As another Lame Cherry exclusive in matter anti matter.
In the paradigm of law, there is the criminalization of Rights by inferior law, meant to protect the system of laws, and in violation of the individual right to be protected by the system from that tyranny.
As the Court knows, it is a violation of federal law to use a firearm to assault, interfere with or intimidate a federal law enforcement officer. And contrary to the fiction recited by Bundy and his Followers to others, including children, there is no First or Second Amendment right or other right recognized in the law anywhere that gives anyone the right to use or carry, let alone brandish, raise or point, a firearm in order to assault, intimidate, interfere with or prevent a federal law enforcement officer from performing his or her duties – whether one thinks the officer is acting constitutionally or not. While that should be obvious to any law abiding citizen, Bundy espouses to the contrary.
So the regime dictates that whether law enforcement is constitutional or a criminal, Cliven Bundy must submit to a law enforcement stealing property, destroying property, raping family, imprisoning family and murdering friends.
The US Attorney does not stipulate what redress there is in corrupt law enforcement does not proceed indicting, arresting, trying and sentencing other corrupt law enforcement, but instead uses that system to imprison and execute those it wills and targets.
Amendment II
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.
Translated: A trained Citizenry, is necessary for the protection of a free nation, is based upon the right of those Citizens to own and carry weapons, and this right will not be lessened by any law or order.
Joseph Story:
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
Anthony Scalia:
The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people"
Thomas Jefferson:
"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
Thomas Aquinas also wrote of the right to resist tyrannical rule in the Summa Theologica. John of Salisbury advocated direct revolutionary assassination of unethical tyrannical rulers in his Policraticus.
As the American Declaration of Independence in 1776 expressed it, natural law taught that the people were “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” and could alter or abolish government “destructive” of those rights.
Certain scholars, such as legal historian Christian Fritz, have written that with the end of the Revolution, Americans did not renounce the right of revolution. In fact they codified it in their new constitutions[14] and even today 35 constitutions of American states have the same or similar provisions on the right of revolution as in the preamble of the American Declaration of Independence.[15] For instance, constitutions considered to be "conservative," such as those of post-revolutionary Massachusetts in 1780, preserved the people's right "to reform, alter, or totally change" government not only for their protection or safety but also whenever their "prosperity and happiness reduire[d] it."[16] This expression was not unusual in the early American constitutions. Connecticut's 1818 constitution articulated the people's right "at all times" to alter government "in such a manner as they may think expedient."
By the 1760s, English law recognized what William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England called “the law of redress against public oppression.”[21] Like the natural law’s right of revolution, this constitutional law of redress justified the people resisting the sovereign. This law of redress arose from a contract between the people and the king to preserve the public welfare. This original contract was “a central dogma in English and British constitutional law” since “time immemorial.”[22] The Declaration’s long list of grievances declared that this bargain had been breached.[23]
This well-accepted law of redress justified a people resisting unconstitutional acts of government. Liberty depended upon the people’s “ultimate” right to resist. Unconstitutional commands breaching the “voluntary compact between the rulers and the ruled” could be “ignored” and arbitrary commands opposed with force.[24] This right implied a duty on the part of the people to resist unconstitutional acts. As Alexander Hamilton noted in 1775, government exercised powers to protect “the absolute rights” of the people and government forfeited those powers and the people could reclaim them if government breached this constitutional contract.
New Hampshire's constitution[33] guarantees its citizens the right to reform government, in Article 10 of the New Hampshire constitution's Bill of Rights:
Whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
The Kentucky constitution[34] also guarantees a right to alter, reform or abolish their government in the Kentucky Bill of Rights:
All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety, happiness and the protection of property. For the advancement of these ends, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may deem proper.
Similar wording is used in Pennsylvania's constitution,[35] under Article 1, Section 2 of the Declaration of Rights:
All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.
Article I, §2 of the Tennessee constitution[36] states:
That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
North Carolina's constitution of November 21, 1789 also contains in its Declaration of Rights:[37]
3d. That Government ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people; and that the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive to the good and happiness of mankind.
The Constitution of Texas[38] also contains similar wording in Article 1, Sect 2:
All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.
It always comes down to martial force dictating what is the law and what is right. It has nothing to do with words. It always has to do with the security of either the state system or the individual, always at odds, because the two systems can not exist, and that is the paradigm.
agtG
