Recently,
Cliven Bundy and his supporters had a showdown with the United
States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) over grazing rights on
land claimed by the federal government. They started rounding up Mr.
Bundy's cattle but were confronted by armed, liberty-minded people.
Fortunately, the feds backed down. (Those needing to get up to speed
on this can do so here.)
LewRockwell.com published
a great article written by a former federal agent speculating on how
the US government will retaliate titled “What’s
Next for the Bundys?”. All of this got me thinking about the
power the federal government has and why it shouldn't have it.
The useless
constitution seems to be
clear about what the federal government can and can't do. Article I,
Section 8, clause 15 is the only part of the constitution that
mentions how the federal government can enforce its laws. It reads
“To provide for calling forth the
Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions” [emphasis added] That's
it, nowhere else does the constitution mention how to enforce federal
law. The 10th Amendment
limits the federal government's powers to only those listed. Nowhere
does the constitution give the US government the power to create law
enforcement agencies. This makes the BLM and the rest of the alphabet
soup of federal law enforcement agencies unconstitutional.
The point of having a well
regulated militia is to avoid arming the government in the first
place. Informing the Founders on this subject was one of John
Trenchard's Cato's Letters, No.
95 Further Reasonings against Standing Armies. In it he warns:
It is certain, that all parts of
Europe which are enslaved, have been enslaved by armies; and it is
absolutely impossible, that any nation which keeps them amongst
themselves can long preserve their liberties; nor can any nation
perfectly lose their liberties who are without such guests: And yet,
though all men see this, and at times confess it, yet all have joined
in their turns, to bring this heavy evil upon themselves and their
country.
Modern
readers can be forgiven for thinking that we don't have an army among
us. In order to get around the people's antipathy to having soldiers
on the streets ruling us police forces were introduced in the
mid-nineteenth century. Think of the standing army not as literally a
military force but as any organized bodies of armed men under the
government's control. Today's
standing law enforcement establishment functions domestically the way
a standing army would. That's exactly what we saw on display at
the Bundy ranch. During the debates over the Second Amendment Rep.
Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts argued:
What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to
prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty
.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of
the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to
raise an army upon their ruins.
Imagine if the government didn't
have the BLM and its thugs to bully Cliven Bundy. Imagine if to go
after him congress would have had to meet and then vote to call forth
the Nevada militia. Does anyone seriously think that a militia
composed of Mr. Bundy's neighbors would have even tried to enforce
the federal government's tyranny on him? Of course not. If we don't
give the government the power to oppress it won't. The only way to
secure our rights is to disarm the government while arming and
organizing the people.
A note on the “militias” that
protected the Bundy ranch. They were brave, determined people that
I'm glad succeeded in defending the ranch. What they aren't is
militias in the sense meant by the Founders and thinkers like
Trenchard. The militias are supposed to be part of the system not
groups or individuals outside of it. Explaining the issue from a
constitutional point of view Edwin Viera wrote an excellent article
on the subject titled “True
Vs. False Militia And Why The Difference Matters”. In it he
wrote:
As
wholly private organizations with no legal authority peculiar to
themselves-- for certainly not a single one of them has been
empowered by a State statute to participate in the activities they
have taken upon themselves -- these "militias" are
necessarily not parts of the government of any State or Locality.
Indeed, they view themselves as at least potential antagonists and
opponents of "the government" in general
“Militias”
set up outside of the system are revolutionary groups. (I don't want
to be misunderstood here. I'm not saying opposing the government is
wrong or bad, I'm just trying to set the record straight about what
militias really are.) Mr. Viera gets the principle right though his
application is wrong. As an anarchist libertarian I'm more
anti-government than any “militia” member will ever be. What we
need aren't constitutional militias but militias that are part of a
stateless system.
The
bottom line is that if the government didn't have a “standing army”
in the form of the BLM and the system's enforcers were the very
people that tyranny would be inflicted on they couldn't even have
tried to do what they did. Imagine that, our liberties would be
secure and the Bundy ranch free of federal invaders.
Spot on!
ReplyDeleteSo we can have our cake and eat it too? I see nothing that would not simply let the FedGov and States come up with some organizational changes and let the system continue to function as is: the way the Bundesrepublik has very few "federal police" but all the Landerpolitzei are basically integrated and interchangeable. Congress simply has a permanent ("standing order") request for the states to furnish x number of personnel (or units), funding on an annual basis. It isn't local "militia" that crack down on the Bundy Ranch, it is a unit from Georgia or Pennsylvania.
ReplyDeleteUnknown, someone else made a similar point on Facebook. He cited the Whiskey Rebellion when they brought in militias from other states to Pennsylvania. It's hard to imagine congress calling forth the militias to stop cattle grazing & save the tortoises, but you never know. Not to mention it's hard to imagine that the militias would be willing to fight for such nonsense.
Delete"That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free state, that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided.
ReplyDelete"I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected. Under the present government all ranks of people are subject to militia duty."
George Mason (1725-1792)
"When Fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross"--Sinclair Lewis (aka: Tea Party)
ReplyDelete