Dear Editor, I think it would be a good idea if your readers would review the Dick Act of 1902, and contact their Congressional leaders about this too.
The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654
of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also
divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.
The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia,
henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District
of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia
encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All
members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd
Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can
afford to buy.
The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of
attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation
of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United
States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the
National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.
The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government
for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of
the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only
purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.
Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia
(the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the
limits of the United States."
The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October
4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the
Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so
blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.
During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill
authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45
to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by
Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the
militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the
regular army and send them out of the country.
The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any
circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of
the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today,
we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the
legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.
Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is
contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917
pages 6836-6840 which states: "The militia, within the meaning of these
provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United
States." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster,
that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the
militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus
being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded
with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants
and limits the power of Congress over it."
"This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly
establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to
limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary
enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was
intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to
limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but
they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the
extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the
country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia
imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or
limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such
power."
The Honorable William Gordon
Congressional Record, House, Page 640 - 1917
Thanks ... Robert Inabinette bobeye@hughes.net from Springville, CA.
