Venlet: On the Constitution as a "Counter-Revolutionary" Act -- Parts I &II
Please read John Venlet's essay here, to which I will refer as 'Counter-Revolutionary -- Part I'.
In a comment to John's piece, I said that I would write up some thoughts on why I use the "Constitutional Restoration" as an organizing concept. As did John, I offer the same caveat -- I speak only for me in what follows. Moreover, nothing below should be construed in any way by anyone as the giving of "legal advice".
To begin, as a refresher, take a quick glance through each of these foundational American documents:
Declaration of Independence
Articles of Confederation
Pretty rapid conceptual evolution, across less than twenty years of admittedly-tumultuous British and American history, wouldn't you say?
I will leave it to others to recount the details of that evolution. Suffice it to say that the trend to centralized, national government has its roots in the very founding of the Republic.
And as we sit here, nearly 234 years after the signing of the Declaration, it is apparent to a growing plurality that the objective of the USC/BoR drafters -- to cage the embryonic national government from all but a few limited, enumerated functions -- has not been met.
For that plurality, the question arises as to remedies for this situation -- discussions about which must be conducted within the context of Chapter 155 of Title 18 of the US Code:
I commend a slow, careful read of those statutes and the cases decided thereunder to any freedom-minded activist, coupled with a cold-blooded assessment of the Mighty Kenyan's moral and legal compass, along with those of his state security toadies Holder and Napolitano. The material and sources cited here may be helpful in that assessment, as will Will Grigg's recent thoughts on the subject.
But in risk, there is also opportunity. Read the full text of 18 USC 2385:
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.
But what if the agitator in question
...knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of restoring the government of the United States and the government of every State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, and the government of any political subdivision therein, to its Constitutionally-stated limits?
Aren't the forces of tyranny potentially present in any centralized human endeavor thwarted -- at least prior to the State's inevitable use of force decision -- by those who simply insist that Leviathan live within the constitutional cage designed for it more than 200 years before?
Make no mistake -- this matter is NOT going to be settled by word games. The stakes are simply too high for all parties.
Leviathan will respond to the constitutionalists' insistence with the only tools at its disposal -- tooth and claw.
And when they do, the pragmatic constitutionalist will understand, once and for all, what Spooner meant.
In a few days, I'll have the second half of my response to John's article thought through and written.
Until then, think about these issues.
Your life, and those of your tribe, may depend on the correct answers.