EYE ON KEYSER
EYE ON KEYSER
Read this!!! VERY ENLIGHTENING!!!!
The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R.
11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It
also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.
** SPREAD THIS TO EVERYONE **
The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia,
henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and
District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army.
The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18
and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute
personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any
type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
The Dick Act of
1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and
ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the
U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The President of the
United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to
call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.
The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National
Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold
the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion).
These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.
Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized
Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare
outside the limits of the United States."
The Honorable William
Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved
that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia
(the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly
unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.
During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a
bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of
18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada.
The bill was
defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that
Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to
empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them
out of the country.
The fact is that the President has no
constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the
militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the
borders of their respective states.
Today, we have a
constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to
obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.
Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which
is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September
10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states:
"The militia, within
the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the
Army of the United States." In these pages we also find a statement
made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on
that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of
the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there
is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more
scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of
Congress over it."
"This limitation upon the power to raise and
support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the
framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a
standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to
draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a
useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose.
Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if
it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the
bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict
with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same
section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have
been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power."
No comments:
Post a Comment