ordered that the document be professionally engrossed.And they adjourned

Monday, September 17, the engrossed Constitution was read. Benjamin Franklin then rose to speak.

Having been a consistant source of moderation and a voice of the people, Benjamin Franklin was aware of what they had accomplished and the obstacles they had overcome. Knowing the nature of men, he offered the following to the convention…

He then made a motion that all the members sign the document and proposed the style of it.

Even then, after the Constitution had been voted on and approved, after the passionate request made by Franklin, there were those who still harbored a divisive nature. Mr. Randolph, who had provided the Virginia Plan which, when generously ammended, had become the Constitution, apologized for his refusal to sign the Constitution. He claimed that his refusal did not mean that he opposed it, but meant to keep his options free. He said that he believed the alternative which the Constitution provided to his original plan and the Articles of Confederation would not be acceptible to the people, as written. He had, despite the nature of the Virginia Plan, been among those who wished to diminish the power of states in defference to the federal government. Mr. Gerry also decided not to sign. He stated his belief that the inadequacies of the federal government would be the cause of a civil war, beginning in Massachusetts. Mr. Mason refused to sign and had given his reasons previously.

Mr. King then suggested that he journal of minutes should either be destroyed or given to Gen. Washington. He believed that if it were to become public it would be used for bad purposes by those who might become opponents of the ratification of the Constitution.

It was decided that the journal would be given to Gen. Washington to care for until a session of the new congress, if ratified, could decide on its future.

The members then proceeded to sign the document. Then, the Constitution being signed, the convention dissolved itself by an adjournment sine die.

The work of the convention had been tedious, and the outcome was still in doubt. A letter was written submitting the Constitution to the Congress of the United States and suggesting it be sent to all the states for ratification by a convention of delegates chosen by the people. It also suggested that as soon as the ratification by nine states had been secured, a day should be appointed on which the electors would assemble to choose the president of the United States, and the date chosen for the opening of the first session of Congress.

On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the Constitution minus the Bill of Rights.

On September 25, 1789, two years after the Constitution was signed, Congress submitted to the states twelve proposed ammendments. Two of those dealing with congressional pay and representation were never adopted. The remaining ten ammendments became known as the Bill of Rights when Virginia became the ninth state to ratify them on December 15, 1791.

The creation of the Constitution by men of so many differing ideals and aspirations, and the ratification of it by states of differing sizes and with opposing needs and priorities is only capable of being defined as being, E Pluribus Unum, in the truest meaning of it.

Glenn Flowers

All over the internet, callers to talk radio shows, at the Tea Parties nationwide, in letters to editors, the People of the United States are expressing the fact that they have had enough of Obama’s theft of their earnings, and their grandchildren’s earnings. They are fed up with Obama labeling every bill he proposes as an emergency, citing major hardship and economic disaster if his policies are not passed immediately. The People are even more outraged at the fact that none of Obama’s policies are working, none of his policies seem to be designed for what they were meant to do, and, instead, are putting America on the path to third world nation status. Czars who have no responsibility to anyone but Obama, inspector generals illegally fired for doing their jobs, executive orders that bypass the powers of the legislative and judicial checks and balances, appointments of tax cheats, anti-constitutionalists, and even socialist and communist activists, all designed to promote Obama’s childhood dream, the de-construction of America as the wealthiest, most powerful nation on Earth. Why does he endeavor to this goal? Because, he believes, America has become the great nation she is at the expense of all the poorer nations, black nations, and he wants economic and social justice. His followers and staff have only this to say to patriotic Americans: "We won, get used to it."

But, I beg to differ with Obama and his minions about their "winning". When they "won" what was probably a rigged, fraudulent election, Obama also swore an oath, legally binding, when he took office. He has, ever since January 20, 2009, ignored every word and the whole intent of that oath and is, therefore, in violation of at least three federal laws of the US Code and four or more articles and ammendments of the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land.

So. What do we do to fire him and the complacent and compliant Congress and Supreme Court? We, the People, do not have the authority to do anything regarding the federal government, and this is why. The Constitution was written for the People by the Constitutional Convention of Congressional delegates from the states. It was then ratified by delegates of the states. The Constitution had one purpose, to create and define the Federal Government known as the United States of America. The union was created by the states on behalf of the People. The federal government was not a party to the union, but is a result OF the union of the states. Therefore, only the parties to the union, the states, have any authority over the federal government. This is testified to in the writings of Jefferson and Madison in several instances.

To replace a federal government that has grown to be tyrannical, has created powers for itself it was never meant to have, has grown innefficient and has lost its support of the people, the legislatures of a majority of the fifty states must all agree to the nature of the tyranny and pass a resolution nullifying their creation, the United States of America, and reform that government according to the Constitution as originally written. Essentially, those states force the federal government out of business as is their right of creation.

To learn more on this subject see my earlier writings, Legal Procedures, Myths About the Constitution, Jefferson On State’s Rights, and To the Legislatures of the Fifty States.

Do your part as patriots and contact your state senators and Representitives urging them to participate in the Patrick Henry Caucus and force Washington to do our business or be fired.

Glenn Flowers

Now the people of your respective states find themselves under severe attack economically and socially, by that same organization, the USA, or federal government. We, the People of this country know that by ourselves, individually, we have but a small voice to try and effect any significant change. But, the people together, as states, have a voice Washington listens to. In fact, the states are the one voice that puts real concern into the minds of those elected federal officials. They know that the states created the Union, and they know that the states have the power, as representitives of the people, to replace them if they deemed it necessary.

I believe that the government in Washington has become so enamored with themselves and the power and money available that they need to be replaced and the Constitution restored, as written, as the law of the land. But, I also know that that is a drastic measure and is not likely to be taken seriously at this time.

The salvation of our way of life from destruction at the hands of the USA, viz. Obama, and his gang, rests solely with the legislatures of the fifty sovereign states. The resolutions passed by a few of the state legislatures, as associated in the Patrick Henry Caucus, would have a great and profound effect to bring about a realization of the people’s anger if a majority of the states passed similar, supporting legislation.

The speed at which the administration is acting to spend all the wages of future generations, pass laws that deny the people of their individual rights, dismantle the market economy, and gather unto themselves power and rights never meant to be theirs, demands that we, the people, act with similar speed and with the required authority of the state legislatures if the American way of life is to be preserved. There is no abundance of time, no margin for extended thought and consideration of lesser measures. The priorities of the government are setting the schedule.

The Patrick Henry Caucus, a forum of state law makers meeting to discuss actions they can take to alleviate the problems caused by the federal government, is the only such action being taken that I know of. It can, if supported by a majority of state legislatures, stop the demolition of this great nation and restore the Constitution to its rightful authority as the law. I urge all fifty state legislatures to contact the Utah state legislature for further information on the Patrick Henry Caucus, and to join with them to save America before it’s too late.

If it becomes necessary to take actions such as Jefferson described in the Declaration of Independence, and replace our elected government officials; a resolution would be required to nullify the agreement between the states and federal government. A majority of the fifty states would have authority to accomplish that task.

If you have any reservations as to where the US Armed Forces stand on the Constitution, I suggest you visit http://www.oath-keepers.blogspot.com/

I have taken the liberty of drafting a template, simple as it is, that could be the starting point for such a resolution. I do not flatter myself by believing it to be required as yet, nor do I believe it to be totally sufficient for such work, but intend to offer it only for your consideration if needed for such a purpose.

We, the People, now find ourselves in danger of having our liberties and wealth destroyed as independent and free people of these seperate states, by that very association which we entered into for the purpose of protecting our common interests from just such a tyranny as has become the United States of America.

By engaging in these actions without even once considering the will of the people, the officers of the Federal Government have committed gross acts of sedition against the true power of We, the People, have violated that solemn oath taken by them to protect and defend our Constitution, and have violated the word and intent of most every article, clause, and section of that document of union. This is not only bad governance, it is criminal activity.

Therefore, the following has been ratified by the majority of the legislatures of the several states and is, thus, made the applicable law by resolve, rendering the Constitution, as pertains to that Federal Governing body now existing, temporarily null and void of authority and causing it to be, no more, the law of the land.

To the furtherance of this cause it is:

Our federal government has taken upon itself powers never authorized, and with that have subjected the people of the nation to great harm, destroying the economy and the very nature of our society, and severely diminishing the wealth and general welfare of the people.

It has become necessary and of immediate need, to insure the survival of these sovereign states, to render the alliance to the Federal government non-existant and to, thereby, dissolve that created by the people of the states known as the United States of America.

It is only with these state legislatures that that authority rests as the creators of that Government. Therefore, if and when that central organization is no longer required, it becomes destructive in its nature, the people decide it to be ineffective and needs to be revised or replaced, only these state legislatures, having been the initiator and creator of that government for its own purposes and that government having no validity without the pleasure of these states and their people, have the authority to break those bonds voluntarily entered into. They can assert this authority over the Federal Government

regardless of objection or resistance from any source within the USA as the Constitution stipulates causing it no longer to be the law of the land as far as the present officers of the USA are concerned.

These legislatures of the several states, constituting a majority thereof, hereby declare all elected and appointed officers of all three branches of the Federal Government of the United States of America, excluding those continual employees not a party to the administration, Congress, or judiciary, to be in violation of the terms of their service, as sworn to by them, and are, hereby, terminated and removed from office as provided for in the Constitution of the United States. This ends the alliance of states with that government.

Resolved: We, the People of the states of America, retain the right of authorship, ownership, and any and all privileges of the titles, "The United States of America", and the, "The Constitution of the United States of America", for whatever future usage or purpose we see a need of or deem worthy. No officer, present or former, shall have any claim or right to these titles or to any resulting trademark.

The Ninth and Tenth ammendments to the Constitution have always been considered by the People as being a guarantee against an abuse of power by the federal government. They read as follows:

They seem to be fairly straight forward and unambiguous in what they say. As I read them, the federal government can not exercise any power not given to it by the Constitution, and if it is not given there the states or the people retain those rights for themselves. The government has only the powers spelled out, and no more. That is the way I believe most people would interpret them.

But, as is the case with most questions of points of law, there have been court decisions that have supported a simple interpretation, and rulings that take a more creative and complex approach in interpreting meaning. The acceptance and application of one or the other of these methods by a current court is not consistent but wavers to and fro over time and is the cause of much or all ignorance and confusion on the subject.

There exists precedent that allows the feds to assume powers not granted to them, as well as precedent preventing any use of power not specifically granted. On one hand, the last paragraph of Article One, Section Eight gives 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. "

That paragraph has been used by the courts to give Congress powers not specifically enumerated. On the other hand courts have made decisions based on a simple and strict reading of these ammendments such my opinion above. The people have no way of knowing these opposing precedents exist, but even if they did, they could not be confident in any court ruling a certain way because there is legal standing for the courts to rule this way or that.

The existence of precedents supporting opposing rulings renders these two ammendments meaningless. This is the case with all the limitations and grants of powers to the federal government written into the Constitution. The courts have an open buffet of past decisions on every question, custom made for whatever situation arises.

If I had the opportunity to propose a single ammendment to the Constitution, I would propose that there be a grand jury type civilian review of all SCOTUS decisions. This jury would be selected randomly and neither the SCOTUS nor the jury would know, before hand, the duty they were being dealt, and this duty would not be divulged until they had completed their work. If, in the future, the decision of that jury was found to be in contention with the Constitution, the previous decision would be superceded rather than be allowed to coexist.

The coexistence of opposing rulings as precedent renders the entire Constitution useless.

Glenn Flowers

To study this subject, an annotated copy of the Constitution is essential. After each article, section, or clause, there is an explanation of that section and those cases and decisions that have had an effect on that section and its everyday meaning.

These annotations are, sometimes, extensive and in some cases ridiculously so. Example: After quoting just the first sentence from Article One, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United Satates, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representitives," there is over 80 pages dealing with decisions by federal courts, classes of decisions, the effects of these decisions, challenges, and the meaning for everyday citizens. EIGHTY PAGES for one sentence. This should have been an indication of things to come. The annotoations for Article One required 374 pages.

It is evident that no single blog post will be sufficient, nor would anything short of something similar to the extensive annotations. It is with this in mind that I decided to give a summary of how the Constitution has been rendered meaningless.

Much of what made the Constitution unique and our government as eduring as it has been is the seperation of powers of the three branches of government. The idea behind this seperation was simple: No one branch would have total or near total authority. The checks and balances built into the government were supposed to prevent the creation, enforcement, and ejudication of the law from being done by one branch, thus preventing conflicts of interest and the creation, essentially, of a dictatorial single branch.

The annotations for Article One begin with this sentence, "The Constitution nowhere contains a express injunction to preserve the boundaries of the three broad powers it grants, nor does it expressly enjoin maintenance of a system of checks and balances."

It goes on citing a series of articles by James Madison where he proclaimed that, "the doctrine (of seperation of powers) did not mean that these departments ought to have no partial agency in, or control over, the acts of each other," but that, "liberty was endangered where the whole power of one is exercised by the same hands which possess the whole power of another." Neither sharply drawn demarcations of boundaries nor appeals to the electorate were sufficient. Instead, the security against concentration of powers "consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachment of the others." Ambition was to counteract ambition.

It was this slight chink in the armor of seperation of powers that has given the federal courts the excuse to render decisions that have, in their entirety, given each branch the power of the other branches where and whenever the court or that branch decides it must weild that power. The doctrine of non-delegation of powers, judicial enforcement of seperation of powers, the expressed limitation on the powers of Congress, State’s Rights, and all other sections of the Constitution have been made either less powerful than intended or outright meaningless by this one corruption of the seperation of powers.

Two of the many court decisions endorsing this corrupted view of seperation of powers are:

McCullough v Maryland 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) at 407

17 U.S. at 411

17 U.s. at 421

Justice Marshall declared "the power declared by the ‘necessary and proper’ clause embraces all legislative means unless forbidden by the letter and spirit of the Constitution." This refers to the Constitution stating that Congress has the power to make any law "necessary and proper" to carry out its expressed duties. This decision states that any means necessary to pass a law is covered by that "necessary and proper" statement.

American Insurance v Canter 26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 511 (1828)

26 U.S. at 542

26 U.S. at 543

The same Justice Marshall wrote that, "the Constitution confers absolutely on the government of the Union the powers of making war, and treaties; consequently that government possesses the power to acquire territory and from it, the inevitable consequence of the right to govern it." This decision had the effect of granting to the federal government a power it had not been granted by the Constitution, opening the door for more "resultant and inherent powers" to become law.

To summarize, the courts in these decisions have repeatedly ascribed to the federal government powers that do not accord with the doctrines of seperation of powers, expressed limits on Congress, and State’s Rights as are plainly contained within the Constitution.

It seems to me that the Judicial branch, and subsequently the Executive and Legislative branches, lost no time in seeking to gain for itself, and the federal government as a whole, absolute power and sovereignty over the states and the people at every opportunity, going as far as to include in their reasoning corrupted mis-interpretations of the Constitution’s content meant to prohibit just such a gain and growth in the power of the federal government.

Imagine, that if just this single sentence from the Constitution has been so dis-emboweled, what lies in store for the balance of the limits on federal power included in the Constitution. It then becomes no mystery as to how and why our rights, as per the Constitution, seem to be of no accord to Congress, the President, or the courts.

Glenn Flowers

I am enthralled with the thought of the states coming to the rescue of our nation. Logic would entitle the creator of a contract or association to have power over its execution and if not content therewith over its destruction. The states, for specific purposes, created a central government, all the time being wary of it possibly gaining too much authority. The delegates wrote into the pact many specific obstructions to such gain of power and believed, as they should have, that they had crossed all the Ts and dotted all the Is.

Not long after the ink had dried on the contract the three branches sought to expand their power and control over those founding states. The first bullet fired was a decision by the Supreme Court that, although there were definite boundaries between the duties and powers of each branch, there was no specific language preventing the crossing of those boundaries. Thus, the seperation of power, which effectively prevented all power from being under the control of a single branch, was sidestepped allowing exactly the kind of conflicting interests present in our government that was originally forbidden.

The second and lethal bullet was fired by Congress. Originally the two houses of Congress were different in their form and their function. The House of Representitives was just that, representitves of the common voting populace elected by the people, being apportioned according to population. The Senate, however, was to be elected by the legislatures of the states and were to be representitives of the state government to the Congress. This allowed for professional legislators to be watchdogs over the federal processes and sound the alarm if Congress attempted to create new powers or rights. They, having experience at the black art of politics, would be better able to recognize such goings on. But, in 1913, Congress passed the 17^th ammendment that gave the people the duty of electing senators and, essentially, ridding themselves of any cognizant oversight.

These two actions are, according to Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, illegal at their inception and perpetually invalid. I offer as support of this Jefferson’s two resolutions written on behalf of angered state legislatures for reasons such as I have just described.

Write your state officials or send them this blog. Insist they participate in the Patrick Henry Caucus of state legislatures.

There are many false concepts that people have regarding the Constitution, its creation, and its effect on the United States and the people. I intend to address four of the more popular myths. Legal and historic authoritative references available by request.

The Constitution was created in a constitutional convention convened to revise the Articles of Confederation. It is said that the delegates exceeded their powers and scrapped the Art. Of Conf., created the Constitution, and forced it on the states to ratify, which was not what they were authorized to do.

The thirteen colonies decided, in a meeting of delegates in Philadelphia, 1774, that there were reasons to form an alliance between themselves that would set up rules and policies by which the states would interact with one another. Benjamin Franklin was tasked with authoring the rules, and in May of 1775, he presented his work, The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, to delegates of the several colonies of New Hampshire, and the other colonies, in general Congress in Philadelphia.

There were thirteen articles of about four pages total, that addressed such subjects as the name of the new confederation, what states were included and for what purpose, how the articles would be carried out, the duties and power that the articles created for the confederation, who would pay for the cost of implementing the articles, certain restrictions that applied to all the states, how the articles were to be revised or ammended, etc.

The Articles were voted on and were unanimously adopted by those states that were represented. The name of the new confederation was "The United Colonies of North America."

Two years later, at the request of the delegates of several of the colonies, the Articles were revised to a) change the name of the confederation to "The United States of America", b) provide more detail to the thirteen articles as they saw necessary, and c) provide for the establishment of a navy and army. The extra details were considerable in their content and increased the document by more than twice its size, to nine or ten pages, depending on the formatting. Mr. Franklin, again, produced an effective, well written revision and the new articles were, again, passed unanimously by all states.

These articles, the conventions and delegates it required, and the work it accomplished with a navy, army, post office, etc., was the extent of the central government for the next nine years. During that time, new flaws and inadequacies were discovered in the articles and documented, not being due to any defficiency by Dr. Franklin in their creation. The shortcomings were in the nature of duties required by the articles, (army, navy, etc.) were billed to the states for payment, but there was no requirement for the states to pay. Also, some of the duties required, weights and measures, embassies, treaties with Indian nations, etc., required more authority for their implementation than was given to the Confederation by the Articles.

In early 1786, in congress assembled, the confederation delegates resolved that a new committee of delegates from the states would meet in Annapolis in September of that year to determine what revisions were needed to remedy the defects in the articles.

On September 11, delegates from only five states met in Annapolis. They elected a chairman, presented their credentials to each other, and then discussed the duties that would be proper under their circumstances. A committee was selected to prepare a letter of report to be made to the legislatures of those states having delegates in attendance.

In summary, the delegates refused to undertake the duties they had been sent to perform because the representation was so inadequate that no decision made could be approved as only five of the thirteen states sent delegates.

They did offer the opinion of those delegates who attended that a) this was a very important cause and the other states should be convinced to send delegates, b) that the revisions needed were to be extensive if they were to cure the defects, and c) that the full Congress should also receive a copy of this letter so they would know the extreme gravity of the situation.

In May, 1787, the Congress convened in Philadelphia to take up this matter. It was decided by the Congress that a full constitutional convention, separate from Congress, should be called and the matter of the remedy of defects in the Confederation be their sole purpose. The convention president was to be George Washington, and was convened immediately. In September of that year they produced their proposal for the remedies sought. It took the form of the Constitution of the United States, a new document, that was sent to all the states where a convention of delegates chosen by the legislatures would consider the ratification of the new document, and when nine of the thirteen states had approved it, it would be effective.

In June, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the Constitution making it the law of the land. In March, 1789, the first Congress under the new Constitution convened in New York. In April, George Washington became the first President of the United States.

There was no exceeding of authority by the Annapolis committee, or the convention that produced the Constitution. The Arts. Of Conf. had been created by the states, and the states had the right to revise or replace them as they saw necessary. Also, before the Constitution became law, the states had to vote on it and nine of the thirteen were needed to adopt it. They did, and it was. All legal, within the rights and authority of the creators, and no exeeding of authority was committed.

The most notable promoter of Myth No. One is the John Birch Society who opposes the call for an Art. Five Convention for proposing ammendments by delegates from the states. Only Congress has ever ammended the Constitution, but Art Five states that delegates from the states are allowed to ammend in a convention called by Congress when enough states apply for it. Congress has ignored all applications, over 600, ever submitted by the states.

That the Constitution was created for the purpose of defining and guaranteeing the rights of the People of the USA.

The Constitution is the document that created the federal government. It replaced the inadequate Articles of Confederation and established a complete central government.

The Constitution was written by a convention of delegates from twelve of the thirteen states, (Rhode Island never attended) and was a listing of powers granted to the fed. government by the states, a listing of specific prohibitions of power not granted, the rules of how the new government would be formed, how they would conduct their business as specified, the powers of authority where it would over rule state laws and where states would retain their authority, and a statement as to why the document was being created and by whom.

It was not written as a document to the people of the USA, did not ever specifically address the people directly, but was, instead, written BY the people for the purpose of forming a more perfect union of states than the Arts. Of Conf. had been.

So, the purpose was to form the federal government. In doing that, it specifically listed the seventeen jobs the new gov’t. was to do, what powers it was given to do those jobs, stated that any power not specifically granted by the states to the fed. gov’t. were to remain the power of the states, and that the states, being the creators of the new gov’t., were the ultimate authorities in the USA and the fed gov’t. was the servant of the states and the people.

In the listing of powers granted and those which were restricted under any circumstance, the rights of the people were defined and their violation or even revision by the fed. gov’t. was strictly prohibited. The new federal government was not allowed to have any authority over the rights of the people. PERIOD!! The fed govt’s relationship was with the state governments, in service to the people, and the states were to remain the ultimate authority, except where designated in the Constitution.

That the Constitution demands there be no interaction between churches and the government, in other words, a seperation of church and state.

The words, "seperation of church and state" do not appear anywhere in the Constitution or in any legal document of the United States. The very idea of that phrase is not ever defined or implied. What is written about churches in the Cosnstitution is the prohibition of Congress to make ANY laws regarding religion or the establishment of religion.

It is illegal for the USA to have any law that has anything to do with religion. PERIOD. NO LAWS OF ANY KIND ABOUT RELIGION.

This prohibition is found in the first ammendment to the Constitution, and is just one of five rights in the first ammendment that Congress was prohibited from dealing with in any way. In other words, "Congress, you have your orders for your jobs and they do not include anything at all about these five rights. You have no authority where these matters are concerned."

In England, King Henry VIII established the Church of England, and demanded all British subjects be members thereof, and of no other church, including the Catholic Church. This was one reason some colonists left England, and they made it impossible for the new federal government to do the same in America.

But, nowhwere was there any law or suggestion that churches and religion could not influence or be officials of the federal government. In fact, John Adams said that the new government needed the wisdom and religious conviction of church members and even their ministers to influence the government in a good and Godly manner.

Religion MUST have a part in government. Government must NOT have any part in religion.

The people have a Constitutional right to privacy.

Nowhere in the Constitution or US legal documents is there a right to privacy. The only things in the Constitution that comes close are a) the Third Ammendment prohibition of the government to house soldiers in private homes and b) the Fourth Ammendment prohibition against search and seizure of homes or property without a warrant issued with probable cause by a judge.

Nowhere is there a specific, individually declared right of citizens to privacy. The right for people to be secure in their homes is implied, but against illegal searches or seizures of property. The government leaves it to the individual to provide for his own privacy, but does not guarantee him the right to that privacy. They, also, do not forbid privacy, so, they leave that subject alone, as they should all subjects except their expressed duties.

Glenn Flowers

All craftsmen, scientists, even writers will tell you that the tools used in their endeavors are of the utmost importance. Mechanics are of one voice when preferring a socket of the right size over an end wrench, or an offset boxend to an open end, an open end to slip joint pliers, and so forth. An orthopedic surgeon sporting a surgical kit circa 1865 will be citicized, and rightly so, by his peers using orthroscopes, lasers, and CCTV.

In some instances, the tools of decades ago are still the preferred and technically superior choice over newer, less proven devices. A 1940 era cutting torch is essential to metal workers and has not seen much improvement as none has been needed. A twenty pound sledge hammer is still the state of the art in creating reltively small holes in stucco.

It is understood that newer, more efficient tools have been created out of necessity and convenience. But when a tool is efficient, and no tool has been created that will serve the purpose as well, the original is still the state of the art and the choice of the wise.

Throughout human history, men have sought a process of governing society that would provide just what was needed, prevent what was not desired, and defended against the common enemy. In most historical episodes, a supreme ruler stepped into the vacuum caused by revolt or succession and dealt out the government he saw beneficial to himself.

Only when geographically isolated by the two great oceans, and determined to not be exploited without benefit to themselves, and with a willingness to die rather than be subjugated, did man put his mind to developing a better tool for societal needs and empower the individual to determine his own fate as he saw it given by the Universal Creator.

The result of this concentration of self determined, idealistic pooling of reason and logic was a union of self governing states, for the common purpose of defense, foreign associations, and various other common needs regulated and limited in its power by a constitutional document of agreement between those states that was so near perfection it has been and remains today, the state of the art in government. No other form of societal regulation has even come close to the immense success of every kind that the Constitution of the United States of America has proven to be.

There have been all sorts of government instituted in many ways, mostly with the proverbial divine supremist at the top, doling out that amount of individuality as seen to be appropriate. There have even been experiments in rule by majority that have failed in their lack of predictability of future influences and demands. But never, in all of recorded time has there been anything approaching the Constitution for its ability to create happiness, wealth, influence, respect, and peace for its citizens.

So why, when, after 230 plus years of unrivaled success, nothing else having been proven more efficient, do some of the citizens benefitting from that successful nation insist that they must change the tool that has served so well and experiment with forms of government that have failed, not once but everytime they were used. And not only have they proven inefficient to the point of failure, most times they have been outright destructive to incentive, personal freedom, economy, and the general well being of those governed, fomenting discontent, dissent, and rebellion of the most violent kind. Murder, usurpation, enslavement, war, and revolt have been the common product of such experimentation, the best being anarchy and, again, a supreme, divine benevolent dictator stepping in to deliver His subjects from their self inflicted misery and ignorance.

If there had been developed a simple, single step process of turning lead into gold, and no simpler method devised in a millineum, would we abandon that goose, lop off its head for roasting, and search for a better way? If immortality had been found at a fountain of cold spring thaw, would we water our fields with it while looking for a simpler way than to drink thereof? I say no, and no again. I say hell no, not on my watch!

That that law which hath raised a nation to global prominence, providing a dream for all other nations to strive for, making that nation the envy of all sentient humanity should be abandoned for the wild expectation of a more perfect perfection is blasphemy of the divinity which instilled that freedom yearning in all humanity. I say over my dead and rotting corpse if I hold any sway. And, with the promise of that constitution I, and those of same mind, do hold sway, by right of birth.

It is the flight of fancy, the false pursuit of divinity of self that causes such rabid desire in men as to inspire the wanton destruction of that which guaranteed their security and liberty to be able to dream peaceably at all. It is overwhelming greed and lack of confidence in fellow men that infests the soul of those wishing to de-evolve through the abandonement of man’s best product for the governmental process.

The truth is the Constitution is without peer, unrivaled in its efficiency, inherently successful, and in no need of improvement, arbitrary change, or major revamping. So, why not depend on it until a better device be invented. Only a fool would offer argument to that decision. Fools, we are become aware, are plentiful. Wise men, not so much.

Long live the Constitution! Long live America! God bless America.

Glenn Flowers

There is a lot of talk about the Republican Party and what it needs to do to become more effective at winning elections. There are those who say the party needs to abandon the right wing and adopt a more centered philosophy in order to attract moderates and conservative democrats and, thereby, be more competitive in campaigns.

Then again, those conservatives who are the right wing of the party know that historically, when the Republican Party runs a true Conservative and supports him, the party wins everytime.

A true Conservative believes and is defined by the following…

And …

Conservatives also are known for their fearce belief in and defense of…

Another ideal of true Conservatism is…

Essential to being a Conservative …

Elementary, as I said, and while not a complete list of Conservative ideals, it gives you a very succinct portrait of the mindset of ALL Conservatives who have ever lived. There are, of course, accompanying these already described, many other intelocking and accomodating values, limitations, and allowances that form the detailed, highly efficient set of systems and procedures known as Conservatism, Americanism, Constitutionalism, patriotism, wisdom, perfection, etc.

If anyone has any doubt in their mind about these core values, if they have questions as to their ability to support any of these, they are not a TRUE Conservative. If you find any or all of these ideas offensive, obsolete, arrogant, invalid, or impossible, you are definitely NOT a patriot, a true American, or, very smart at all. That is self-evident. Just don’t ever try to change America to what you think it should be, because it already IS what it should be, and it is not only illegal to try to change these truthful values and laws to mean something else, it can be very hazardous to your health.

These basic building blocks of the Conservative foundation existed long before anyone ever thought of calling themselves a Conservative. They and their partners in type have defined that label from its adoption. And they, with their accompanying articles, ammendments, sections, and clauses, always will be the basic platform, the defining beliefs of all true Conservatives for perpetuity. I can vow to the truth of that.

Glenn Flowers

The following resolution has been drafted by Oath Keepers and will be sent to all members of Congress and the legislatures of all of the several states. The original, reprinted here, can be found at...

http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/

 

 

[DRAFT] RESOLUTION ADDRESS OF OATH KEEPERS, APRIL 19, 2009, LEXINGTON GREEN
19 April 2009

To the honorable members of the Senate and House of Representatives, and to the honorable Secretaries of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, of the United States of America, in their separate capacities of our brothers and sisters in the public trust, of our own public servants, and of our fellow citizens, respectively, Greetings.

We, a collection of your fellow Americans — [including active duty military service members, current serving police, veterans, and other] public servants and private citizens—, united by sworn oaths to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, having voluntarily associated under the style of Oath Keepers, are met on Lexington Green on the 234th anniversary of that fateful day when better and truer men than ourselves, by their martial exertions and by their fidelity to Law and Liberty, forever consecrated this ground.

We note with soberness that now, as then, our beloved Country confronts a profound and deepening crisis. Now, as then, that crisis is brought on chiefly by a long train of abuses and usurpations on the part of our public officers, who have come to habitually violate the oaths, on condition of which they hold their offices.

We note, however, that this long-continued and gross infidelity on the part of others is only the proximate cause of our present, common American distress. We confess that now, unlike then, we ourselves may be complicit in the official lawlessness that is becoming general in all three branches, and at both levels, of our governments. We ourselves, in the orders that we have issued or carried out—either as officers or men of the standing National Armed Forces of our Republic, or as executive officers of our several States—; or in the statutes whose passage we have furthered—as members of our respective State Legislatures—, may have too little marked the bounds set by the Constitution that we swore to uphold. Moreover, we ourselves—in our original capacity of citizens—may, with our fellow citizens, have been too little vigilant in superintending the actions of our increasingly errant public servants. If so, we acknowledge our general and particular faults before God, before our sovereign masters and fellow citizens, and before our families and posterity. Yet, bold to hope that Nature’s God is still a God of Mercy, we humbly pray for His pardon, and for time to make amends and avert the consequences of our dereliction.

We note that, at earlier times of similarly grave crisis, previous generations of Americans have mustered on Lexington Green, have pledged anew their official and private fidelity to the Constitution of the United States, and, in so doing, have rediscovered the path of escape from foreign intrigue, from domestic tyranny, and from disunion and lawlessness.

We note that, in 1798, foreign intrigue had gone far to sow mutual suspicion and discord among fellow Americans, and aimed at the dissolution of our Union, while an imperious foreign power threatened to invade our shores. In that hour of crisis, the several Brigades of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts mustered in their turns on the Green where their fathers had fought before. Their officers publicly renewed their oaths to the Constitution of the United States. They thereupon directed unanimous patriotic addresses to the President of the United States, announcing the public renewal of their oaths, and assuring him of their fidelity to their sworn duty. In his reply to the officers of the First Brigade, Third Division, Militia of Massachusetts, then President John Adams noted with grateful and confident satisfaction that:

"Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken and so solemnly repeated on that venerable spot, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government."

Unlike those ancient oath keepers, we are mustered this day in voluntary association, rather than in an official public capacity. Indeed, we confess with shame that, having with our fellow citizens utterly neglected for a century to attend to those militia institutions, for the perpetuation of which our Constitution so ably provides, and which, alone among all our constitutional institutions, it characterizes as necessary to the security of a free state, we are quite unprepared on this day to muster in our several regiments, brigades, and divisions in the particular official capacities most appropriate to the crisis at hand.

Nevertheless, we note that many of our number do now serve, on condition of oaths to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, in our several offices or stations in the Armed Forces of the United States, [as police officers], or in the executive branches or Legislatures of our respective States. Most of those among us who do not now so stand in the public trust have so served in the past, on condition of similar oaths, which, if no longer enforceable against them by explicit law, yet make their moral force felt upon their American hearts today.

We are pleased to announce to you that we have this day, on this hallowed ground and on this sacred anniversary, publicly and solemnly renewed the oaths required of us by the command of Article VI, Clause 3, of the Constitution of the United States. We have done so in the several forms which, according to our particular offices, the relevant Federal and State statutes prescribe, or, in the case of those no longer standing in the public trust, in the form of the following general oath:

I, ___________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, [pledging my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor]. So help me, God.

As a testament of the earnestness of our oaths, as evidence that, in our own hearts, at least, oaths are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations, those among us who hold executive offices or stations at the Federal or State level have in counsel together identified ten unlawful orders which either ignorant, careless, or corrupted superior officers may conceivably issue to us in the future, which we cannot, consistent with the required oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, lawfully fulfill, and which—we have mutually and publicly pledged to each other this day—while we yet hold the public trust on condition of that oath, we will not attempt or pretend to fulfill, namely:

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people.
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants" or to subject them to military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a "state of emergency" on a State.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any State that asserts its sovereignty.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to "keep the peace" or to "maintain control."
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

As a similar testament to the earnestness of our oaths, those among us who serve as State Legislators, on condition of an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitutions of our several States, have publicly and mutually pledged to each other this day that we will introduce and promote the passage of such legislation in our own States as shall be consistent with our national and our State Constitutions and as we shall find best calculated to discountenance, to thwart the force of, and to protect the lives, liberties, and properties of our fellow State citizens against, all manner of unlawful Federal executive, legislative, and judicial usurpation and lawlessness, that we will, by our sacred votes, attempt to prevent the further passage in our own States of such unlawful statutes as encourage or facilitate such Federal usurpation and lawlessness, and that we will, by our votes, seek to repeal in our own States such existing unlawful statutes as do now encourage or facilitate such Federal usurpation and lawlessness.

Finally, as a similar testament to the earnestness of our oaths, those among us who have resumed the stations of private citizens, have publicly and mutually pledged to each other this day that we will do all that pertains to our rightful station to more vigilantly superintend our public servants in all three branches and at both levels of our governments, to require of them that fidelity to their lawfully required oaths that is the condition of their offices, and that we will encourage our fellow citizens to likewise exercise a more vigilant and firm surperintendence of the public servants for whose lawful or lawless acts we bear, by the mutual covenant of our Constitutions, an ultimate responsibility before God, before each other, and before our posterity.

Having now publicly renewed our lawfully required oaths, and in directing to you this our unanimous patriotic address, we urge you, the honorable members of the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States of America, to return to a conscientious faithfulness to your own oaths, to desist from passing statutes that presume to usurp powers not granted to the Congress, or the exercise of which is specifically proscribed to them, by the People of the United States in their Constitution, and to begin the task of repealing, with all deliberate care, those decades of lawless statutes that now profane our statute books.

We urge you, the honorable Secretaries of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps to examine your own official acts and to pledge anew your own fidelity to the oaths, on condition of which you hold your offices. While we cannot presume to direct, we urge you, in your official capacities, in pursuance of your lawful duty to see to the lawful execution of duty by those under your authority, to challenge the uniformed members of your respective Services to publicly renew their own oaths on the anniversaries of the inception of your respective Services, on the anniversaries of signal battles, or on other appropriate occasions, and to earnestly encourage such members to acquaint themselves with the peerless genius manifest by their sovereign masters, the American People, in their Constitutional distribution of the powers of war and peace between the Executive and Legislature of their National government and between the National and State levels of their compound Republic; to study the weighty principles of justice, statecraft, and history’s wisdom that undergird this singular Constitutional architecture; to reflect on the incalculable blessings of unexampled liberty and independence that have accrued to their fathers from the lawful observance of these strictures, as well as on the incalculable losses of liberty and the dangers to their Union and Independence that, by every ambitious or careless violation of the same strictures now threaten their country and fellow citizens; to examine the fidelity which they have hitherto borne to their oaths and; to resolve on greater faithfulness to the Constitution’s commands in the future.

Brothers and Sisters in the Public Trust, Our own Public Servants, Fellow Citizens: We remind you, as we remind ourselves, of the truth that Father Jefferson spoke to similarly errant public servants in a previous day, namely, in his Summary View of the Rights of British America:

"The great principles of right and wrong are legible to every reader; to pursue them requires not the aid of many counsellors. The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest."

To be faithful to a sworn oath is but to be honest. To be less than faithful to that oath is to perjure oneself, and to invite the punishment of that God whose name one has invoked in first swearing it. We resolve to be faithful. We urge you to a like fidelity.

Adopted by unanimous consent by the OATH KEEPERS assembled on Lexington Green, Massachusetts, on the 19th of April in the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand and Nine and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

 

 

 

 

Nothing further need be said by me.

Glenn Flowers