Darren Weeks
Coalition to Govern America
March 23, 2014
I've been involved in the freedom effort for many, many years now. Much of it has been in a public capacity as a writer and talk show host. During this time, I have heard some of the most bizarre and strained arguments for why our rights have been taken away, to how they can never be repossessed. From the legal geniuses who like to claim that the Constitution was suspended, to the "brilliant" minds who proclaim when an executive order, Congressional or other legislative body takes action, that it somehow "guts", "attacks", "undermines" or "kills" some part of the Constitution.
Additionally, I have a listener who regularly calls the show to belligerently insist that the Lieber Code of 1863 put the U.S. under a state of Martial Law that has never been rescinded, and that the U.S. Constitution, therefore, does not apply. If that is the case, I wonder why he even bothers listening. Why doesn't he just go drink beer and watch football like all of the other American slaves? The battle for him is over.
I disagree with all of them.
First of all, if the Constitution was not in effect and was of no significance, then why have the wealthy, money powers pulled out all of the stops, repeatedly, for several decades continuing through today, to convince the states to call for a Constitutional Convention to get rid of it?
Secondly, as flawed as the Founding Fathers were, and as riddled with moral wrongs as the 1787 Constitutional Convention was, from it emerged a document that was only ratified when amended with the addition of a Bill of Rights. This document then became the Supreme Law of the land. This means that if any law, passed by legislative body or act of Congress, is not authorized by that document, that said law is lawfully null and void. It is the Constitution that is Supreme, not legislative bodies or the President. If the President, a governor, or a mayor issues an executive order which is then carried out in such a way as to violate the Rights of the People under the Constitution, that public official is acting unlawfully. Period. Therefore, I argue, that any declaration of Martial Law, historical or contemporary, that is not specifically authorized by the U.S. Constitution is unlawful. The public official who enacts such measures then becomes, by definition, an outlaw who should be removed from power immediately.
The reason that I use the language, not specifically authorized by the Constitution, is that Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution does gives the Congress the power:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Note that the power to use the military to "suppress insurrections" resides with the Congress — not with the president. Therefore, even if one considers the southern states attempt to withdraw from the union an "insurrection", Abraham Lincoln still didn't possess the authority on his own to declare Martial law. Furthermore, contrary to what my caller stated, Lincoln's war time powers were, in fact, revoked by a subsequent court action.
The Congressional Research Service at the Library of Congress produces a document called The CRS Annotated Constitution. In it, they offer the following insights:
The Civil War being safely over, however, a divided Court, in the elaborately argued Milligan case, [Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. (71 U.S.) 2 (1866).] reverting to the older doctrine, pronounced void President Lincoln’s action, following his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in September, 1863, in ordering the trial by military commission of persons held in custody as “spies” and “abettors of the enemy.” The salient passage of the Court’s opinion bearing on this point is the following: “If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war.”
Hence, we see from the court's ruling as reflected in the government's own documents, that only in extreme cases where civil authority breaks down to the point where courts cannot be opened, is Martial Law allowed. Even in those extreme and rare cases, it must be only in the area of the conflict, and only for as long as the courts must necessarily be closed. In this, we see there is no blanket authorization for widespread Martial Law. Does this mean a president, governor, or other official won't declare Martial Law? Of course not! But it does mean that if they do, they are acting illegally — in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. They have become criminals, worthy of immediate impeachment and prosecution for abusing their positions of public trust. Their actions certainly do not constitute suspension of the Constitution, the law that has been violated.
If a man violates the law by breaking into his neighbor's house, does that mean that the laws that are on the books against breaking and entering are suspended? If he then rapes his neighbor's wife, does this mean that laws against rape are of no effect? If he then kills her, does this mean that all laws against murder are no longer valid? Few would be silly enough to suggest such a thing. Then, why do so-called "patriots" make the same arguments when it comes to public officials' violations of the U.S. Constitution? Violation of the law does not change the fact that the law exists. The standard is there, even if it is being trampled or left unenforced.
It never ceases to amaze me how effective the so-called "patriot community" is at formulating ideas and "solutions" that seem to do more to aid the enemies of freedom.
Recently, I shared with my radio audience that my oldest daughter had just gotten engaged to be married. Afterward, checking my e-mail, I received the following inquiry:
Are you discouraging your Daughter to NOT have TaxPayers? I have 3 boys, 36,34 and 19. NO KIDS. They refuse to make babies so the Govt can control them! AND there are NOT many Females out there that are worthy of a good man. The girls these days are a mess with their 40 something screwed up Parent's.
The following was my reply:
I agree with you about the screwed up parents. My girls are good, decent, moral children because my wife and I have worked very hard to make them that way. Having said the aforementioned, that is all that I find in your message whereupon I can agree.
First, is it not a little hypocritical of you, having had children of your own, to now attempt to deprive your children of the jubilance of procreation that you've enjoyed? If my daughters want to have children, or don't want to have children — that's their choice, either way. It isn't my place to try to dictate their lives for them. I did my job as a parent, giving them love, discipline, guidance, and provision until adulthood. Now that they are adults, they will take the foundation that I have set for them and make their own decisions.
Secondly, and just as importantly, human life is precious. We are NOT merely "taxpayers". If you see yourself and your offspring as nothing more than taxpayers to the Establishment, then I truly feel sorry for you. You, my friend, are already conquered. Because in your fruitless attempts to "outsmart" them by not procreating, by not giving them what you THINK they need, you have played right into their hands! You have the mindset of a SLAVE. You see yourself and your children as nothing more than HUMAN CAPITAL, which is exactly how the Establishment scum see you. You are living life on their terms. Instead of fighting, you've folded. You've given up. You're defeated.
Why should we attempt to deprive our children of the freedom to live and to give life? Why should we attempt to curtail our lifestyles so that the vermin can dominate us? Don't you realize that's exactly what THEY want us to do? We quit having children, we become easier for THEM to manage and THEY get their depopulated world. Why do you think they are developing all of these systems to automate the economy, transportation, infrastructure, and everything else? They WANT less people.
You are a model slave for the new world order, the global architects' dream citizen. If everyone follows your lead, the globalist sleaze win everything, and in one, single generation. Congratulations on your "brilliant" solution.
It is truly sad to read and hear arguments of supposed "freedom fighters" who, in absolute smugness and outright arrogance, believe they are "sticking it to the Man", when they are actually shooting themselves in the foot. It may, indeed, be necessary to limit the size of your family due to dire economic conditions that have been created by Establishment bankers and wannabe tyrants. But this forced compliance should not be celebrated. It should be resisted. Less children of a true patriot, naturally equals less patriots. Isn't that, too, what the other side desires?
If Americans are going to live free, we must quit aiding the other side with bogus arguments and nonsense that benefits the would-be tyrants. Freedom begins in the mind, and lives in the heart. If we are to be good stewards of liberty for our posterity, we must think freely and struggle to act freely. And we must have children. For without them, there is no posterity, there is no light of hope, and there is no reason to fight.
