OAS Success, Failure or Bloodshed? As the launch date for Operation American Spring nears, most of us have made our individual decisions as to whether or not we will take part in the action, and the manner in which we shall support or oppose the mission in accordance with our personal interpretations and considerations. The struggle in the minds of many is the desire to take some action which might help us to restore our liberties while honoring our oaths, affirmations and declarations to live under, support and defend the Constitution of the United States, which provided us a roadmap and baseline for a representative republic. Central to the intentions of our founding fathers was the consideration of procedures which would do their best to protect the union of the colonies in America from the dangers which they were all too aware of at that time. The Constitution creates the rules for how our government would be established, and provides for protections against those evils which would destroy it. One such concern included the danger imposed by a rise of a tyrannical oligarchy or aristocracy, which might be protected by an overwhelming might of a standing army on the very soil of this nation during a time of domestic peace. However, there remained yet still other considerations which included a threat of anarchy, a state of lawlessness, where the rules of our government would be ignored, resulting in chaos throughout the union. Additionally considered was the threat of insurrection, or overthrow of the government, by acts of domestic violence. It seemed to the framers of the Constitution that in order to create a more perfect union and to ensure domestic tranquility, a system would need to be devised that guaranteed every person in our union a republican form of government, which would be protected against these destructive concerns through the exercise of the might of the people themselves in the form of the militia, which could be called forth by Congress "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;" When this nation was forged, not every colonist and British subject shared the same political beliefs and philosophies. Such division has existed throughout our history and continues today. Careful consideration was given to create a process by which in the face of such suspected ongoing division, a fair and representative balance could somehow be maintained. It is that balance that is attempted by our Constitution in the ways it set forth both houses of Congress, the Presidency and the courts. These methods include most prominently an electoral system which attempts to establish a governing team with hopes of ensuring adequate representation of the collective will of the people. This system included a division of the number of representatives to be chosen through alternating term cycles, designed to protect our nation from becoming a democracy dictated by an unruly mob acting upon the immediacy of any particular widely held political situation. Many Americans today live under an opinion that something has gone terribly wrong with this system that has served our nation for over two centuries, and that we find ourselves already living under a tyrannical oligarchy where rights long ago protected by our Constitution have been stripped away. Still, there are others within our society who disagree, and see our nation now improved as a more perfect union through the benefit of laws imposed upon us which arguably attempt to provide rather than promote our general welfare. What many people fail to understand, is that these opposing views are far from new. When you look back throughout the history of the United States, there has always been a great deal of division in our political situation. The rights afforded to us by our creation have always been at the center of such divides and central to the deliberation of laws, their execution, impacts and adjudication. Each successive generation since our founding has expressed further degradation of our compact as each political term, through the normal course of governance, has catered in some way to various lobbies for particular causes that some may either champion or condemn. To present the point more simply, an arduous task in the face of such complexities, there will always be some level of discontent between those who govern and those who are governed. At what point, we must consider, does that level of discontent graduate above light and transient causes to dictate change, and by what manner is such change to be deliberated and executed? The Declaration of Independence was deliberated by what the King would have considered illegal bodies of seditionists plotting insurrection, which we know stemmed from Committees of Safety which delegated representatives of the colonies to a Continental Congress. While hostilities had already commenced with the battles of Lexington and Concord, the American Revolutionary War would be the method of execution to free America from the despotic rule of the King of England. Some might assume then, that the only course of ridding the nation of tyranny today would be through some form of combative experience involving death and sacrifice, where the fitter beast of war would dictate the future our nation through its outcomes. Others argue that our Constitution's guarantee of a republican form of government is assured by the electoral process, where the war is waged by the pulling of a lever, pushing of a button or punching of a card at the local ballot box. Quite evident since the inception of our nation, has been a disruption of fair elections by limitations imposed by electoral regulations, criminal misconduct by election officials, human error and technical glitches, financially prohibitive campaign practices, party and jurisdiction based nomination policies, and voting by unqualified and deceased persons. Many contend that today such corruption is so overwhelming that there is no fair way for appointing our representatives. Did our founders then leave us only with revolution as the last remaining viable option, or is there something else which we have overlooked? The Supreme Court of the United States has declared that while the first amendment protects our right peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances, there exists no obligation for the government to hear or act upon them. Being aware of this, it becomes clear that a majority of peaceful assemblies or protests are designed mainly to attract media attention to the concerns of a group, in order to make a plea to the general population in terms of the issues espoused. Usually, the effective result would be to influence the voters to cast their ballots in favor of a candidate or issue in line with their point of view. Occasionally however, a protest comes along involving calls for particular actions which may include breaking up a court, shutting down a business, cutting off trade, or making specific demands outside of their direct authority such as the removal of elected officials from office. These latter types of protests bring with them the suggestion of violence merely because they usually call for or demand an act which likely violates the law, usually culminating in a clash with law enforcement. Usually such protests are hailed by their organizers as immediately necessary to put an end to something which greatly angers them, where they are either unwilling to take the proper legal approach or have failed in such attempts, placing the members of the protest and members of law enforcement in a potentially dangerous situation which may quickly become out of control. Compounded by a mass of individuals sufficient to override the capability of law enforcement to maintain public peace, such events are converted to what are termed unlawful assemblies and civil disorder, requiring the actions of law enforcement to quell or dissipate the assembly for the safety of themselves, the protestors and innocent bystanders. If law enforcement is overwhelmed, defeated and forced to retreat, the acts of the protestors may be considered rebellion. Can you imagine that our founders would be so carless as to neglect enforcement of our Constitution's guidelines to permit or endorse a later internal revolution, or would they have worked tirelessly to ensure this compact would be adequately protected? During the drafting of the Constitution of the United States of America, items repeatedly sent to committee for reconsideration were those passages involving the militia. If Congress, the President, the Courts and the States truly upheld our Constitution, I challenge there would never be cause for a revolution here again in this nation. The duty of all able persons in our society to enforce and protect this contract, if it were kept up, would most assuredly have provided obstruction against tyrannical control of any elite class. However, something went seriously wrong in our history which must be acknowledged before we can seek plausible solutions to the dilemma of despotism facing us today. Should Operation American Spring fail to be effective, it would be prudent to understand there are other alternatives than the refreshing of the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Shortly after the end of the Revolutionary War, while our nation was united under the Articles of Confederation, returning soldiers received their pay in the form of British pounds which had been steadily declining in value. Farmers who had invested in upgrades to their land for the purpose of feeding soldiers at war were now left in debt and burdened by new property taxes demanded of them by the commercial elites who sat in power over the States. Patriots who had served their fledgling nation had their properties liquidated by the courts, which in effect stripped them of their right to vote, as such a right was based upon property ownership. Penniless poor veterans of the war were thrown into prison for their failure to pay, often dying from the deplorable conditions and disease thriving in such institutions. They had petitioned their government through their county committees for a redress of their grievances but were ignored. Finally, men like the veteran Daniel Shay, gathered in their local militias, turning protests into direct actions beginning in August of 1786 and marching upon the court houses in massive protests causing such court houses to close their doors and for a while brought an end to the practice of the taking of property and the imprisonment of debtors. Samuel Adams, a man many refer to as a patriot for his prior role during the Revolutionary war, had now been considered by many to be one of our nation's first tyrants. Once an avid supporter, he now called for the abolishment of the representation afforded by county committees as being no longer necessary. He labeled the likes of Daniel Shay and those that followed him as rebels, and called for the suspension of habeas corpus and the putting of such persons to death. "in monarchies the crime of treason and rebellion may admit of being pardoned or lightly punished, but the man who dares rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death" -Samuel Adams He championed the passage of the Militia Act, which called for the execution of any militia officer or soldier who had taken up arms against the state and the Riot Act in 1786, providing severe punishment for rioters. Such acts resulted in an increase to the hostile situation in Massachusetts. The commercial elite raised funds for a standing army to be sent out to protect the operations of the courts in order to maintain a system inuring to their benefit. Warrants were issued for the arrest of the ringleaders of these protests, and upon one of them being wounded by the slash of a sword, war had begun again in America. It was during this conflict and political climate that George Washington was convinced to leave his Mount Vernon home in order to preside over a convention of the States called upon to correct the shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation and consider the lack of power the federal government had over the situation in Massachusetts. The resulting document is our present Constitution, which had been augmented by those who had aligned their sentiments with the likes of the supporters of Daniel Shay's rebellion demanding the attachment of a bill of rights in order to provide protections for the people against the despotic rule of a class of commercial elites having command over a standing army. Daniel Shay was pardoned after swearing allegiance to this new version of governance. He did so, convinced that the people would be protected from retaliation by any act of Congress while assembled peaceably for the redress of grievances, that they would be ensured guaranteed representation for their counties through a republican form of government; and that they would be free from worry against the infliction of cruel and unusual punishments. For those that had hoped this new Constitution would protect them against acts of domestic violence in the form of insurrection or rebellion, they were content with the provisions preserving the militia which could be called upon to put them down. The great mistake here was the failure to completely define and clarify any universal understanding of the militia, beyond the basic common conceptions at that time, yet to be expressly provided for within the Constitution itself. Some would contend, that a force of the people, as in those which made up the entirety of Shay's Rebellion were the true militia, and that the privately paid mercenary force of the commercial elite would be considered a feared select militia or standing army. Yet others interpreted and considered "The militia of the several States" as the very armies created by the elitists in power over the States, and that Shay's followers were insurgents who had committed acts of rebellion and insurrection. Today, some may argue that the clarification of such issues was not a federal function and had been left to the States and to the people to decide. In the latter half of May in the year 2014, shortly upon us, the efforts of a retired colonel organizer with so many awards he leans a bit, who has been leading the charge for a declared peaceful protest with specific demands, seeks to accomplish his stated goals through the principle of mass or wishes to make use of such a situation for an ulterior purpose. In any great society, people will disagree and some will also rise up when their rights are taken from them. However, in the face of a despotically ruled government, initial attempts will usually fail. First individuals and then groups would make sacrifices, but the results come down to a limited set of a few outcomes. The three base outcomes we should all be aware of are Success, Failure or Bloodshed and those considered combinations thereof. Of critical importance is the inclusion or exclusion of bloodshed, especially for all of those concerned with the safety of those attending never wishing to have obstructed peace. Success absent bloodshed and perhaps worthy of any previous or slight failures may appear as an accomplishment, yet what would be its effect? If the mission succeeds, perhaps Col. Harry Riley (Ret.) would be nominated as our next President, but it could be anyone else, someone you may agree with or not. Perhaps some alternate mission was made possible by the success of the one to which you were involved, but had little idea in which you were taking part. The best case scenario may of course be that our Constitution has been restored. Yet, if that is the case, how long shall it be before that compact is again violated? Absent those named officials scheduled for removal in the OAS mission, would the body politic be free from all forms of despotism? Would our Constitution be reconstructed into a new version of a societal compact that forever alters the face of our nation? Who will command our military while the reformations are arbitrated? Will an enemy of our nation exploit the state of our union? Will the opposition party not act to negate a perversion of the Constitution upon them, where they considered such action a violation of their democratic will and their rightful place of representation in our union? Who is your enemy in a Civil War where our own families are divided under political viewpoint even within their own households? Failure absent bloodshed may be thought of as entirely unacceptable by those who have heeded the Colonel's call to this mission. Will those following him finally see reason to pursue other paths or shall they be so inclined to despair that they raise their arms against their own brethren? Or Shall they fade into our history ridiculed and vilified? Bloodshed, which should always be the last considered requirement to any alleged peaceful mission may not be avoided when acts and situations are absent control while performed by any man acting outside of the scope of the laws which bind them together in society. Acts by any member to the situation, who has through the exercise of his own free will acted only in accordance with his conscience, and without regard to the rights of others give great risk to all participants which are enjoined by the unjust shedding of blood. Men and women of this nation, may be introduced to this situation and its pending results in the very near future. How will they react? How will the world indeed react to a great disruption in the domestic peace of the United States should it occur? What impact will that have on an already fragile economy and a nation on the brink of civil war where the first major battle may have commenced or become otherwise imminent? Where shall those of us stand when the initial smoke clears? How shall we be greatly divided? Our founding fathers had great purpose in giving authority to Congress to call forth the militia to suppress insurrections, as sedition was considered a break of our agreement. Yet, in the case presented here grievances have gone unaddressed, whereby those in power lay accused of high crimes and misdemeanors which include the usurpations of our accord. A process exists to impeach them, which our representatives are compelled by their oaths or affirmation to take up, yet our only authority afforded to us by law to enforce their allegiance comes in the form of the electorate. While many object to the subjugation of authority mustered by force and absent full representation of the people on both accounts, the electoral process is the final arbitrator of the affair absent war or slavery to the more powerful master, should we allow ourselves to be thrown into the chaos of anarchy. A revolution represents a wheel of societal compacts, destined to rotate endlessly when all parties remove themselves from adherence of the established agreement. Those having not violated any aspect of the compact ascend to the moral achievement of continuing to do all which is possible to secure its longevity and repair its fractures through the rightful adjudication it provides. It will be up to men to decide if those who have coordinated such events are guilty of sedition and greatly consider their reactivity in the face of bloodshed by those who may have innocently fallen victim to the situation, having been fully advised of its probability. Should they fall as martyrs to the cause of justice inspiring war, serve as warnings to all who attempt to break the chains of their masters or be objectively considered casualties of a fractured nation which must remain united in conformity with our compact, yet resolute to its full adherence? Our founding fathers came together on our behalf to provide us with a system ordained to secure the blessings of liberty and to insure our domestic tranquility, which is why there are laws prohibiting sedition and insurrection. Tyranny is to be resisted, and all laws which are not Constitutional are wholly void and should not be followed, yet the mere existence of despotism in the electoral system does not negate the right of the people to chose their representatives, by force if necessary, while being completely limited as to their jurisdiction which is granted only by lawful residence in the districts in which they own or rent property. For they have no right to remove or inhibit the representations afforded to all areas outside of their authority. Each State in this Union may resist federal tyranny, and each County may resist tyranny using the methods granted to them by their State constitution, and each person in each town of each county may decide the fate of such agreements through their vote, which they have a right to defend in every aspect and all due consideration of law, to be properly recorded and accounted. We must be forced to endure the results of our elections, which are conducted in rotating patterns, allowing us cycles by which we may test and employ the solutions considered for a more perfect union. We must give reverent servitude to our compact, but shall never be made to kneel to any law which fails to honor it. Corruption of the electorate in your State becomes the absolute essential battleground whereby the sword of the people, may be properly wielded. Absent the fulfilment of your duty to protect the rights you cherish on your own behalf, and among the family and neighbors where you make your stand, you absolutely fail in your individual requirement to participate in the contract when you avoid the conflict and fall into complacency. Finally now, these words of my ancestor and our founding father, Elbridge Gerry who penned, "Literary talents may be prostituted, and the powers of genius debased to subserve the purposes of ambition or avarice; but the feelings of the heart will dictate the language of truth, and the simplicity of her accents will proclaim the infamy of those, who betray the rights of the people, under the specious, and popular pretence of justice, consolidation, and dignity."
from Liveleak.com Rss Feed - Search results for 'fail' http://ift.tt/1g8mhXT
v
from Liveleak.com Rss Feed - Search results for 'fail' http://ift.tt/1g8mhXT
v
OAS Success, Failure or Bloodshed?
Views:
0 comments:
Post a Comment