{political adept}

because those who tell don't know and those who know don't tell.

Archive for May, 2009

A Dialogue Between X, Y, and Z, Concerning the Present State of Affairs in Pennsylvania

Posted by rasticus on May 31, 2009

A Dialogue Between X, Y, and Z, Concerning the Present State of Affairs in Pennsylvania.

The Pennsylvania Gazette, December 18, 1755. Reprinted in the Gentlemen Magazine for February and March 1756. Distributed throughout the Colonies.

A Dialogue Between X, Y, and Z, Concerning the Present State of Affairs in Pennsylvania

[By Benjamin Franklin]*

X. Your Servant, Gentlemen; I am glad to see you at my House. Is there any thing new To-day?

Y. We have been talking of the Militia Act; have you seen it?

X. Yes; I have read it in the Papers.

Z. And what do you think of it?

X. The more I consider it, the better I like it. It appears to me a very good Act, and I am persuaded will be of good Use, if heartily carried into Execution.

Z. Ay, that may be; but who is to carry it into Execution? It says the People may form themselves into Companies, and chuse their own Officers; but there is neither Time nor Place appointed for this Transaction, nor any Person directed or impowered to call them together.

X. ‘Tis true; but methinks there are some Words that point out the Method pretty plain to willing Minds. And it seems to me that we who joined so sincerely in the Petitions for a Militia Law, and really thought one so absolutely necessary for the Safety of our Country, should, now we have obtained the Law, rather endeavour to explain, than invent, Difficulties in the Construction of it.

Y. What are those Words you mention?

X. Here is the Act itself, I’ll read that Part of it. “From and after the Publication of this Act, it shall and may be lawful for the Freemen of this Province to form themselves into Companies, as heretofore they have used in time of War without Law, and for each Company, by Majority of Votes, in the Way of Ballot, to chuse its own Officers, &c.” The Words I meant are these, as heretofore they have used in Time of War. Now I suppose we have none of us forgot the Association in the Time of the last War; ’tis not so long since, but that we may well enough remember the Method we took to form ourselves into Companies, chuse our Officers, and present them to the Governor for Approbation and Commissions; and the Act in question says plainly, we may now lawfully do in this Affair, what we then did without Law.

Y. I did not before take so much Notice of those Words, but to be sure the Thing is easy enough; for I remember very well how we managed at that Time; and indeed ’tis easier to effect it now than it was then: For the Companies and Regiments, and their Districts, &c. were then all to form and settle; but now, why may not the Officers of the old Companies call the old Associators together, with such others in the District of each Company as incline to be concerned, and proceed immediately to a new Choice by Virtue of the Act? Other new Companies may in other Places be formed as the associated Companies were.

Z. You say right. And if this were all the Objection to the Act, no Doubt they would do so immediately. But ’tis said there are other Faults in it.

X. What are they?

Z. The Act is so loose, that Persons who never intend to engage in the Militia, even Quakers may meet and vote in the Choice of the Officers.

X. Possibly; — but was any such thing observed in the Association Elections?

Z. Not that I remember.

X. Why should it be more apprehended now, than it was at that Time? Can they have any Motives to such a Conduct now, which they had not then?

Z. I cannot say.

X. Nor can I. If a Militia be necessary for the Safety of the Province, I hope we shall not boggle at this little Difficulty. What else is objected?

Z. I have heard this objected, That it were better the Governor should appoint the Officers; for the Choice being in the People, a Man very unworthy to be an Officer, may happen to be popular enough to get himself chosen by the undiscerning Mob.

X. ‘Tis possible. And if all Officers appointed by Governors were always Men of Merit, and fully qualified for their Posts, it would be wrong ever to hazard a popular Election. It is reasonable, I allow, that the Commander in Chief should not have Officers absolutely forced upon him, in whom, from his Knowledge of their Incapacity, he can place no Confidence. And, on the other Hand, it seems likely that the People will engage more readily in the Service, and face Danger with more Intrepidity, when they are commanded by a Man they know and esteem, and on whose Prudence and Courage, as well as Good-will and Integrity, they can have Reliance, than they would under a Man they either did not know, or did not like. For supposing Governors ever so judicious and upright in the Distribution of Offices, they cannot know every Body, in every Part of the Province, and are liable to be imposed on by partial Recommendations; but the People generally know their Neighbours. And to me, the Act in question seems to have hit a proper Medium, between the two Modes of appointing: The People chuse, and if the Governor approves, he grants the Commission; if not, they are to chuse a second, and even a third Time. Out of three Choices, ’tis probable one may be right; and where an Officer is approved both by Superiors and Inferiors, there is the greater Prospect of those Advantages that attend a good Agreement in the Service. This Mode of Choice is moreover agreeable to the Liberty and Genius of our Constitution. ‘Tis similar to the Manner in which by our Laws Sheriffs and Coroners are chosen and approved. And yet it has more Regard to the Prerogative than the Mode of Choice in some Colonies, where the military Officers are either chosen absolutely by the Companies themselves, or by the House of Representatives, without any Negative on that Choice, or any Approbation necessary from the Governor.

Y. But is that agreeable to the English Constitution?

X. Considered in this Light, I think it is; British Subjects, by removing into America, cultivating a Wilderness, extending the Dominion, and increasing the Wealth, Commerce and Power of their Mother Country, at the Hazard of their Lives and Fortunes, ought not, and in Fact do not thereby lose their native Rights. There is a Power in the Crown to grant a Continuance of those Rights to such Subjects, in any Part of the World, and to their Posterity born in such new Country; and for the farther Encouragement and Reward of such Merit, to grant additional Liberties and Privileges, not used in England, but suited to the different Circumstances of different Colonies. If then the Grants of those additional Liberties and Privileges may be regularly made under an English Constitution, they may be enjoyed agreeable to that Constitution.

Y. But the Act is very short, there are numberless Circumstances and Occasions pertaining to a Body of armed Men, which are not as they ought to have been expressly provided for in the Act.

X. ‘Tis true, there are not express Provisions in the Act for all Circumstances; but there is a Power lodged by the Act in the Governor and Field Officers of the Regiments, to make all such Provisions, in the Articles of War, which they may form and establish.

Y. But can it be right in the Legislature by any Act to delegate their Power of making Laws to others?

X. I believe not, generally; but certainly in particular Cases it may. Legislatures may, and frequently do give to Corporations, Power to make By-Laws for their own Government. And in this Case, the Act of Parliament gives the Power of making Articles of War for the Government of the Army to the King alone, and there is no Doubt but the Parliament understand the Rights of Government.

Y. Are you sure the Act of Parliament gives such Power?

X. This is the Act. The Power I mention is here in Section LV. “Provided always, That it shall and may be lawful to and for his Majesty, to form, make and establish Articles of War for the better Government of his Majesty’s Forces, and for bringing Offenders against the same to Justice; and to erect and constitute Courts Martial, with Power to try, hear, and determine any Crimes or Offences by such Articles of War, and inflict Penalties by Sentence or Judgment of the same.” And here you see bound up with the Act, the Articles of War, made by his Majesty in Pursuance of the Act, and providing for every Circumstance.

Z. It is so, sure enough. I had been told that our Act of Assembly was impertinently singular in this Particular.

X. The G ——— r himself, in a Message to the House, expresly recommended this Act of Parliament for their Imitation, in forming the Militia Bill.

Z. I never heard that before.

X. But it is true. — The Assembly, however (considering that this Militia would consist chiefly of Freeholders) have varied a little from that Part of the Act of Parliament, in Favour of Liberty; they have not given the sole Power of making those Articles of War to the Governor, as that Act does to the King; but have joined with the Governor, for that Purpose, a Number of Officers to be chosen by the People. The Articles moreover are not to be general Laws, binding on all the Province, nor on any Man who has not first approved of them, and voluntarily engaged to observe them.

Z. Is there no Danger that the Governor and Officers may make those Articles too severe?

X. Not without you can suppose them Enemies to the Service, and to their Country: For if they should make such as are unfit for Freemen and Englishmen to be subjected to, they will get no Soldiers; no body will engage. In some Cases, however, if you and I were in actual Service, I believe we should both think it necessary for our own Safety that the Articles should be pretty severe.

Z. What Cases are they?

X. Suppose a Centinel should betray his Trust, give Intelligence to the Enemy, or conduct them into our Quarters.

Z. To be sure there should be severe Punishments for such Crimes, or we might all be ruined.

X. Chuse reasonable Men for your Officers, and you need not fear their making reasonable Laws; and if they make such, I hope reasonable Men will not refuse to engage under them.

Y. But here is a Thing I don’t like. By this Act of Assembly, the Quakers are neither compelled to muster, nor to pay a Fine if they don’t.

X. It is true; nor could they be compelled either to muster or pay a Fine of that Kind by any Militia Law made here. They are exempted by the Charter and fundamental Laws of the Province.

Y. How so?

X. See here; it is the first Clause in the Charter. I’ll read it. “Because no People can be truly happy, though under the greatest Enjoyment of civil Liberties, if abridged of the Freedom of their Consciences, as to their Religous Profession and Worship: And Almighty God being the only Lord of Conscience, Father of Lights and Spirits, and the Author as well as Object of all divine Knowledge, Faith and Worship, who only doth enlighten the Minds, and persuade and convince the Understandings of People, I do hereby grant and declare, That no Person or Persons inhabiting in this Province or Territories, who shall confess and acknowledge one Almighty God, the Creator, Upholder and Ruler of the World; and profess him or themselves obliged to live quietly under the civil Government, shall be, IN ANY CASE, MOLESTED or PREJUDICED in his or their PERSON or ESTATE, because of his or their conscientious Persuasion or Practice, nor be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious Worship, Place or Ministry, contrary to his or their Mind, or to DO or SUFFER any OTHER ACT or THING, contrary to their religious Persuasion.” And in the eighth Section of the same Charter, you see a Declaration, that “neither the Proprietor, nor his Heirs or Assigns, shall procure or do any Thing or Things, whereby the Liberties in this Charter contained or expressed, nor any Part thereof, shall be infringed or broken; and if any Thing shall be procured or done by any Person or Persons, contrary to these Presents, it shall be held of NO FORCE OR EFFECT.” This Liberty of Conscience granted by Charter, is also established by the first Law in our Book, and confirmed by the Crown. — And moreover, the Governor has an express Instruction from the Proprietaries, that in case of making any Militia Law, he shall take especial Care that the Charter be not infringed in this Respect. Besides, most of our Petitions for a Militia from the moderate Part of the People, requested particularly that due Regard might be had to scrupulous and tender Consciences. When Taxes are raised however, for the King’s Service, the Quakers and Menonists pay their Part of them, and a great Part; for as their Frugality and Industry makes them generally wealthy, their Proportion is the greater compared with their Numbers. And out of these Taxes those Men are paid who go into actual Service. As for Mustering and Training, no Militia are any where paid for that. It is by many justly delighted in as a manly Exercise. But those who are engaged in actual Service for any Time, ought undoubtedly to have Pay.

Y. There is no Provision in this Militia Act to pay them.

X. There is a Provision that no Regiment, Company, or Party, though engaged in the Militia, shall be obliged “to more than three Days March, &c. without an Express Engagement for that Purpose first voluntarily entred into and subscribed by every Man so to march or remain in Garrison.” And ’tis to be supposed that no Man will subscribe such particular Engagement without reasonable Pay, or other Encouragement.

Y. But where is that Pay to come from?

X. From the Government to be sure; and out of the Money struck by the Act for granting pounds 60,000.

Z. Yes; but those who serve must pay their Share of the Tax, as well as those who don’t.

X. Perhaps not. ‘Tis to be supposed that those who engage in the Service for any Time, upon Pay, will be chiefly single Men, and they are expresly exempted from the Tax by the 60,000 pounds Act. Consequently those who do not serve, must pay the more; for the Sum granted must be made up.

Z. I never heard before that they were exempted by that Act.

X. It is so, I assure you.

Y. But there is no Provision in the Militia Act for the Maimed.

X. If they are poor, they are provided for by the Laws of their Country. There is no other Provision by any Militia Law that I know of. If they have behaved well, and suffered in their Country’s Cause, they deserve moreover some grateful Notice of their Service, and some Assistance from the common Treasury; and if any particular Township should happen to be overburthened, they may, on Application to the Government, reasonably expect Relief.

Z. Though the Quakers and others conscientiously scrupulous of bearing Arms, are exempted, as you say, by Charter; they might, being a Majority in the Assembly, have made the Law compulsory on others. At present, ’tis so loose, that no body is obliged by it, who does not voluntarily engage.

X. They might indeed have made the Law compulsory on all others. But it seems they thought it more equitable and generous to leave to all as much Liberty as they enjoy themselves, and not lay even a seeming Hardship on others, which they themselves declined to bear. They have however granted all we asked of them. Our Petitions set forth, that “we were freely willing and ready to defend ourselves and Country, and all we wanted was legal Authority, Order and Discipline.” These are now afforded by the Law, if we think fit to make use of them. And indeed I do not see the Advantage of compelling People of any Sect into martial Service merely for the Sake of raising Numbers. I have been myself in some Service of Danger, and I always thought Cowards rather weakened, than strengthened, the Party. Fear is contagious, and a Pannick once begun spreads like Wildfire, and infects the stoutest Heart. All Men are not by Nature brave: And a few who are so, will do more effectual Service by themselves, than when accompanied by, and mixed with, a Multitude of Poltroons, who only create Confusion, and give Advantage to the Enemy.

Z. What signifies what you thought or think? Others think differently. And all the wise Legislatures in the other Colonies have thought fit to compel all Sorts of Persons to bear Arms, or suffer heavy Penalties.

X. As you say, what I thought or think is not of much Consequence. But a wiser Legislator than all those you mention put together, and who better knew the Nature of Mankind, made his military Law very different from theirs in that Respect.

Z. What Legislator do you mean?

X. I mean God himself, who would have no Man led to Battle that might rather wish to be at home, either from Fear or other Causes.

Z. Where do you find that Law?

X. ‘Tis in the 20th Chapter of Deuteronomy, where are these Words, When thou goest out to Battle against thine Enemies,the Officers shall speak unto the People, saying, What Man is there that hath built a new House, and hath not dedicated it? let him go and return to his House, lest he die in the Battle, and another Man dedicate it. And what Man is he that hath planted a Vineyard, and hath not yet eaten of it? let him also go, and return unto his House, lest he die in the Battle, and another Man eat of it. And what Man is there that hath betrothed a Wife, and hath not taken her? let him go and return unto his House, lest he die in Battle, and another Man take her. — And

Z. These all together could not be many; and this has no Relation to Cowardice.

X. If you had not interrupted me, I was coming to that Part, Verse 8. And the Officers shall speak farther unto the People, and they shall say, What Man is there that is FEARFUL and FAINTHEARTED? let him go and return unto his House; lest his Brethrens Heart faint as well as his Heart; that is, lest he communicate his Fears, and his brave Brethren catch the Contagion, to the Ruin of the whole Army. Accordingly we find, that under this military Law, no People in the World fought more gallantly, or performed greater Actions than the Hebrew Soldiery. — And if you would be informed what Proportion of the People would be discharged by such a Proclamation, you will find that Matter determined by an actual Experiment made by General Gideon, as related in the seventh Chapter of Judges: For he having assembled 32,000 Men against the Midianites, proclaimed, according to Law (Verse the third) Whosoever is FEARFUL and AFRAID, let him return and depart early from Mount Gilead.

Z. And pray how many departed?

X. The Text says, there departed 22,000, and there remained but 10,000. A very great Sifting! and yet on that particular Occasion a farther Sifting was required. Now it seems to me, that this Militia Law of ours, which gives the Brave all the Advantages they can desire, of Order, Authority, Discipline, and the like, and compels no Cowards into their Company, is such a Kind of Sieve, as the Mosaic Proclamation. For with us, not only every Man who has built a House, or planted a Vineyard, or betrothed a Wife, or is afraid of his Flesh; but the narrow Bigot, filled with Sectarian Malice (if such there be) who hates Quakers more than he loves his Country, his Friends, his Wife or Family, may say: I won’t engage, for I don’t like the Act; or, I don’t like the Officers that are chosen; or, I don’t like the Articles of War; and so we shall not be troubled with them, but all that engage will be hearty.

Z. For my Part, I am no Coward; but hang me if I’ll fight to save the Quakers.

X. That is to say, you won’t pump Ship, because ’twill save the Rats, — as well as yourself.

Y. You have answered most of the Objections I have heard against the Act, to my Satisfaction; but there is one remaining. The Method of carrying it into Execution seems so round about, I am afraid we cannot have the Benefit of it in any reasonable Time.

X. I cannot see much in that Objection. The several Neighbourhoods out of which Companies are formed may meet and chuse their Company-Officers in one and the same Day; and the Regiments may be formed, and the Field Officers chosen in a Week or ten Days after, who may immediately proceed to consider the several Militia Laws of Britain and the Colonies, and (with the Governor) form out of them such Articles, as will appear most suitable for the Freemen of this Province, who incline to bear Arms voluntarily; and the Whole may be in Order in a Month from the first Elections, if common Diligence be used. — And indeed, as the Colonies are at present the Prize contended for between Britain and France, and the latter, by the last Advices, seems to be meditating some grand Blow, Part of which may probably fall on Pennsylvania, either by Land or Sea, or both, it behoves us, I think, to make the best Use we can of this Act, and carry it immediately into Execution both in Town and Country. If there are material Defects in it, Experience will best discover them, and show what is proper or necessary to amend them. — The approaching Winter will afford us some Time to arm and prepare, and more Leisure than other Seasons for Exercising and Improving in good Discipline.

Z. But if this Act should be carried into Execution, prove a good One, and answer the End; what shall we have to say against the Quakers at the next Election?

X. O my Friends, let us on this Occasion cast from us all these little Party Views, and consider ourselves as Englishmen and Pennsylvanians. Let us think only of the Service of our King, the Honour and Safety of our Country, and Vengeance on its Murdering Enemies. — If Good be done, what imports it by whom ’tis done? — The Glory of serving and saving others, is superior to the Advantage of being served or secured. Let us resolutely and generously unite in our Country’s Cause (in which to die is the sweetest of all Deaths) and may the God of Armies bless our honest Endeavours.


From Benjamin Franklin’s Personal Memo 1755: “… I had been active in modeling it (the Militia), and procuring its passage: and had at the same time drawn a Bill for establishing and disciplining a voluntary Militia, which I carried thro’ the House without much Difficulty, as Care was taken in it, to leave the Quakers at their Liberty. To promote the Association necessary to form the Militia, I wrote a Dialogue (Between X, Y, and Z), stating and answering all the Objections I could think of to such a Militia, which was printed & had as I thought great effect.”

See An Act For The Better Ordering And Regulating Such As Are Willing And Desirous To Be United For Military Purposes Within This Province, enacted November 25, 1755.


Commentary

We can perceive several points from the above article:

  • No law was needed to authorize men to muster with arms or elect officers. That was a longstanding practice “without Law”. Law was needed to define who was legally obligated to respond to a call-up, and impose penalties on them for failing to respond to a call-up. The law did that, exempting Quakers (by description though not by name) and those with physical disabilities, including those associated with youth or old age.
  • No law was needed to authorize anyone to issue a call-up. The Act discussed did not specify that, leaving the authority to anyone with knowledge of a threat requiring a call-up.
  • This appears to be the first such act adopted by colonial legislatures. Previously the matter was covered by a general Act of Parliament. Other colonies followed with similar legislative acts.
  • The term “militia” is here seen as having a polysemous meaning, primarily as a service, or activity, and secondarily as those engaged in that service, or legally obligated to do so. This is consistent with its primary meaning in Latin.
  • There is no legal obligation to compensate those who engage in militia, but there is discretion to do so, if funds are available, for those who serve for a long period of time (not specified) or beyond three days march (from their point of muster). (It was also customary, but not obligatory, to compensate men for especially large expenditures of ammunition or for irreparable damages or losses of their weapons.)
  • The Act provides for not calling up the entire body of those obligated to respond, if all are not needed, but for calling up a smaller number selected at random. This indicates an intent to avoid having the composition of militia limited to some faction who might not be broadly representative of the population, a “select” militia.
  • The Act does not contemplate a statewide call-up specifying the individuals to muster at a particular place and time. Such a call-up could only be a general requisition to each locality, with local commanders to specify the details in their localities.
  • The law presumes that the keeping and bearing of arms includes the right to acquire, own, maintain, dispose, or sell them, along with supplies like powder and ammunition, or accessories to maintain or protect them, or to conduct militia operations, such as wagons, canteens, pouches, horse, rations, clothing, medicines, knives, or other tools useful for warfare or law enforcement.
  • Local call-ups were not limited to military defense or law enforcement operations, but could be also done to respond to disasters like fires or epidemics, or to erect or maintain defensive or militarily useful works like fortifications, bridges, or barracks, or just to train and organize to meet future threats.
  • Although religious scruples against violence were respected as a matter of law, those without such conscientious objection could not resist expressing their disdain for such a position as “cowardice”. The implication was that saving one’s own soul was not as important as protecting others in the community, or that violence in defense of others was not a mortal sin, if done with restraint.

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Constitution, Freedom, Law, Policy, Politics, Rights, martial law | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Revelations of Saint Birgitta of Sweden – Book 3, Chapter 26

Posted by rasticus on May 30, 2009

The Revelations of Saint Birgitta of Sweden – Book 3, Chapter 26.

Christ’s explanation to the bride of the ineffable mystery of the Trinity, and about how diabolical sinners obtain God’s mercy through contrition and a will to improve, and his response as to how he has mercy on everyone, both Jews and others, and about the double judgment, that is, the sentence for those who are to be condemned and for those who are to be saved.
Book 3 – Chapter 26
The Son speaks: “I am the Creator of heaven and earth, one with the Father and the Holy Spirit, true God. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, not three gods but one God. Now you might ask, if there are three Persons, why are there not three gods? My answer is that God is nothing other than power itself, wisdom itself, goodness itself, from which come all power beneath or above the heavens, all conceivable wisdom and the kindness. Thus, God is triune and one, triune in Persons, one in nature. The power and the wisdom is the Father, from whom all things come and who is prior to all, deriving his power from nowhere else but himself for all eternity.

The power and wisdom are also the Son, equal to the Father, deriving his power not from himself but as begotten ineffably from the Father, the beginning from the beginning, never separated from the Father. The power and wisdom are also the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, eternal with the Father and the Son, equal in majesty and might. Thus, one God and three Persons. The three have the same nature, the same operation and will, the same glory and might.

God is thus one in essence, but the Persons are distinct in the proper quality of each. The Father is wholly in the Son and Spirit, and the Son is wholly in the Father and Spirit, and the Spirit is wholly in both, in one divine nature, not as prior and posterior but in an ineffable way. In God there is neither prior nor posterior, nothing greater or less than another, but the Trinity is wholly and ineffably equal. Well has it been written that God is great and greatly to be praised.

However, now I can complain that I am little praised and unknown to many people, because everyone is following his own will but few follow mine. Be you steadfast and humble, and do not exalt yourself in your mind if I show you other people’s trials, and do not betray their names unless you are instructed to do so. Their trials are not shown to you to shame them but in order that they may be converted and come to know God’s justice and mercy. Nor should you shun them as condemned, for even if I should say today that a certain person is wicked, should he call on me tomorrow with contrition and a will to improve, I am prepared to forgive him. And that person whom I yesterday called wicked, today, due to his contrition, I declare him to be so dear a friend of mine that if his contrition remains steadfast, I forgive him not only his sin but even remit the punishment of sin.

You might understand this with a metaphor. It is as though there were two drops of quicksilver and both were heading toward each other in haste. If nothing but a single atom remained to keep them from joining, still God would be powerful enough to prevent them from coming together. Likewise, if any sinner were so rooted in diabolical deeds that he was standing at the very brink of destruction, he could still obtain forgiveness and mercy, if he called upon God with contrition and a will to improve. Now, given that I am so merciful, you might ask why I am not merciful toward pagans and Jews, some of whom, if they were instructed in the true faith, would be ready to lay down their lives for God. My response is that I have mercy on everyone, on pagans as well as Jews, nor is any creature beyond my mercy.

With leniency and mercy I will judge both those people who, learning that their faith is not the true one, fervently long for the true faith, as well as those people who believe the faith they profess to be the best one, because no other faith has ever been preached to them, and who wholeheartedly do what they can. You see, there is a double judgment, namely the one for those to be condemned and the one for those to be saved. The sentence of condemnation for Christians will have no mercy in it. To them will belong eternal punishment and shadows and a will hardened against God. The sentence for those Christians to be saved will be the vision of God and glorification in God and goodwill toward God. Excluded from these rewards are pagans and Jews as well as bad and false Christians. Although they did not have the right faith, they did have conscience as their judge and believed that the one whom they worshipped and offended was God.

But the ones whose intention and actions were and are for justice and against sin will, along with the less bad Christians, share a punishment of mercy in the midst of sufferings due to their love of justice and their hatred of sin. However, they will not have consolation in the service of glory and of the vision of God. They will not behold him due to their lack of baptism, because some temporal circumstance or some hidden decision of God made them draw back from profitably seeking and obtaining salvation. If there was nothing that held them back from seeking the true God and being baptized, neither fear nor the effort required nor loss of goods or privileges, but only some impediment that overcame their human weakness, then I, who saw Cornelius and the centurion while they were still not baptized, know how to give them a higher and more perfect reward in accordance with their faith.

One thing is the ignorance of sinners, another that of those who are pious but impeded. Likewise, too, one thing is the baptism of water, another that of blood, another that of wholehearted desire. God, who knows the hearts of all people, knows how to take all of these circumstances into account. I am begotten without beginning, begotten eternally from the beginning. I was born in time at the end of times. From the commencement I have known how to give individual persons the rewards they deserve and I give to each according as he deserves. Not the least little good done for the glory of God will go without its reward. This is why you should give many thanks to God that you were born of Christian parents in the age of salvation, for many people have longed to obtain and see that which is offered to Christians and yet have not obtained it.”

Posted in Religion | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Craig T. Nelson – Willful Non-Compliance

Posted by rasticus on May 29, 2009

I have joined Craig T. Nelson’s Willful Non-Compliance movement and will pledge myself to support and defend his rights. Mark Everson, former IRS Commissioner, suggests ‘voting’ rather than willful non-compliance. I refuse to ‘vote’ to reclaim stolen rights when I can just exercise them.

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Capitalism, Constitution, Craig T. Nelson, Economics, Federal Reserve, Freedom, Global Governance, Law, Policy, Politics, Rights | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

KEN BLACKWELL: Obama Declares War on America’s Gun Owners With Supreme Court Pick « FOX Forum « FOXNews.com

Posted by rasticus on May 27, 2009

KEN BLACKWELL: Obama Declares War on America’s Gun Owners With Supreme Court Pick « FOX Forum « FOXNews.com.

KEN BLACKWELL: Obama Declares War on America’s Gun Owners With Supreme Court Pick

By Ken Blackwell
Senior Fellow, American Civil Rights Union/Family Research Council

President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor is a declaration of war against America’s gun owners and the Second Amendment to our Constitution. If gun owners mobilize and unite, it’s possible (though unlikely) to stop this radical nominee.

—————

According to Judge Sotomayor, if your state or city bans all guns the way Washington, D.C. did, that’s okay under the Constitution.

—————

Last year the Supreme Court handed down the landmark decision in D.C. v. Heller, holding that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to individual citizens in their private lives. The ruling marked a turning point in gun rights in this country.

In the past year, the biggest question courts now face is whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. That may sound crazy, but the reality is that the Bill of Rights only controls the federal government, it doesn’t apply directly to states or cities. Only the parts of the Bill of Rights that are “incorporated” through the Fourteenth Amendment apply to the states.

Since the Heller decision, only two federal appeals courts have written on the Second Amendment. That’s six judges out of about 170. Of those six, three said the Second Amendment does apply to the states. And those judges were out of the liberal Ninth Circuit in California, and included a judge appointed by Bill Clinton and another appointed by Jimmy Carter.  — Even leftist judges can get this.

But not Judge Sonia Sotomayor. She is one of only three federal appellate judges in America to issue a court opinion saying that the Second Amendment does not apply to states. The case was Maloney v. Cuomo, and it came down this past January.

That means if Chicago, or even the state of Illinois or New York, wants to ban you from owning any guns at all, even in your own house, that’s okay with her. According to Judge Sotomayor, if your state or city bans all guns the way Washington, D.C. did, that’s okay under the Constitution.

This issue could not be more important. Today, on the very day President Obama has announced Judge Sotomayor’s nomination, the National Rifle Association is arguing Second Amendment incorporation in court before the Seventh Circuit in a case challenging the Chicago ban on handguns.

If this case, or one like it, goes to the Supreme Court, Justice Sotomayor would say that Chicago can ban all your guns. If she can persuade her liberal colleagues on the Court to join her, it could become the law of the land that states and cities can ban guns. Should that happen, then you can expect anti-gun liberals in state legislatures to rush to pass new state laws doing exactly that.

The White House is telling us all about Judge Sotomayor’s compelling personal story — and it is an amazing story of what is possible “only in America.” But compelling personal stories are not the question. Miguel Estrada, whom President George W. Bush nominated to the D.C. Circuit appeals court and was planning on nominating to the Supreme Court, had a compelling story as a Hispanic immigrant who legally came to this country not even speaking English. Democrats filibustered Mr. Estrada.

Supporters point out that Judge Sotomayor was first appointed by George H.W. Bush for the federal trial court — before Bill Clinton elevated her to the Second Circuit appeals court. That’s true, but George H.W. Bush also gave us Justice David Souter, so clearly he wasn’t too careful about putting liberals on the federal bench. We can’t allow the left to hide behind the Bushes.

But when it comes to gun rights, we don’t need to guess. Judge Sotomayor has put in writing what she thinks. President Obama has nominated a radically anti-Second Amendment judge to be our newest Supreme Court justice.

There are a number of pro-Second Amendment Democratic senators from deeply red states, including Mark Begich from Alaska, Jon Tester and Max Baucus from Montana, Ben Nelson from Nebraska, Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad from North Dakota, and Tim Johnson from South Dakota.

These senators will jeopardize their seats if they vote to support an anti-gun radical for the Supreme Court. Second Amendment supporters will now be up in arms over this radical anti-Second Amendment nominee, and you should never underestimate the political power of American gun owners.

Ken Blackwell is a senior fellow with the American Civil Rights Union and the Family Research Council.

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Constitution, Freedom, Global Governance, Law, National Security, Obama-nation, Policy, Politics, Rights, martial law | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Sonia Sotomayor versus the Second Amendment

Posted by rasticus on May 27, 2009

The Volokh Conspiracy – -.

Sonia Sotomayor versus the Second Amendment:

Maloney v. Cuomo is a 2009 per curiam opinion of the Second Circuit, upholding New York State’s complete ban on the possession of nunchaku. New York is the only state in the nation with such an extreme ban.

In the opinion by Judges Pooler, Sotomayor, and Katzmann, the per curiam judges first cite Presser v. Illinois (1886) for the proposition that the Second Amendment directly applies only to the federal government, and not to the states. They also cite a more recent Second Circuit case which relies on Presser, for the same proposition. Bach v. Pataki, 408 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 2005).

In this regard, Judges Sotomayor et al. are plainly correct. However, they seriously misconstrue the Second Amendment itself, when they write: “The Supreme Court recently held that this confers an individual right on citizens to keep and bear arms.” To the contrary, as the Supreme Court explained at length in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Second Amendment does not “confer” any right; the right to arms pre-exists the Constitution. The Second Amendment protects but does not create that pre-existing right. As the Heller Court detailed, the fact that the right to arms is pre-constitutional is elaborated in the 1875 Supreme Court case, United States v. Cruikshank.

[UPDATE: Oren's post, above, accurately points out that Heller itself uses the word "confer", so even though the word is inconsistent with Heller's own explication of the right to arms as a pre-existing right, the Maloney opinion can't be faulted for using the same word.]

Presser did not discuss whether the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment makes the Second Amendment enforceable against the states. Indeed, Presser could not have discussed the question, since the doctrine of incorporation via the Due Process clause was not invented until later. The Sotomayor per curiam opinion ignores Due Process incorporation, even though any serious analysis of whether the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment enforceable against the states would have to address the issue. However, Maloney’s pro se brief in the case never raised selective Due Process incorporation, but only addressed the Fourteenth Amendment in the context of unenumerated fundamental rights (Meyer v. Nebraska, Griswold v. Connecticut, etc.).

The Sotomayor per curiam opinion addressed the Fourteenth Amendment by quoting a previous Second Circuit decision: “Legislative acts that do not interfere with fundamental rights or single out suspect classifications carry with them a strong presumption of constitutionality and must be upheld if ‘rationally related to a legitimate state interest.’” The opinion then went on to find a rational basis, since nunchaku had sometimes been used by criminals.

In other words, the Second Amendment is not “a fundamental right.” The Sotomayor panel could have offered a legal explanation for why (in the panel’s opinion) nunchaku are not “arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment, and therefore a mere rational basis test for nunchaku bans is appropriate. But the Sotomayor court did not do so. To the contrary, the Sotomayor per curiam opinion treats any Second Amendment claim as not involving “a fundamental right.”

The Maloney opinion is, on this issue, entirely consistent with Judge Sotomayor’s opinion in a 2004 case: “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.” United States v. Sanchez-Villar, 99 Fed.Appx. 256, 2004 WL 962938 (2d. Cir. 2004)(Summary Order of Judges Sack, Sotomayor & Kaplan), judgement vacated, Sanchez-Villar v. United States, 544 U.S. 1029 (2005)(for further consideration in light of the 2005 Booker decision on sentencing).

Judge Sotomayor’s record suggests hostility, rather than empathy, for the tens of millions of Americans who exercise their right to keep and bear arms.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. More on Sotomayor and the Second Amendment:
  2. Sonia Sotomayor versus the Second Amendment:

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Constitution, Freedom, Law, National Security, Obama-nation, Policy, Politics, Rights, Scam, martial law | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

SAF Press Release :: SOTOMAYOR NOMINATION AN OBAMA SLAP AT SECOND AMENDMENT

Posted by rasticus on May 27, 2009

SAF Press Release :: SOTOMAYOR NOMINATION AN OBAMA SLAP AT SECOND AMENDMENT.

<!– This shouldn't be needed, but just in case…

Display problems? View this release in the old press release template.

–>

SAF eagle logoNEWS RELEASE

Second Amendment Foundation

12500 NE Tenth Place  • Bellevue, WA   98005
(425) 454-7012 • FAX (425) 451-3959  • www.saf.org

SOTOMAYOR NOMINATION AN OBAMA SLAP AT SECOND AMENDMENT

For Immediate Release:   5/26/2009

BELLEVUE, WA – The nomination of Second Circuit Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court is a slap at gun rights and the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

Judge Sotomayor, a New York native, ruled on a Second Circuit Appeals Court panel that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states in the case of Maloney v. Cuomo. This ruling is in direct conflict with a Ninth Circuit Court ruling in the Nordyke v. King case in California that the Second Amendment is incorporated through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

“While Democrats in Congress have been making great strides in the gun rights arena, refusing to consider a renewal of the Clinton gun ban, and offering overwhelming bipartisan support for legislation allowing citizens to carry firearms in national parks, President Obama just demonstrated that he prefers judges who oppose Second Amendment rights,” said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb.

Incorporation may be taken up by the high court during its next session beginning in October, because attorneys in the Maloney case plan to appeal in late June.

“If the Maloney appeal is accepted by the Supreme Court,” Gottlieb wondered, “would Justice Sotomayor – provided she is confirmed – recuse herself from deliberations?”

Judge Sotomayor has written an opinion that declined to order the release of certain information under the Freedom of Information Act. In one case, according to SCOTUSblog, she wrote that the “unwarranted invasion of privacy” for individuals whose names would be release under an FOIA request outweighed the public interest.

“Would a Justice Sotomayor be just as protective of the privacy rights of concealed carry permit holders if a newspaper wanted to publish that information,” Gottlieb asked. “We hope that during Senate confirmation hearings, someone asks about her positions on incorporation and the privacy rights of gun owners. The Second Amendment needs to be expanded, not eviscerated.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

-END-

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Constitution, Freedom, Global Governance, Law, National Security, Obama-nation, Policy, Politics, Rights | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Tea Party Protester Visited by Joint Terrorism Task Force of the FBI – Tea Party Patriots

Posted by rasticus on May 27, 2009

Tea Party Protester Visited by Joint Terrorism Task Force of the FBI – Tea Party Patriots.

Beginning in earnest in September of 2008 I began a campaign of letter writing to elected United States Representatives, Senators, and the White House under both President Bush and now President Obama. The tone of my correspondence has been that of a citizen who is fed up with the government for spending money we do not have, at a time when we are experiencing economic deflation, and taking control of private business, where I believe it is in violation of the constitutional rights of business owners, shareholders, and frankly every citizen of this country. Ask the Bank of America shareholders today if their rights were violated when the government forced BACs CEO to purchase Merrill Lynch for $15 billion more than its’ value. I wasn’t aware of the facts at that time, but I knew government had no right to enter into the making of business decisions for shareholders, with or without full disclosure.

I have further stated my intent to exercise any and all of my rights as a citizen to do everything in my power to see that any elected official who refuses to govern according to the constitution, and who refuses to act in an official capacity according to the wishes, beliefs, and demands of the public be removed from public office. I have also voiced my opinion that career politicians are the antithesis of the views of the framers, and called for single term limits of any elected office. In no way did I ever suggest anything other than our constitutional rights as citizens to control our government’s actions.

Yesterday, as a result of one of my letters, I was paid a visit by the Joint Terrorism Task Force of the FBI. One Senator, Sheldon Whitehouse, reported to the FBI that he felt I was endangering the government and should be investigated as a suspected terrorist. This after every single one my letters was sent through the official website of the government, and contained all of my personally identifying information and was specifically stated as advising each U. S. Senator that I was offering political opinion about pending legislation, or governmental policy.

Apparently, as this left leaning Congress assaults our rights on a daily basis, they are now resorting to reporting dissenters to their policies to the FBI, under the guise of terrorist threats. Since when did expressing a p0litical opinion, or disagreeing with the passage of Socialist bills in the legislature become terrorist in nature? I have specifically objected vehemently to the TARP, TALC, Economic Recovery Act, Omnibus Spending Bill, President Obama’s 3.6 trillion dollar budget, cap and trade, and every other anti capitalist bill put forth in the 111th Congress.

The FBI agent was very polite and respectful. He explained why I had been targeted and by whom, Senator Whitehouse, and assured me that this would be the end of it. I explained to him in answer to his questions what and why I had written. He agreed that I have the constitutional right to express my dissatisfaction with government policy. The last thing he said to me was to advise that I keep expressing my opinions.

At first I wasn’t too bothered, but really amused that a Senator would do such a thing. I immediately starting penning a new letter to the Honorable Senator, then left it to cool before pressing the submit button. Over the course of the next few hours, the realization of the intent of the Senator’s action, and the resulting wariness on my part to write anymore letters came rising up as rage that an elected representative in the United States of America would even dare do such a thing. Is this where we are headed? Is this the Socialistic Fascism the current majority is pushing on the American people to be followed by not only political Fascism, but tyranny at the hands of our Federal law enforcement agencies at the direction of political hacks? Is this the last of it, or am I now identified somewhere as a terrorist threat to be watched?

By the way, my definition of Fascism is when the government controls private business, in very general terms. The connotation by some is much more cynical and perhaps it really should be. I share this here because many of you are writing the same letters. If you have also been targeted, or if you are in the future, we all have the need to know. Your responses are welcome.

Posted in Constitution, Freedom, Law, National Security, Obama-nation, Policy, Politics, Rights, Scam | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

In the Name of Patriotism (Who are the Patriots?)

Posted by rasticus on May 25, 2009

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

A VISITOR FROM THE PAST by Thelen Paulk  I had a dream the other night

Posted by rasticus on May 24, 2009

A VISITOR FROM THE PAST by Thelen Paulk  I had a dream the other night.A VISITOR FROM THE PAST
by Thelen Paulk

I had a dream the other night, I didn’t understand.
A figure walking through the mist, with flintlock in his hand.
His clothes were torn and dirty, as he stood there by the bed,
He took off his three-cornered hat, and speaking low, he said:

“We fought a revolution, to secure our liberty.
We wrote the Constitution, as a shield from tyranny,
For future generations, this legacy we gave,
In this, the land of the free and the home of the brave.”

“The freedom we secured for you, we hoped you’d always keep.
But tyrants labored endlessly, while your parents were asleep.
Your freedom gone, your courage lost, you’re no more
than a slave,
In this, the land of the free and the home of the brave.”

“You buy permits to travel, and permits to own a gun,
Permits to start a business, or to build a place for one.
On land that you believe you own, you pay a yearly rent,
Although you have no voice in choosing how the money’s spent.”

“Your children must attend a school that doesn’t educate.
Your Christian values can’t be taught, according to the state.
You read about the current news, in a regulated press.
You pay a tax you do not owe, to please the I.R.S.”

“Your money is no longer made of silver or of gold.
You trade your wealth for paper, so your life can be controlled.
You pay for crimes that make our nation turn from God in shame,
You’ve taken Satan’s number, as you’ve traded in your name.”

“You’ve given government control to those who do you harm,
So they can padlock churches, and steal the family farm,
And keep the country deep in debt, put men of God in jail,
Harass your fellow countrymen, while corrupted courts prevail.”

“Your public servants don’t uphold the solemn oath they’ve sworn.
Your daughters visit doctors so their children won’t be born.
Your leaders ship artillery and guns to foreign shores,
And send your sons to slaughter, fighting other people’s wars.”

“Can you regain freedom for which we fought and died?
Or don’t you have the courage or the faith to stand with pride?
Are there no more values for which you’ll fight to save?
Or do you wish your children to live in fear and be a slave?”

“Sons of the Republic, arise and take a stand!
Defend the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land!
Preserve our great republic and each God-given right,
And pray to God to keep the torch of freedom burning bright!”

As I awoke he vanished, in the mist from which he came.
His words were true, we are not free. We have ourselves to blame.
For even now as tyrants trample each God-given right,
We only watch and tremble, too afraid to stand and fight.

If he stood by your bedside, in a dream while you’re asleep,
And wondered what remains of our rights he fought to keep,
What would be your answer, if he called out from the grave?
Is this still the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave?

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Cannabis, Capitalism, Constitution, Economics, Freedom, Law, Love, National Security, Obama-nation, Policy, Politics, Rights, martial law | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Homer’s Iliad, Pope’s Translation

Posted by rasticus on May 24, 2009

My heroes slain, my bridal bed o’erturned,

My daughters ravished, and my city burn’d,

My bleeding infants dashed against the floor;

These have I yet to see, perhaps yet more.

—Homer’s Iliad, Pope’s Translation, Book 22, 89-91.

via Treasury of David—Psalm 137.

Posted in Religion | Leave a Comment »