Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Thoughts on the standoff in Oregon and Oaths of Office

Many conservatives have weighed in on the current situation in Oregon. And many, if not most, of them are urging caution and questioning the value of the action being taken and decrying it as giving the government an excuse to crack down on the second amendment. The idea that we should not support these folks because it will give the government an excuse to crack down on guns assumes the premise that the government is looking for an excuse to do that very thing. Think about that.

 The federal government of the United States of America can now be presumed to be looking for excuses to disarm the people from whom that very same government derives it's authority.

That alone, should see government officials up on charges for the violation of their oaths to protect and uphold/defend the Constitution. The government did not grant these rights, because they lack the authority to do so. The 2nd amendment of the US Constitution, as do all the others, merely recognizes a right we HAVE. The government may not take that right away. Not for handguns, not for AR 15s, not for machine guns or cannons. In the words of Tenche Cox:
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

Why aren't they under arrest already? Because We the People no longer understand the freedoms for which the founders of this nation fought, nor are We willing to undergo the fatigues necessary to defend them.

 "THOSE who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it. The event of yesterday was one of those kind of alarms which is just sufficient to rouse us to duty, without being of consequence enough to depress our fortitude. It is not a field of a few acres of ground, but a cause, that we are defending, and whether we defeat the enemy in one battle, or by degrees, the consequences will be the same." ~ Thomas Paine But, getting back to the situation in Oregon, let's look at the legal limitations on the ownership of land by the federal government:
"Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To ... ...To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; ..." ~ The United States Constitution Has anyone bothered to check and see if the federal government's purchase of the federal lands in Oregon that are at the heart of the dispute were purchased with the consent of the Oregon state legislature? Are there any "Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings" erected upon all that land?

One might even question the existence of Oregon as a state given that, according to one article, the Congressional Research Service says the federal government "owns" 53% of it's land.

To be sure, in the early days of the nation, the new national government was caught off guard when the Treaty of Paris awarded them the Northwest Territories after the 7 years war. Here they had ended up in legal, but unconstitutional, possession of a great deal of land. What to do? After the states ceded their (often competing) claims on that land to the national government,  the Northwest Ordinance was quickly passed in order to put that land into the hands of the people and eventually the states that were formed and granted membership in the nation. The land was held in trust as territories until the people of those territories could meet the requirements set up to apply for statehood. Is Oregon a territory held in trust or is it a state?

The federal government is not to own land because, at a very basic level, land is power. Grants of land and estates was one of the powers of the monarchy that was used to assure loyalty. If the monarchy had to take your estate, it could then grant your former estate to someone who would be more loyal or who had connections that would work to the benefit of the monarchy. This power of land granting was well understood by the founders of this nation and it was not a power they wanted the national level of this new government to have. It was a safeguard to the nation that the national level of the government was not allowed to own large swaths of land which it could award to those who might help to overthrow the people and render us slaves once again to a less freedom inclined form of government.

The bottom line is that the hour is late and we are threatened from within. Contact your legislators and let them know that the remedy called for in the Declaration of Independence is not out of the question.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 

"Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;" ~ 1 Peter 1:13


northierthanthou said...

Lol, the argument you start off covering may assume the government is looking for an excuse to crack down on the second amendment, but that doesn't make it true as you also assume. The feds have been damned reluctant to address the issue.

And no. Anyone who supports this kind of wingnuttery is NOT a conservative.

Call Me Mom said...

Thank you for stopping by and I suggest you read it again because I made no such assumption. What I said was: "The idea that we should not support these folks because it will give the government an excuse to crack down on guns assumes the premise that the government is looking for an excuse to do that very thing". Then I wrote about that.

That said, to address your contention that this administration doesn't want to crack down on the second amendment, can you say "Operation Fast and Furious"?

For further confirmation of this administrations intentions, I offer a few articles for you to consider:

While this one is talking about a suggestion made by the NYT(and think about that too - a major press outlet suggesting policy to the administration to push an agenda of pulling the teeth out of the 2nd amendment. No bias there, nope.

And now your doctor has just become the government's snitch. So, if you have a liberal doctor, don't get treatment for depression -or PTSD , especially if you're a veteran, because your doctor can report you.

And God forbid you have a friend or family member helping you to manage your affairs if you are on social security or other government "aid"

And here is a refresher on what the supreme law of the land has to say about the fedeeral government's role in gun control:
" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."