Big Head Press

L. Neil Smith's
Number 658, February 19, 2012

Freedom, Immortality, and the Stars. For me, that's
what the current rEVOLution is all about.

Previous Previous Table of Contents Contents Next Next

Martial Law on Monday
by Michael Bradshaw

Bookmark and Share

Special to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

The following quote from Mouse, a fellow member of a forum, prompted my reply.

Quote from: mouse on February 05, 2012, 12:35:29 AM

Does "being UNCONSTITUTIONAL" always equal "being UNLAWFUL"? Seriously I'm not trying to dis' the USA (because most other places are the same if not worse) but 90% of what I am reading about the USA—AND OF COURSE HERE [an unnamed (to protect the innocent) country in the Southern Hemisphere M. B.] AS WELL—has the Constitution being violated and it is considered "lawful" and acceptable".

Hi, Mouse,

Lets start at the beginning, so to speak.

After the revolution against England, and a few years of wrangling among the several states (of which there were 13), a gang of statists that today would be called "fascists" (for their desire to have a strong government coupled with old-line businesses—to rob the populace and prevent competition), hijacked a convention of delegates from the state governments, sent to Philadelphia to amend the Articles of Confederation that bound the states together in a loose union. They redirected the convention to propose the scrapping of the Confederation in favor of a new and different "super-state" to be called "The United States of America" and proposed a constitution to authorize it to exist and give it form.

Those who proposed and advertised for the ratification of the constitution were called "federalists" and those opposed to the proposal were "antifederalists". The latter I call my political ancestors; and we trace our lineage back through the Franco-Scottish Enlightenment (the roots and philosophical essence of the American Revolution), through the Spanish scholastics of the thirteen-hundreds, to early roots in Classical Greece.

The new constitution did not have any provision for human or civil rights guaranteed to the individuals who lived in the states. That was unacceptable to the folks who fought and defeated England. As a result of this omission and a major strategic blunder by the antifederalists (falling for the old "bait and switch" con), the opposing groups formed a binding contract. The antifederalists would vote to ratify the constitution (which could not have passed without that help) if, and only if, the federalists amended the constitution at once to include a "bill of rights" that would guarantee human and civil rights to the general populace in perpetuity.

At that point (after ratification and the insertion of the bill of rights) the constitution had two main parts. Those were the original body of the document (which gave authorization and form to the government) and the first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights), which could not be removed or weakened without violating the original contract upon which the constitution was ratified in the first place. That is why the highest law of the United States is the Bill of Rights, not any other part of the Constitution, or acts of the Congress, the President or the courts.

By ceding sovereignty to the federal government the states effectively made themselves departments of the central state, and made their constitutions and laws inferior to the federal bill of rights, constitution (with the other amendments added) and federal laws made pursuant to the federal constitution.

We now have a hierarchy of laws in the United States:

  • At the top, and not amendable, removable or weakenable by acts of the Congress, President, federal courts or any of the states, without violating the contract that is the foundation of the Constitution and the state that it authorizes, we find the Bill of Rights.

  • In second place is the Constitution of the Unites States, as amended.

  • In third place are the laws passed by the Congress of the United States and signed by the President that are made as authorized by the Constitution (including the prohibitions against state action found in the Bill of Rights) to carry out the powers of government that are listed in the original constitution at article 1, section 8 only. Only the Congress has any power to make laws by passing bills through both houses of the Congress and sending them to the President for his signature or veto.

  • The states also have Bills of Rights, Constitutions and state, county and city laws.

Within this hierarchy: higher laws (and the Bill of Rights is a written law (well, 10) that cannot be amended or repealed) will overrule lower acts of government that conflict with the higher laws. Therefore, no act of government of any kind can be "lawful" if it contradicts any higher law, such as the Constitution in general or the Bill of Rights in particular.

So, to be specific, "being UNCONSTITUTIONAL" always equals "being UNLAWFUL", not law, of no legal force and not binding on anyone. See the Supreme Court case "Marbury vs. Madison". Also, the Constitution in general, and the Bill of Rights in particular, are written in rather simple, declarative sentences in the English Language; and therefor mean what they say, not the exact opposite, or anything else. Anyone who contends to the contrary is a liar.

Now things start to get interesting, so hang onto your hat!

On Bill of Rights Day, 2011 (Dec. 15, 2011), as a conscious slap in the face to all Ethnic Americans (the folk of that pesky Franco-Scottish Enlightenment, etc. ad nauseum), the Congress of the United States passed (enacted) the Military Appropriation Act of 2012, to go into effect 60 days after "enactment". Reports have the President signing it with the intent to enforce it as though it were a law (it is not constitutional, and therefor not a "law" of the United States) on Dec. 16 and also on Dec. 31. As only the congress can "enact" (act to make) a bill, and the president may "ratify" (sign with intent to enforce) it to make it a "law", it would appear that the date of effect is 60 days after the Congress voted to pass the final form of the bill and send it to the President.

So, we seem to have the bill going into effect on February 13, 2012, not on Feb. 29, as some would hold. However, I may be wrong about the date.

This bill is not just unconstitutional. It revokes the common law, the Bill of Rights, due process of law for commoners, habeas corpus, the rule of law in general and the Constitution of the United States. It also violates the contract between the Federalists and the Antifederalists, thereby voiding the ratification and authorization of the original Constitution and the republic to which it gave form. As a direct consequence of the above, it also voided all federal laws, acts and regulations, along with (because the states made themselves departments of the federal government by ratifying the original constitution) all state constitutions, state and local laws, regulations and ordinances. vWhee! Ain't legal contemplation fun?

As of Feb. 13, 2012 (or Feb. 29) The United States of America is no more. It is replaced by—perhaps we should call it—"The Empire of Usa" (to distinguish it from the small town named Usa in northern Japan, where all those neat products seem to be made), ruled over by His Imperial Majesty, Emperor Barry (or whatever his name is) the First.

Oh, and did I mention that it declares war on the people of North America, along with everyone else in the world?

Because so many changes of such huge magnitude are started at once on Feb. 13 (or 29th), those of us who try to project the trend lines of history watch the general trend hit that date—and disappear into a wall of fog (with thanks to Neil Smith for the wording). We are still following the general trend line of Germany in the early 1940s, but the specifics can go in just about any direction within that general form from now on.

The one clear thing about the changeover from a republic to an empire is that we stand at a cusp of history. In fact, the general trend may be changed to another direction altogether, if the ethnic Americans decide to abolish the empire en toto.

Some thoughts:

  • If you live in any large city in North America, get out NOW, before you join in a happy-radioactive-plasma-party, or catch a case of the never-get-overs.

  • Convert most of your FERNs to real money now.

  • If you want to fight for your freedom and family, consider 5GW strategy. It can kill an empire just as well as a republic, and not replace it with another one. Why repeat the same-old follies of the last 6,000+ (more like 10,000+) years of political history? Including trusting to any "just another god-damned piece of paper" and the good intentions of the genocidal psychopaths that we all know and love so well.

Best Wishes, and Good Luck to us all,


P. S.

If you wish to see how 5GW works, go to and start with "Election and Revolution".

Mouse replied in part:

"but "martial law on Monday"? I'm confused."

Well, Mouse, if the U. S. Congress and President What's-His-Name are revoking the Constitution and the rule of law; and intend to continue to rule after that by means of naked military force; then what else should we call it but "martial law"? Also, February 13 falls on a Monday this year. Therefor "Martial Law on Monday" not only rhymes, but makes a title for this article, as well.

How about that?

Michael Bradshaw

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:



Big Head Press