Rights & Freedoms – Survive with Will – Thoughtful Analysis & Perceptions https://www.survivewithwill.com Thoughtful Analysis, Perceptions, Commentary, and Interviews on Everything Important in the World Thu, 30 Apr 2020 17:35:22 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0 https://i0.wp.com/www.survivewithwill.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/cropped-American_Flag_1.jpg?fit=32%2C32&ssl=1 Rights & Freedoms – Survive with Will – Thoughtful Analysis & Perceptions https://www.survivewithwill.com 32 32 139766861 Liberty, Freedom, and Sovereignty https://www.survivewithwill.com/2020/04/30/liberty-freedom-and-sovereignty/ Thu, 30 Apr 2020 17:26:45 +0000 http://www.survivewithwill.com/?p=1766 Read More]]>

Liberty, Freedom, Sovereignty

The global plandemic SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) has forced the conversation about Liberty, Freedom, and Sovereignty to come into the mainstream. Many of us have discussed this important topic for years. The positive side of this plandemic is that now normies are talking about our fundamental rights and freedoms. For the first time, ever, they have experienced being told NO. This is the time for us to shine. We need to stay calm, be positive, and avoid hyperbole. Help the normies see the value of defending that most valuable of possessions; our rights. We can also guide them to build their skills, understanding, and preps to sustain them now and in the future.

There is a unique window of time open. It may not last long. Take advantage. The general masses are acutely aware that they have rights that they took had taken for granted. They ceded those rights without a fight and now realize that they should have protested. This, brief, moment in time offers an opportunity to inform and guide normies to our side. The side of protecting and defending our most sacred gift, Liberty, Freedom, and Sovereignty.

Although my team already understands, it is important to stress, keep it simple, don’t overwhelm. The idea is to run the self-reliance virus in their psyche. Let them ask questions, provide solid empirical data to support what you tell them. Offer normie source points that they know who have been forced to admit the manipulation they have perpetrated on them. It may take a year, but if it is in them, as the truth emerges they will shift to a new paradigm, ours.

Building a community (tribe) is a win-win. Even if they are not part of your “tribe” the fact that they are working with a common purpose means that they won’t be a burden on you. Avoid hyperbolic Deep State and conspiracy discussions, no matter how true. Stick to the basics. You will be shocked by how quickly they will go down the rabbit hole and have endless questions for you along the way. Send them to my series on Reasoned Thought to help them learn how to vet the information they will be exposed to.

The true value of being prepared and practicing skills is that each of us, capable, standing alone, can stand not behind us but shoulder to shoulder.

 

Vet - Def: to evaluate for possible accuracy for acceptance as fact.

 

 

 

]]> 1766 When Has Government Gone Too Far? https://www.survivewithwill.com/2018/01/24/government-gone-far/ Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:44:53 +0000 http://www.survivewithwill.com/?p=1170 Read More]]>

Executive Summary

The answer to that question is not a Boolean. First you must establish what the rules are, the boundaries set forth for the government and the people. The exceptional thing about the USA was that the Founding Fathers created the USA with the intent to flip the tables of every other modern nation at the time. They started with the Articles of Confederation which acknowledged State sovereignty and inherent rights not granted by the government but “God given” rights. Later they created the core establishing document; the US Constitution to set out certain rights as unalienable. After some discord a series of amendments known as the “Bill of Rights” were adopted and amended to the Constitution to further secure those rights. The Constitution was unique, it constrained the government, not the people. It limited governmental powers and cemented individual rights. The USA was built upon individualism.

Once those boundaries are established it is simple to identify when the government oversteps. Unfortunately, when people are uneducated in their rights and rules of the nation, they are unable to recognize when they are being denied. The citizen’s lack of understanding regarding their rights has reached such proportions that even those who are the people’s representatives demonstrate a complete lack of understanding. When your governmental representatives don’t recognize intentionally or through ignorance the citizen’s rights everything collapses.

The Whole Story

The sting of battle was fresh in the minds of those who framed our nation. The British has commandeered property, homes, livestock, without remuneration, for their use leaving thousands of people homeless and destitute. Thus the 3rd amendment was adopted. Many were jailed prior to the Revolution for “crimes” without due process. The US Constitutional amendments known as the Bill of Rights established the underpinning for our system of law. They specifically added the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments to define citizen's rights and protections against the law and the government.

  • 4th Prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause as determined by a neutral judge or magistrate.
  • 5th Sets out rules for formal accusation by grand jury and eminent domain, protects the right to due process, and prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy.
  • 5th Sets out rules for indictment by grand jury and eminent domain, protects the right to due process, and prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy.
  • 6th Protects the right to a fair and speedy public trial by jury, including the rights to be notified of the accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnesses and to retain counsel.
  • 7th Provides for the right to trial by jury in certain civil cases, according to common law.
  • 8th Prohibits excessive fines and excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment.

There are other government documents that establish further constraints upon the government. One example is the Posse Comitatus, it constrains the use and operation of the US Military in the homeland. (Refer to Posse Comitias.)

Enlighten yourself to your rights. Read, study, make yourself aware. You are your first line of defense in the protection of such an awesome gift. Eternal vigilance is the key. I know that means work, and history tells that even when being systematically starved to death as happened in Poland, Germany, and the Ukraine, only a few did anything to fight back. In each of those areas the people in the area far outnumbered their oppressors. But still they did nothing. Starve to death slowly, or possibly die saving your children. The Soviet government hung posters all over the Ukraine imploring the people to not eat their children.

During 2016 through 2018 President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey has systematically removed Turkey’s Supreme Court Justices, top military personnel, and more. His actions raise alarm bells. He claims to be looking to loosen overbearing secularism in the interest of the people. The New Yorker wrote,

“The Turkish military has often served as the nation’s firewall against encroachments on secularism and the Constitution, guarding the aspirations of its founder, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. The tension between secularism and religious fundamentalism is as essential to understanding today’s Turkish political life as is the tension between federalism and states’ rights in America.” (Read More)

The removal of Supreme Court Justices and others has raised concerns. Turkey has been a secular democracy since Mustafa Kemal Atatürk established the constitution. It is too soon to know how it will end.  Erdoğan has hijacked the press, ordered the assassination of opposing government and military leaders. These acts are not signs of fair governance, they smell like totalitarian, dictatorial behaviors. The free world watches with concern.  

Conclusion

It is much more difficult to create or take back rights that have been forfeited than to maintain them.

The only way that US citizens will be able guarantee that the government does not ignore or impede those rights is through transparency and citizen oversight. All security safety is the of the citizen individual. Always remember as Machiavelli said there are no friends in politics. (Click here to read the article on Machiavelli.) Vigilance is our best protection. Apathy cedes our rights to those who would take them from us.

(Click here to read the associated article on Balancing Freedom & Governance)

]]> 1170 Balancing Freedom & Governance https://www.survivewithwill.com/2018/01/24/balancing-freedom-governance/ Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:39:24 +0000 http://www.survivewithwill.com/?p=1167 Read More]]>

The greatest challenge of a civilized society is striking a balance between the need for governance and that of the freedoms and sovereignty of the citizen. As I have discussed in many other articles humans will never survive and thrive unless they work together. The balance between freedom and government is constantly strained. In life and in Daily governance there are competing interests. Those interests press the limits of the boundaries. The Founding Fathers of the United States set forth in the law, the rights of the citizens, with few constraints. The Constitution was crafted to assure that freedom and limit the overreach of the government.

The USA was built by staunch individuals who worked hard, they took their freedoms and liberty seriously. Every day they fought, sometimes physically to maintain those freedoms. Two hundred and forty plus years later we have lost sight of those struggles and how bad life is without the liberty and freedoms that they left to us.

Individualism creates strong self-sustaining people. Independent, they are able to “do things”. Individuals come together in a unit, tribe, clan, or society in order to pool resources and attain higher levels of living. People who come together with shared language, values, work ethic, and a common culture will inevitably outperform individuals and tribes which lack any of those binding forces. These cultures are drawn across ethnic, racial, and other lines. The unit has everything to do with all “being on the same team.” That is why assimilation is so critical. The failure to assimilate immigrants into a host culture sets the wheels in motion for discord, unrest, and eventually cultural suicide. (Click here to read the article on assimilation.)

I have constantly reiterated the fact that language is the core to what binds a nation, a society, a culture, and a people together. Without that, there is no connection, thoughtful dialogue, or advancement of the way of life for the unit. Bonded through language the unit may exercise it to institute structure and law. (Click here to read)

The Founding Fathers of the United States, created our foundational documents based upon similar ideas found in the constitutions of the Athenian, Roman, and the Netherland's Republics, and the Magna Carta. They designed the United States Constitution, a system of laws which constrained the powers of the government over its citizens.

Again, language is the key to understanding, education, and negotiation. You cannot establish rules when the two parties involved do not speak and comprehend the same language.

 

Citizen or Subject?

 It is unfortunate that most citizens of the United States do not even understand that they are citizens. In most nations around the world today, the people who live within the borders of an established nation are subjects. They are subject to the whims of the nation in which they live. Subjects have no rights which the government has not given.

The difference between a subject and a citizen is significant. In America the Constitution recognizes inherent rights given by God, not by the government. Those inherent rights are no small matter. There is a critical term within the Constitution; unalienable, often misstated as inalienable. The term unalienable or inalienable in the Constitution refers to the acknowledgement that the government did not give certain rights and therefore may not retract them. This is significant and far-reaching. Listening to news media personalities and government officials, it will become clearly evident that they do not understand this the constitution and the rights nor laws that it establishes.

Kathy Sheehan, mayor of Albany, NY, while speaking about illegal immigrants on Tucker Carlson’s show (on January 23, 2018) underscored the problem. During the discussion, Sheehan made a comment that speaks to the point. Speaking of illegal immigrants in the USA she said, “when you are here, you have constitutional rights.” Even when Carlson asserted that they are not citizens and have no rights under the Constitution she rejected the idea. The section is around 18 minutes in, see the video below.

Unfortunately, there is an undercurrent within the United States that has been heavily influenced by people and organizations with opposing beliefs from both in and outside of the USA. While some of those people genuinely believe that they are doing the right thing, they do so ignorant to the gift that the US Constitution assures all Americans. Listening to British citizens regularly speaking on matters of the USA and its laws; it becomes instantly obvious that they are making one of the most dangerous and common mistakes, working from their perspective without care to the facts immediately at hand.

British people are subjects. It has always been that way they know no other way. So, when arguing or debating a subject of rights or governance in the USA, they will get it wrong. They argue from a perspective that the government grants them their rights. They have completely missed the point that citizens of the USA have rights given by God not by the government. Those rights are set like concrete in the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights. Such an idea is alien to those from other nations.

Clearly a civilized society bound together by its language, culture, and shared values requires the rule law. In the United States that law is known as US Code. The USC established that criminal law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no ruling class. There is no one is above the law in the USA. All men are created equal and recognized as such in the law. (Learn more about the US Code)

In 1215, in the meadow of Runnymede in England, the Magna Carta was signed. One of significant parts of the Magna Carta was that it allowed British subjects to own property. (Click here to read the article on the Magna Carta.) The difference between the right given to Britain's subjects is that the government has the power rescind that right at any time. The rights of the citizens recognized in the United States Constitution are unalienable.

Conclusion

The only way that US citizens will be able to guarantee that the government does not ignore or impede those rights is through transparency and citizen oversight. All security and safety are the responsibility of each individual citizen. Always remember as Machiavelli said there are no friends in politics. Vigilance is our best protection. Apathy cedes our rights to those who would take them from us.

(Click here to read the article on Machiavelli.)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siMGpym1lQ8&pbjreload=10

]]> 1167 Land Rights – Freedom and Constitutional Rights in USA https://www.survivewithwill.com/2018/01/03/land-rights-freedom-and-constitutional-rights-in-usa/ Wed, 03 Jan 2018 18:58:05 +0000 http://www.survivewithwill.com/?p=1010 Read More]]>

Executive Summary:

USA Citizen’s rights to Real Property – Mineral, Gas, and Oil

  • If you live in a city or even one of the major metropolitan suburbs you probably never thought about your real property rights. Okay, so you own your home, or the bank does until you pay it off or sell it.
  • If you hold (own) mineral rights, you own an estate in real property. That property is referred to as a mineral estate, commonly referred to as mineral rights. Executive Summary:
  • The citizens of the United States of America are having their cherished property rights stripped covertly by their own government.

US Government (BLM) Land Holdings:

(percentage of all state lands owned by the US heavily weighted in the west)

  • Nevada - 84.5 %
  • Alaska - 69.1 %
  • Utah - 57.4 %
  • Oregon - 53.1 %
  • Idaho - 50.2 %
  • Arizona - 48.1 %
  • California - 45.3 %
  • Wyoming - 42.4 %
  • New Mexico - 41.8 %
  • Colorado - 36.6 %
  • Washington - 30.3 %
  • Montana - 29.9 %

Federal numbers report that the BLM has over 700 million acres of sub-surface rights (define mineral rights) of both Federal and non-Federal lands across the entire nation. Let us put that into perspective. The total number of acres in the US and Washington DC is 1,875.714 million acres. The US BLM holds mineral rights to over 700 million acres. (See the actual numbers.)

The latest incursion by the government into private land ownership is that every time a property is sold in foreclosure the government slices the real property mineral rights off the surface land deed. The state or federal government takes ownership of the mineral rights. According to two of my sources in the oil and gas industry, the State of Pennsylvania is the single largest recipient of mineral rights royalties in the state. The numbers have been growing every year. It is similar to other nations where the government “seized” the mineral rights of their entire nations for the government.

Supporting Material:

Judge Andrew Napolitano warns, “"I'm going to make a statement that the government will consider outrageous. The Constitution simply does not authorize the federal government to own any of this land. All of it is being held unconstitutionally and all of it should be returned to the private property owners from which it was taken or to the states in which it exists, period." The fact is, the judge as much as I like him, is unfortunately incorrect.  

“ The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States....
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2”

 His comments are based upon the “originalist” view of the Constitution. While many of us would celebrate the day that such views prevailed. Sadly, that is currently not the case. Supreme Court rulings have undermined those original rules. There is a hot debate on that “fact”. The Property Clause in the US Constitution give the government broad rights over the ownership, holding, sale, use, etc. of land that it owns.

This ownership, on its face, is sold as benign and altruistic. History shows what happens with the property after the government takes ownership via fiat, seizure, or imminent domain. Shielded in claims of preservation and environmental issues that actual outcome is a political patronage driven contradiction. In Nevada a lot of the land that was “taken” into the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) was taken to save it from unbridled grazing. Shortly after it surfaced that Harry Reid (Senator NV) had championed a deal with a Chinese company to lease the land in order to build a giant solar electric power farm on the land. Also, Uranium One was granted a lease for mineral rights to mine uranium on the same land. The list goes on and on.

The United States of America is unique, thanks to our Founding Fathers, they crafted a nation whose laws and constitution recognized, not granted, “God given” rights to own property and much more. Over two hundred fifty years later, there are still few nations in the world that even allow private ownership of real property, period. The United States of America is still one of the only nations in the world where private citizens own mineral rights, let alone the real property (land). People have no idea of the concept, or the ramifications of the undermining of this priceless right. Well, except for people who live west of the Rocky Mountains.

There is a quite incursion against one of the most sacred rights of United States of America’s citizens. The federal and state governments with the help of “sweet hearted” private companies, many international, have been pulling the proverbial rug, of mineral and land owner rights, out from under us.

There are so many people, highly professional, very intelligent, who trade disparate pieces of information with me every day. It is exhilarating. I am an analyst. I gather data, verify it, cull it, run it up the flagpole and see if it flies, throw it against the wall and see what sticks. It may lay in mess in my mind, on the floor in my office, or even in disparate files on my offline computer. Then, THEN, one day, one moment, and CLICK! It fits! It means something! This day, this moment was one of them.

My contacts and I have chewed over disparate points about the BLM, the Bundy situation, and thousands of other

One of the rights so sacred to USA citizens is the right to own property, unmolested.

Since the 1990’s the federal and state governments have systematically and covertly been stealing the property rights from us. The theft is very discrete. Few even realize what is happening.

Unless you lived under a rock for the last 10 years, maybe you lived in a cave because you lost your home, you know that millions of properties went into foreclosure. The banks taking the properties from people when the market went upside down. The other day I overhead someone saying, matter-of-factly, “my husband works for the banks, they don’t want to sell the houses, they want to foreclose.” I sat, annoyed by her ignorant attitude about it, thinking to myself why? Amassing these properties, a glut of homes, deteriorating and sapping funds to upkeep them, why? It really annoyed me. So, Will, the investigator / analyst, started cogitating on the point. Why? Why? It is bad business. Do everything that you can to minimize long term losses, minimize overhead, that’s what you do.

The US citizens are being raped of their rights and property. Thanks to ignorance, they don’t even know it is happening. As usual ignorance is no defense, and if you think that claiming ignorance will get you back what you lost, you are sadly mistaken.

Supreme Court ruling in Brandt v. United States

The case involved the General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875, under which thousands of miles of rights-of-way were established across the United States. The act allowed railroads to acquire easements all over the country in order to lay tracks. These easements were written so that they would revert to the property owner in the event the railroads ever abandoned the easements. But in 1988, Congress passed a “railbanking” statute which holds that upon abandonment, these easements could be morphed into a public recreational trail, with the landowner receiving no compensation.

In this case Marvin Brandt acquired land in Wyoming that came with a pre-existing railroad easement. In 2001, the railroad, which had long owned the easement, abandoned all claims to the easement. The Brandt family therein obtained complete ownership of the land in question. However, in 2006 the United States government sued for title to the land on the theory that the federal government retained a residual claim to it after the railroad abandoned the easement. Brandt argued that the federal government had no legitimate claim to the abandoned easement and could not take that land without conflicting with the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. The Tenth Circuit ruled in favor of the federal government, holding that the upon abandonment the land reverted to the United States. Today, the Supreme Court reversed that decision—making clear that the Brandt’s acquired all rights in the subject land once the railroad abandoned its easement, and affirming the principle that government cannot redefine previously recognized property rights out of existence. 

]]> 1010 Combat Arms Survey US Government https://www.survivewithwill.com/2017/12/10/combat-arms-survey-us-government/ Sun, 10 Dec 2017 06:36:49 +0000 http://www.survivewithwill.com/?p=112 Read More]]> Combat Arms Survey
Administered to 300 Active Duty Marines at 29 Palms, CA
May 10, 1994

Article from the NEW AMERICAN Vol 11 No. 20 October 2, 1995

Twenty-Nine Palms Survey:

What Really Motivated Its Author?

by John F. McManus

Veteran readers of THE NEW AMERICAN are vibrantly aware of the May 10, 1994 “Combat Arms Survey” administered to 300 active-duty Marines at the USMC’s Air-Ground Combat Center, Twenty-Nine Palms, California.

Among its 46 questions, the Marines were asked if they would be willing to swear to a United Nations code of conduct and if they would fire on Americans who refused to turn over their privately owned weapons to the government. Other questions sought their approval or disapproval about their involvement in an assortment of operations far removed from proper military assignments, some of which would even place them under formal UN command.

One of the Marines who participated in this exercise became so disturbed by the questions that he obtained an extra copy and sent it to THE NEW AMERICAN. No sooner had our published report about this survey reached readers than several congressmen fired off inquiries to the Marine Corps and Navy. Spokesmen for both branches of the service issued statements claiming there was really nothing to be concerned about, that the survey was merely part of its author’s research for a master’s degree thesis.

But that explanation neatly sidesteps a far more important consideration: The aura of official acceptance of these subversive attitudes would certainly lead some of the Marines toward believing that they should hold them as well. It is our contention that no one wearing a uniform of the U.S. Armed Forces should ever allow troops under his command to be subjected to such totally unconstitutional thinking.

Author’s Defense

We have talked at length with the author of this survey, Navy Lieutenant Commander Ernest Guy Cunningham, and about his motivation in creating it. He provided us with a copy of the 197-page thesis he wrote after analyzing the responses given by the Marines. His thesis helped him to earn a master of science degree in the area of manpower, personnel, and training analysis from the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California.

Anxious to defend himself from charges he is pro-UN, Cunningham repeatedly contended in his interview with THE NEW AMERICAN that he is no enemy of America and no participant in any plan to demoralize U.S. troops. He maintained emphatically that he wanted only to confirm and then pass on to higher authorities his fears about “the lack of knowledge among the soldiers about the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and their heritage as Americans.” He added: “I’m a life member of the National Rifle Association, an ardent constitutionalist, and I’m even disappointed with the NRA spokesmen who don’t do a very good job defending their position.”

To each of the questions or scenarios presented in the Cunningham survey, the Marines were asked if they strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree, or have no opinion. The first part of the survey dealt with non-traditional missions (termed “operations other than war” by Cunningham) under the command and control of U.S. military personnel, first inside the United States, and then outside the United States. Additional questions dealt with those same type missions conducted outside the U.S. under United Nations command and control.

The Marines indicated overwhelming acquiescence to being assigned under U.S. control within the U.S. for such non-traditional missions as drug enforcement, disaster relief, environmental clean-up, substitute teaching in public schools, guarding prisons, national emergency policing, or assisting federal law enforcement officials. For example, one of the questions asked the Marines if they would be willing to be assigned to a “national emergency police force” within the U.S. under U.S. command. The survey showed that 6.0 percent strongly disagreed, 6.3 percent disagreed, 42.3 percent agreed, 43.0 percent strongly agreed, and 2.3 percent had no opinion.

“Do you realize,” Cunningham stated during our telephone interview, “that 85.3 percent agreed with assigning troops to a mission that violates the Posse Comitatus Act?” This Act states that “it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus [power of the county], or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except [when] authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress.”

Additional results published in Cunningham’s thesis demonstrate a high degree of willingness on the part of these U.S. troops to carry out non-traditional missions under U.S. command: 48 percent agreement for drug enforcement; 39 percent for disaster relief; 67 percent for peacekeeping; and 52 percent for humanitarian relief. However, when questions were asked about similar missions involving U.S. troops under UN command, the approval rate dropped off markedly: 17 percent for drug enforcement; 13 percent for disaster relief; 25 percent for peacekeeping; 21 percent for humanitarian relief; and only 11 percent for Korean or Vietnam police action.

Firing on U.S. Citizens?

While all of the questions in this survey should have stimulated concern, the survey’s final question has generated an enormous amount of attention:

The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.

The survey results: 42.3 percent strongly disagreed with this statement; 19.3 percent disagreed; 18.6 percent agreed; 7.6 percent strongly agreed; and 12.0 percent had no opinion. In one of the footnotes appearing in his thesis, Cunningham quotes comments placed by some of the Marines next to their answers to this question: “What about the damn Second Amendment? …. I feel this is a first in communism! …. Read the book None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen.” “I would not even consider it. The reason we have guns is so that the people can overthrow the gov’t when or if the people think the gov’t is too powerful.” “Freedom to bear arms is our Second Amendment. If you take our Amendments away then you can take this job and stick it where the sun don’t shine! …. It is a right to own firearms for defense (2nd Amendment); I would fight for that right!”

Based on the disagreement expressed by 61 percent of the Marines, Cunningham concluded that “a complete unit breakdown would occur in a unit tasked to execute this mission.”

Cunningham’s Deficiencies

In his interview with THE NEW AMERICAN, Cunningham claimed to be appalled that so many Marines would be willing to serve in non-traditional roles that conflict with the purpose of our military or to serve under UN command. He even volunteered that he “didn’t agree personally with any portion of the survey” even though he is “its sole author, originator, and creator.” Yet the thesis he submitted gave no indication of any such sentiments. Just the opposite, in fact.

In his thesis, Cunningham states that “The legitimacy of operations other than war is rooted in the constitutional powers of the Executive,” and that such operations and the placement of “U.S. forces under operational control of United Nations personnel are legitimate.” [Emphasis added.] Not so, according to our reading of the Constitution and the thinking of those who wrote it. The military is not the President’s to use as he wishes; his designation as “Commander in Chief” is an occasional assignment of responsibility, not a wholesale grant of power.

Betraying a poor understanding of the proper role of the military, Cunningham claims: “But the Framers also granted the Executive the latitude to use the Federal troops under his command as a tool of diplomacy when he deemed it appropriate. This was the case in both Korea and Vietnam.” That kind of thinking has gotten this nation into undeclared wars, led to casualties in the hundreds of thousands, and entangled our nation ever more deeply in the United Nations and its subsidiary organizations.

Cunningham’s claims that he is a defender of the U.S. Constitution have to be questioned when he writes: “Future U.S. missions may require the inclusion of international soldiers in U.S. units and, in some cases, when national security interests dictate, the President of the United States may appoint a competent United Nations officer to exercise operational control over U.S. contingents.”

But what about the fact that most U.S. military personnel apparently don’t want to serve in “peacekeeping” missions? “Some may argue that the military need only incorporate the necessary indoctrination and training,” Cunningham notes in his thesis. “But doing so would require establishing formal training and indoctrination programs … thus, in effect, building a completely new program from the ground up. Another possibility may be more realistic. Realizing the conflict and incongruity peacekeeping represents in a combat organizational model, it may be necessary to bifurcate the military. Such a change could promote specialization and provide an opportunity to those who desire peacekeeping duty. Perhaps it is time to designate separate fighting forces and peacekeeping forces.”

Cunningham’s own survey results demonstrate that there is solid opposition to converting the U.S. military into an adjunct of a New World Army. Yet his outrageous suggestion provides the globalists with an opportunity for circumventing that opposition. If implemented, it would undoubtedly be, not an end in itself, but another ominous step toward the abandonment of the traditional role of the U.S. military. Yet there is good reason to believe that these subversive plans will never be accomplished — as the heroic stand of Army Specialist Michael New amply demonstrates.

© Copyright 1994-2000 American Opinion Publishing Incorporated

Here’s the questionnare, as posted on FreeRepublic — some posters said they took it, a few pooh-poohed it. I put in bold italics a point I was not familiar with, and see now why they asked the marines.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a441714.htm

“Editorial Note The enclosed Combat Arms Survey is a true and accurate reproduction of the contents of the questionnaire. We altered the format to accommodate the SurviveWithWill.com’s formating.

COMBAT ARMS SURVEY

This questionnaire is to gather data concerning the attitudes of combat trained personnel with regard to nontraditional missions. All of your responses are confidential. Write your answers directly on the questionnaire form. In Part II, place an “X” in the space provided for your response.

Part I.

Demographics

1.What Service are you in?

2.What is your pay grade? (e.g. E-?, 0-?)

3.What is your MOS code and description?

4.What is your highest level of education in years?

5.How many months did you serve in Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield?

6. How many months did you serve in Somalia?

7.What state or country did you primarily reside in during childhood?

Part ll. Attitudes

Do you feel that U.S. combat troops should be used within the United States for any of the following missions?

8. Drug enforcement

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

9. Disaster relief (e.g. hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes)

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

10. Security at national events (e.g. Olympic Games, Super Bowl)

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

11. Environmental disaster clean-up

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

12.Substitute teachers in public schools

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

13. Community assistance programs (e.g. landscaping, environmental clean-up, road repair, animal control)

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

14.Federal and state prison guards

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

15.National emergency police force

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

16.Advisors to S.W.A.T units, the FBI, or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (B.A.T. F. )

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

17.Border patrol (e. g. prevention of illegal aliens into U.S. territory. )

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

Do you feel that U.S. combat troops under U.S. command should be used in other countries for any of the following United Nations missions?

18. Drug enforcement

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

19.Disaster relief (e.g. hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes)

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

20. Environmental disaster clean-up

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

21. Peace keeping

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

22. Nation building (Reconstruct civil government, develop public school system, develop or improve public transportation system, etc.)

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

23. Humanitarian relief (e.g. food and medical supplies, temporary housing, and clothing)

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

Do you feel that U.S. combat troops should be used in other countries under command of non-U.S. officers appointed by the United Nations for any of the following missions?

24. Drug enforcement

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

25.Disaster relief (e.g. hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes)

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

26.Environmental disaster clean-up

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

27.Peace Keeping

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

28. Nation building (Reconstruct civil government, develop public school system, develop or improve public transportation system, etc.)

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

29.Humanitarian relief (e.g. food and medical supplies, temporary housing, and clothing)

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

30. Police Action (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, but serving under non-U.S. officers)

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

Consider the following statements:

31. The U.S. runs a field training exercise. U.N. combat troops should be allowed to setve in U.S. combat units during these exercises under U.S. command and control.

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

32.The United Nations runs a field training exercise. U.S. combat troops under U.S. command and control should setve in U.N. combat units during these exercises.

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

33.The United Nations runs a field training exercise. U.S. combat troops should serve under U.N. command and control during these exercises.

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

34.U.S. combat troops should participate in U.N. missions as long as the U.S. has full command and control.

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

35. U.S. combat troops should participate in U.N. missions under United Nations command and control.

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

36. U.S. combat troops should be commanded by U.N. officers and non-commissioned officers (NCOs) at battalion and company levels while performing U.N. missions.

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

37. It would make no difference to me to have U.N. soldiers as members of my team. (e.g. fire team, squad, platoon)

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

38.It would make no difference to me to take orders from a U.N. company commander.

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

39.I feel the President of the United States has the authority to pass his responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief to the U.N. Secretary General.

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

40. I feel there is no conflict between my oath of office and serving as a U.N. soldier.

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

41. I feel my unit’s combat effectiveness would not be affected by performing humanitarian missions for the United Nations.

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

42. I feel a designated unit of U.S. combat soldiers should be permanently assigned to the command and control of the United Nations.

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

43.I would be willing to volunteer for assignment to a U.S. combat unit under a U.N. commander.

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

44. I would like U.N. member countries, including the U.S., to give the U.N. all the soldiers necessary to maintain world peace.

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

I would swear to the following code:

“I am a United Nations fighting person. I serve in the forces which maintain world peace and every nation’s way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.”

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

45. The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these fireamis to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to tum over their firearms. Consider the following statement:

I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government

(_____) (____) (_____) (______) (____)

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No opinion

Our civilian readers maybe wondering why the Combat Arms Survey was circulated so heavily within the Department of the Navy. The reason is simple; the Navy is not subject to USC Title 10 Posse Comitatus prohibitions against using federal military forces for domestic law enforcement. This includes the US Marine Corps.

]]> 112 Posse Comitatus https://www.survivewithwill.com/2017/12/10/posse-comitatus/ Sun, 10 Dec 2017 06:33:56 +0000 http://www.survivewithwill.com/?p=87 Read More]]> Posse Comitatus

United States Code

TITLE 18 – CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I – CRIMES

CHAPTER 67 – MILITARY AND NAVY

Sec. 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Explanatory Note:

This law was created to assure that the political leaders of the USA cannot utilize the US Military to enforce laws or make acts of aggression upon American Citizens on the soil of the USA.

Many people have the misconception that the posse comitatus is an absolute ban of the use of US military on home soil against American Citizens. In fact it is not. If you have any question all that you have to is read the one phrase; in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.

 

]]> 87 The Articles of Confederation Actual Document https://www.survivewithwill.com/2016/01/19/survivewithwill-com-useful-info-the-articles-of-confederation-actual-document-2/ Wed, 20 Jan 2016 02:48:08 +0000 http://www.survivewithwill.com/survivewithwill-com-useful-info-the-articles-of-confederation-actual-document-2/ Read More]]>



]]> 273 US Combat Arms Survey https://www.survivewithwill.com/2016/01/15/survivewithwill-com-practicesurvival-coms-useful-info-us-combat-arms-survey/ Fri, 15 Jan 2016 14:08:17 +0000 http://www.survivewithwill.com/survivewithwill-com-practicesurvival-coms-useful-info-us-combat-arms-survey/ Read More]]>


]]> 287 McCulloch v Maryland – SCOTUS https://www.survivewithwill.com/2016/01/15/survivewithwill-com-practicesurvival-coms-useful-info-landmark-legal-cases-mcculloch-v-maryland/ Fri, 15 Jan 2016 14:08:16 +0000 http://www.survivewithwill.com/survivewithwill-com-practicesurvival-coms-useful-info-landmark-legal-cases-mcculloch-v-maryland/ Read More]]>
McCulloch v. Maryland - 1819
 
Explanatory Note:
McCulloch v. Maryland, the Supreme Court allowed for implied powers of the federal government according to the "necessary and proper" clause of the Constitution.
 
This case allowed the powers of the federal government to expand and evolve beyond that specifically written in the Constitution. It allowed for the government to shed the last vestiges of the Anti-Federalist / Jeffersonian view of the USA based on limited size of government, a lose federation of states all individually equal and powerful. The ruling opened the door for the unbridled expansion of the central government and its influence.
 
This Supreme Court Case addressed the issue of Federal power and commerce.
 
Chief Justice John Marshall handed down one of his most important decisions regarding the expansion of Federal power. This case involved the power of Congress to charter a bank, which sparked the even broader issue of the division of powers between state and the Federal Government. established the supremacy of the federal government over state's rights.
 
The full text of the ruling is below:
 
Transcript of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
 
Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court.
 
In the case now to be determined, the defendant, a sovereign State, denies the obligation of a law enacted by the legislature of the Union, and the plaintiff, on his part, contests the validity of an act which has been passed by the legislature of that State. The constitution of our country, in its most interesting and vital parts, is to be considered; the conflicting powers of the government of the Union and of its members, as marked in that constitution, are to be discussed; and an opinion given, which may essentially influence the great operations of the government. No tribunal can approach such a question without a deep sense of its importance, and of the awful responsibility involved in its decision. But it must be decided peacefully, or remain a source of hostile legislation, perhaps of hostility of a still more serious nature; and if it is to be so decided, by this tribunal alone can the decision be made. On the Supreme Court of the United States has the constitution of our country devolved this important duty.
 
The first question made in the cause is, has Congress power to incorporate a bank?
 
It has been truly said that this can scarcely be considered as an open question, entirely unprejudiced by the former proceedings of the nation respecting it. The principle now contested was introduced at a very early period of our history, has been recognized by many successive legislatures, and has been acted upon by the judicial department, in cases of peculiar delicacy, as a law of undoubted obligation. . . .
 
The power now contested was exercised by the first Congress elected under the present constitution. The bill for incorporating the bank of the United States did not steal upon an unsuspecting legislature, and pass unobserved. Its principle was completely understood, and was opposed with equal zeal and ability. After being resisted, first in the fair and open field of debate, and afterwards in the executive cabinet, with as much persevering talent as any measure has ever experienced, and being supported by arguments which convinced minds as pure and as intelligent as this country can boast, it became a law. The original act was permitted to expire; but a short experience of the embarrassments to which the refusal to revive it exposed the government, convinced those who were most prejudiced against the measure of its necessity, and induced the passage of the present law. It would require no ordinary share of intrepidity to assert that a measure adopted under these circumstances was a bold and plain usurpation, to which the constitution gave no countenance.
 
These observations belong to the cause; but they are not made under the impression that, were the question entirely new, the law would be found irreconcilable with the constitution.
 
In discussing this question, the counsel for the State of Maryland have deemed it of some importance, in the construction of the constitution, to consider that instrument not as emanating from the people, but as the act of sovereign and independent States. The powers of the general government, it has been said, are delegated by the States, who alone are truly sovereign; and must be exercised in subordination to the States, who alone possess supreme dominion.
 
It would be difficult to sustain this proposition. The Convention which framed the constitution was indeed elected by the State legislatures. But the instrument, when it came from their hands, was a mere proposal, without obligation, or pretensions to it. It was reported to the then existing Congress of the United States, with a request that it might "be submitted to a convention of delegates, chosen in each State by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its legislature, for their assent and ratification." This mode of proceeding was adopted; and by the convention, by Congress, and by the State legislatures, the instrument was submitted to the people. They acted upon it in the only manner in which they can act safely, effectively, and wisely, on such a subject, by assembling in convention. It is true, they assembled in their several States -- and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their States. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the State governments.
 
From these conventions the constitution derives its whole authority. The government proceeds directly from the people; is "ordained and established" in the name of the people; and is declared to be ordained, "in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and to their posterity." The assent of the States, in their sovereign capacity, is implied in calling a convention, and thus submitting that instrument to the people. But the people were at perfect liberty to accept or reject it; and their act was final. It required not the affirmance, and could not be negatived, by the State governments. The constitution, when thus adopted, was of complete obligation, and bound the State sovereignty. . . .
 
of this fact on the case), is, emphatically, and truly, a government of the people. In form and in substance it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit.
 
This government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, [is] now universally admitted. But the question respecting the extent of the powers actually granted, is perpetually arising, and will probably continue to arise, as long as our system shall exist. . . .
 
Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or creating a corporation. But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the articles of confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers; and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the 10th amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word "expressly," and declares only that the powers "not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people"; thus leaving the question, whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest has been delegated to the one government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument. The men who drew and adopted this amendment had experienced the embarrassments resulting from the insertion of this word in the articles of confederation, and probably omitted it to avoid those embarrassments. A constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires, that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves. That this idea was entertained by the framers of the American constitution, is not only to be inferred from the nature of the instrument, but from the language. Why else were some of the limitations, found in the ninth section of the 1st article, introduced? It is also, in some degree, warranted by their having omitted to use any restrictive term which might prevent its receiving a fair and just interpretation. In considering this question, then, we must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding.
 
Although, among the enumerated powers of government, we do not find the word "bank," or "incorporation," we find the great powers to lay and collect taxes; to borrow money; to regulate commerce; to declare and conduct a war; and to raise and support armies and navies. The sword and the purse, all the external relations, and no inconsiderable portion of the industry of the nation, are entrusted to its government. It can never be pretended that these vast powers draw after them others of inferior importance, merely because they are inferior. Such an idea can never be advanced. But it may with great reason be contended, that a government, entrusted with such ample powers, on the due execution of which the happiness and prosperity of the nation so vitally depends, must also be entrusted with ample means for their execution. The power being given, it is the interest of the nation to facilitate its execution. It can never be their interest, and cannot be presumed to have been their intention, to clog and embarrass its execution by withholding the most appropriate means. . . require it) which would impute to the framers of that instrument, when granting these powers for the public good, the intention of impeding their exercise by withholding a choice of means? If, indeed, such be the mandate of the constitution, we have only to obey; but that instrument does not profess to enumerate the means by which the powers it confers may be executed; nor does it prohibit the creation of a corporation, if the existence of such a being be essential to the beneficial exercise of those powers. It is, then, the subject of fair inquiry, how far such means may be employed.
 
It is not denied, that the powers given to the government imply the ordinary means of execution. That, for example, of raising revenue, and applying it to national purposes, is admitted to imply the power of conveying money from place to place, as the exigencies of the nation may require, and of employing the usual means of conveyance. But it is denied that the government has its choice of means; or, that it may employ the most convenient means, if, to employ them, it be necessary to erect a corporation. . . .
 
The government which has a right to do an act, and has imposed on it the duty of performing that act, must, according to the dictates of reason, be allowed to select the means; and those who contend that it may not select any appropriate means, that one particular mode of effecting the object is excepted, take upon themselves the burden of establishing that exception. . . . The power of creating a corporation, though appertaining to sovereignty, is not like the power of making war, or levying taxes, or of regulating commerce, a great substantive and independent power, which cannot be implied as incidental to other powers, or used as a means of executing them. It is never the end for which other powers are exercised, but a means by which other objects are accomplished. . . . The power of creating a corporation is never used for its own sake, but for the purpose of effecting something else. No sufficient reason is, therefore, perceived, why it may not pass as incidental to those powers which are expressly given, if it be a direct mode of executing them.
 
But the constitution of the United States has not left the right of Congress to employ the necessary means, for the execution of the powers conferred on the government, to general reasoning. To its enumeration of powers is added that of making "all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution, in the government of the United States, or in any department thereof."
 
The counsel for the State of Maryland have urged various arguments, to prove that this clause, though in terms a grant of power, is not so in effect; but is really restrictive of the general right, which might otherwise be implied, of selecting means for executing the enumerated powers. . . .
 
Almost all compositions contain words, which, taken in their rigorous sense, would convey a meaning different from that which is obviously intended. It is essential to just construction, that many words which import something excessive should be understood in a more mitigated sense -- in that sense which common usage justifies. The word "necessary" is of this description. It has not a fixed character peculiar to itself. It admits of all degrees of comparison; and is often connected with other words, which increase or diminish the impression the mind receives of the urgency it imports. A thing may be necessary, very necessary, absolutely or indispensably necessary. To no mind would the same idea be conveyed by these several phrases. This comment on the word is well illustrated by the passage cited at the bar, from the 20th section of the 1st article of the constitution. It is, we think, impossible to compare the sentence which prohibits a State from laying "imposts, or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws," with that which authorizes Congress "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution" the powers of the general government, without feeling a conviction that the convention understood itself to change materially the meaning of the word "necessary," by prefixing the word "absolutely." This word, then, like others, is used in various senses; and, in its construction, the subject, the context, the intention of the person using them, are all to be taken into view.
 
Let this be done in the case under consideration. The subject is the execution of those great powers on which the welfare of a nation essentially depends. It must have been the intention of those who gave these powers, to insure, as far as human prudence could insure, their beneficial execution. This could not be done by confiding the choice of means to such narrow limits as not to leave it in the power of Congress to adopt any which might be appropriate, and which were conducive to the end. This provision is made in a constitution intended to endure for ages to come, and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs. To have prescribed the means by which government should, in all future time, execute its powers, would have been to change, entirely, the character of the instrument, and give it the properties of a legal code. It would have been an unwise attempt to provide, by immutable rules, for exigencies which, if foreseen at all, must have been seen dimly, and which can be best provided for as they occur. To have declared that the best means shall not be used, but those alone without which the power given would be nugatory, would have been to deprive the legislature of the capacity to avail itself of experience, to exercise its reason, and to accommodate its legislation to circumstances. If we apply this principle of construction to any of the powers of the government, we shall find it so pernicious in its operation that we shall be compelled to discard it. . . .
 
The result of the most careful and attentive consideration bestowed upon this clause is, that if it does not enlarge, it cannot be construed to restrain the powers of Congress, or to impair the rights of the legislature to exercise its best judgment in the selection of measures to carry into execution the constitutional powers of the government. If no other motive for its insertion can be suggested, a sufficient one is found in the desire to remove all doubts respecting the right to legislate on that vast mass of incidental powers which must be involved in the constitution, if that instrument be not a splendid bauble.
 
We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion, with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution, which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it, in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional. . . .
 
Should Congress, in the execution of its powers, adopt measures which are prohibited by the constitution; or should Congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not entrusted to the government; it would become the painful duty of this tribunal, should a case requiring such a decision come before it, to say that such an act was not the law of the land. But where the law is not prohibited, and is really calculated to effect any of the objects entrusted to the government, to undertake here to inquire into the degree of its necessity, would be to pass the line which circumscribes the judicial department, and to tread on legislative ground. This court disclaims all pretensions to such a power.
 
After this declaration, it can scarcely be necessary to say that the existence of State banks can have no possible influence on the question. No trace is to be found in the constitution of an intention to create a dependence of the government of the Union on those of the States, for the execution of the great powers assigned to it. Its means are adequate to its ends; and on those means alone was it expected to rely for the accomplishment of its ends. To impose on it the necessity of resorting to means which it cannot control, which another government may furnish or withhold, would render its course precarious, the result of its measures uncertain, and create a dependence on other governments, which might disappoint its most important designs, and is incompatible with the language of the constitution. But were it otherwise, the choice of means implies a right to choose a national bank in preference to State banks, and Congress alone can make the election.
 
After the most deliberate consideration, it is the unanimous and decided opinion of this Court, that the act to incorporate the Bank of the United States is a law made in pursuance of the constitution, and is a part of the supreme law of the land. . . .
 
It being the opinion of the Court, that the act incorporating the bank is constitutional; and that the power of establishing a branch in the State of Maryland might be properly exercised by the bank itself, we proceed to inquire --
 
Whether the State of Maryland may, without violating the constitution, tax that branch?
 
That the power of taxation is one of vital importance; that it is retained by the States; that it is not abridged by the grant of a similar power to the government of the Union; that it is to be concurrently exercised by the two governments: are truths which have never been denied. But, such is the paramount character of the constitution, that its capacity to withdraw any subject from the action of even this power, is admitted. The States are expressly forbidden to lay any duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing their inspection laws. If the obligation of this prohibition must be conceded, the same paramount character would seem to restrain, as it certainly may restrain, a State from such other exercise of this power; as is in its nature incompatible with, and repugnant to, the constitutional laws of the Union. . . .
 
On this ground the counsel for the bank place its claim to be exempted from the power of a State to tax its operations. There is no express provision for the case, but the claim has been sustained on a principle which so entirely pervades the constitution, is so intermixed with the materials which compose it, so interwoven with its web, so blended with its texture, as to be incapable of being separated from it, without rending it into shreds.
 
This great principle is, that the constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme; that they control the constitution and laws of the respective States, and cannot be controlled by them. From this, which may be almost termed an axiom, other propositions are deduced as corollaries, on the truth or error of which, and on their application to this case, the cause has been supposed to depend. These are, 1st. that a power to create implies a power to preserve. 2nd. That a power to destroy, if wielded by a different hand, is hostile to, and incompatible with these powers to create and to preserve. 3d. That where this repugnancy exists, that authority which is supreme must control, not yield to that over which it is supreme. . . .
 
That the power of taxing by the States may be exercised so as to destroy it, is too obvious to be denied. But taxation is said to be an absolute power, which acknowledges no other limits than those expressly prescribed in the constitution, and like sovereign power of every other description, is trusted to the discretion of those who use it. But the very terms of this argument admit that the sovereignty of the State, in the article of taxation itself, is subordinate to, and may be controlled by, the constitution of the United States. How far it has been controlled by that instrument must be a question of construction. In making this construction, no principle not declared, can be admissible, which would defeat the legitimate operations of a supreme government. It is of the very essence of supremacy to remove all obstacles to its action within its own sphere, and so to modify every power vested in subordinate governments, as to exempt its own operations from their own influence. This effect need not be stated in terms. It is so involved in the declaration of supremacy, so necessarily implied in it, that the expression of it could not make it more certain. We must, therefore, keep it in view while construing the constitution.
 
The argument on the part of the State of Maryland is, not that the States may directly resist a law of Congress, but that they may exercise their acknowledged powers upon it, and that the constitution leaves them this right in the confidence that they will not abuse it.
 
Before we proceed to examine this argument, and to subject it to the test of the constitution, we must be permitted to bestow a few considerations on the nature and extent of this original right of taxation, which is acknowledged to remain with the States. It is admitted that the power of taxing the people and their property is essential to the very existence of government, and may be legitimately exercised on the objects to which it is applicable, to the utmost extent to which the government may choose to carry it. The only security against the abuse of this power, is found in the structure of the government itself. In imposing a tax the legislature acts upon its constituents. . . .
 
The sovereignty of a State extends to everything which exists by its own authority, or is so introduced by its permission; but does it extend to those means which are employed by Congress to carry into execution powers conferred on that body by the people of the United States? We think it demonstrable that it does not. Those powers are not given by the people of a single State. They are given by the people of the United States, to a government whose laws, made in pursuance of the constitution, are declared to be supreme. Consequently, the people of a single State cannot confer a sovereignty which will extend over them.
 
If we measure the power of taxation residing in a State, by the extent of sovereignty which the people of a single State possess, and can confer on its government, we have an intelligible standard, applicable to every case to which the power may be applied. We have a principle which leaves the power of taxing the people and property of a State unimpaired; which leaves to a State the command of all its resources, and which places beyond its reach, all those powers which are conferred by the people of the United States on the government of the Union, and all those means which are given for the purpose of carrying those powers into execution. We have a principle which is safe for the States, and safe for the Union. We are relieved, as we ought to be, from clashing sovereignty; from interfering powers; from a repugnancy between a right in one government to pull down what there is an acknowledged right in another to build up; from the incompatibility of a right in one government to destroy what there is a right in another to preserve. We are not driven to the perplexing inquiry, so unfit for the judicial department, what degree of taxation is the legitimate use, and what degree may amount to the abuse of the power. The attempt to use it on the means employed by the government of the Union, in pursuance of the constitution, is itself an abuse, because it is the usurpation of a power which the people of a single State cannot give.
 
We find, then, on just theory, a total failure of this original right to tax the means employed by the government of the Union, for the execution of its powers. The right never existed, and the question whether it has been surrendered, cannot arise.
 
But, waiving this theory for the present, let us resume the inquiry, whether this power can be exercised by the respective States, consistently with a fair construction of the constitution?
 
That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create; that there is a plain repugnance, in conferring on one government a power to control the constitutional measures of another, which other, with respect to those very measures, is declared to be supreme over that which exerts the control, are propositions not to be denied. But all inconsistencies are to be reconciled by the magic of the word CONFIDENCE. Taxation, it is said, does not necessarily and unavoidably destroy. To carry it to the excess of destruction would be an abuse, to presume which, would banish that confidence which is essential to all government.
 
But is this a case of confidence? Would the people of any one State trust those of another with a power to control the most insignificant operations of their State government? We know they would not. Why, then, should we suppose that the people of any one State should be willing to trust those of another with a power to control the operations of a government to which they have confided their most important and most valuable interests? In the legislature of the Union alone, are all represented. The legislature of the Union alone, therefore, can be trusted by the people with the power of controlling measures which concern all, in the confidence that it will not be abused. This, then, is not a case of confidence, and we must consider it as it really is.
 
If we apply the principle for which the State of Maryland contends, to the constitution generally, we shall find it capable of changing totally the character of that instrument. We shall find it capable of arresting all the measures of the government, and of prostrating it at the foot of the States. The American people have declared their constitution, and the laws made in pursuance thereof, to be supreme; but this principle would transfer the supremacy, in fact, to the States.
 
If the States may tax one instrument, employed by the government in the execution of its powers, they may tax any and every other instrument. They may tax the mail; they may tax the mint; they may tax patent rights; they may tax the papers of the custom-house; they may tax judicial process; they may tax all the means employed by the government, to an excess which would defeat all the ends of government. This was not intended by the American people. They did not design to make their government dependent on the States. . . .
 
The Court has bestowed on this subject its most deliberate consideration. The result is a conviction that the States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the general government. This is, we think, the unavoidable consequence of that supremacy which the constitution has declared.
 
We are unanimously of opinion, that the law passed by the legislature of Maryland, imposing a tax on the Bank of the United States, is unconstitutional and void.
 
This opinion does not deprive the States of any resources which they originally possessed. It does not extend to a tax paid by the real property of the bank, in common with the other real property within the State, nor to a tax imposed on the interest which the citizens of Maryland may hold in this institution, in common with other property of the same description throughout the State. But this is a tax on the operations of the bank, and is, consequently, a tax on the operation of an instrument employed by the government of the Union to carry its powers into execution. Such a tax must be unconstitutional.

]]> 317 Griswold v CT – SCOTUS https://www.survivewithwill.com/2016/01/15/survivewithwill-com-practicesurvival-coms-useful-info-landmark-legal-cases-griswold-v-ct/ Fri, 15 Jan 2016 14:08:14 +0000 http://www.survivewithwill.com/survivewithwill-com-practicesurvival-coms-useful-info-landmark-legal-cases-griswold-v-ct/ Read More]]> Read More]]> 311