THE LATEST IN THE DESTRUCTION OF AMERICA: OUR CURRENT FEATURE ARTICLE
Table of Contents
FROM BEHIND ENEMY LINES:A Conservative Libertarian Inside Academia
SOUTHERN HERITAGE: Dedicated to the truth about the War of Yankee Aggression
Constitutional Law
NEW WORLD ORDER, UNITED NATIONS, ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT AND AMERICAN SOVERIGNTY
Why is the government persecuting Ernst Zündel? Click here to visit the Zundelsite
How to Lobby Congress
What is Digg? Click to Find Out
Compiled and Summarized by
Dr. Jimmy T. (Gunny) LaBaume
A Summary of: No Treason. No. II. by Lysander Spooner. The complete text is available at http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-0.htm
The meaning of the first sentence of the Constitution is that “We, the people of these united States” are acting freely and voluntarily to give our consent and agree as individuals. It has no validity except among those who actually consent. Obviously, no such agreement could be valid except between those who actually consent to it. The phrase "We, the people" simply offers membership to all the people but leaves it for them to accept or refuse.
Furthermore, those who originally agreed can in no way rightfully bind anybody that comes after them. Even those who voted to adopt the document did not pledge their allegiance for any specific time since no specific time is named in the document itself. They did what they did “voluntarily, and because it was for their interest, or pleasure, and not because they were under any pledge or obligation to do it.” All men have a perfect right to withdraw their support at any time.
By the same logic, if the adoption is viewed as being an act of the States, as States, it follows that they have the right to secede simply because they engaged for no specific time. Thus, consent, whether by individuals or by States, is at most only for the time being.
As it is, without so much as even having ever been asked for their consent, men find themselves environed by a government they cannot resist. It is a government that, without their consent, forces them to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of their natural rights or face severe punishment.
Furthermore, just because a man votes under the Constitution is not evidence that he ever freely assented to it. He simply sees that other men use the ballot to tyrannize him. He further realizes that, if he uses the ballot himself, he might have some chance of relieving himself from that tyranny and maybe even subjecting others to his own. Thus, without his consent he is placed in a situation where, if he uses the ballot, he may become a master. If he does not, he will become a slave.
The only definition of treason given by the Constitution is: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
The true and legitimate meaning of the word necessarily implies treachery, deceit and/or breach of faith. The Founders, for example, were not traitors after the fourth of July, 1776 —the day they gave notice to the King that they repudiated his authority.
In the same way the people of the South were not treacherous friends. They openly declared their intentions and gave the North fair notice that they would no longer be their political associates. They were not traitors under the Constitution.
There can be no crime without criminal intent. That is a maxim of law. (Editor's Note: That might have been the case during the time Spooner was writing. Unfortunately, it is no longer.) So, the Founders were not traitors because they honestly believed that they were simply defending their rights against the King's usurpations. In the same way, the Southern people sincerely believed in the constitutional theory of "State Rights" and therefore did not become traitors by acting upon it.
There is nothing in the Constitution that implies that anyone born within the territorial limits of the united States automatically have allegiance imposed upon them. Furthermore, there is no power in Congress to alter the language so as to make it more comprehensive.
Congress knew that the language of the Constitution was insufficient to charge a man with treason who wages war against the united States (but practices no treachery, deceit, or breach of faith) solely on the grounds that he was born in the country. So, although they had no constitutional power to do so, they enlarged the language of the Constitution with a law that says: "That if any person or persons, owing allegiance to the United States of America , shall levy war against them, or shall adhere to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort, …such person or persons shall be adjudged guilty of treason against the United States, and shall suffer death."— Statute, April 30, 1790 , Section 1.
This statute is unconstitutional if it makes any man a traitor who would not have been one under the language of the Constitution itself.
The crux of the act is in the words, "persons owing allegiance to the United States." Those who passed the law wanted to leave the impression that allegiance was to be presumed (as other governments do) for persons born within the country.
Other governments use such words as "allegiance," "sovereignty," "loyalty," "subject," etc. to identify the services, fidelity, obedience, or other duty, which the people owe to the government whether they consent or not. The Constitution uses none of these words or any other such word.
Governments founded on something other than consent, hold that all persons born under them owe allegiance to them and are bound to render them support, fidelity, and obedience. But, no one but himself can bind any one to support any government. Furthermore, the Constitution is clear that it derives its authority wholly from the consent of the people.
As things are, a person of foreign birth comes under allegiance to the uS government only by voluntary contract. If a native has allegiance imposed upon him against his will, he is in a worse condition than the foreigner. That makes the foreigner a freeman while it makes the native a slave. The only difference is that a native has a right to come under allegiance if he so please. His allegiance cannot be refused whereas a foreigner's can.
The sole measure for judging if a government is free is whether or not it rest wholly on voluntary support. There is no middle ground. Taxation without consent is either robbery or it is not. If not , then any group of men can call themselves “government,” assume authority over the weaker and plunder and kill them if they resist. On the other hand, if taxation without consent is robbery, then every man who does not consent has “the same natural right to defend his property against the tax gatherer that he has to defend it against a highwayman.”
In less than 100 years since the founding, we have had governments commit almost every type of crime that any government has ever committed against its victims. And worst of all, these crimes were committed by men (and their descendants) who declared that no man could owe either service to an individual nor allegiance to any government unless he freely gave his own consent.
“No attempt …on the part of some to govern and enslave others embodied so much ...shameless absurdity, falsehood, impudence, robbery, usurpation, tyranny, and villainy …as the …pretence of establishing a government by consent , and getting the actual consent of only so many as may be necessary to keep the rest in subjection by force. Such a government …no more rests on consent than does the worst government on earth."
Copyright ©2004, FlyoverPress.com
Jimmy T. LaBaume, PhD, ChFC is a full professor teaching economics and statistics in the School of Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences, Sul Ross State University, Alpine, TX. He does not speak for Sul Ross State University. Sul Ross State University does not think for him.
Dr. LaBaume has lived in Mexico and spent extended periods of time in South and Central America as a researcher, consultant and educator.
“Gunny” LaBaume is a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War and Desert Storm. His Marine Corps career spanned some 35 years intermittently from 1962 until 1997 when he refused to re-enlist with less than 2 years to go to a good retirement. In his own words, he “simply got tired of being guilty of treason.”
He is also currently the publisher and managing editor of FlyoverPress.com, a daily e-source of news not seen or heard anywhere on the mainstream media. He can be reached at jlabaume@sulross.edu.
Permission is granted to forward as you wish, circulate among individuals or groups, post on all Internet sites and publish in the print media as long as the article is published in full, including the author's name and contact information and the URL www.flyoverpress.com.
FlyoverPress.com can be contacted at editor@flyoverpress.com
*Note: We hold no special government issued licenses or permits. We don't accept government subsidies, bailouts, low-cost loans, insurance, or other privileges. We don't lobby for laws that hurt our competitors. We actively oppose protectionism and invite all foreign competitors to try to under price us. We do not lobby for tariffs, quotas, or anti-dumping laws. We do not support the government's budget deficits: we hold no government or agency securities.
To Subscribe to our daily e-mail alert service, send an e-mail with the word "subscribe" on the subject line.
OUR SPONSORS
Options for Homeland Defense, Inc.
Professional Firearms Training at its finest.
Protecting Liberty Through Private Firearms Ownership
AMERICAN LAPEL PINS & EMBLEMS, INC. has a large selection of patriotic lapel and hat pens, embroderied patches, badges, and service awards.
They also do custom work and can make just about anything. Your own pin complete with your logo or motto.
Visit their site.
Military Manuals and Correspondence Courses
Infantry, Armor, Recon, Special Forces, Seals
Weapons; Tactics; Security; Intelligence; Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Warfare
We also carry a selection of unusual, outrageous and even banned books