Militia Charged With Enforcement of State and U.S. Constitution

Militia Charged With Enforcement of State and U.S. Constitution

Submitted by “Cal”

“We are well past the point of winning this country back through elections, the courts, and sadly (in many cases) the local municipalities. While at the same time those that are prepared do not have numbers enough (we are too disorganized and spread out at this point) to really put up much of a fight.”

As “We the People”, in each state’s Militia – we can do just that (fight back) if they are threatening us, our neighborhoods, our towns & cities, our state, and the states around us, and our nation.

It is the Militia of the several states that are constitutionally assigned those duties…

What everyone seems to not understand is:


– the US Constitution
– each state’s Constitution
– our republican form of government

The laws – old and new are not now, nor have they ever been, the problem.


The PROBLEM IS ENFORCEMENT of each state’s Constitution.

That is what it all comes down to, enforcement. Everything else is just saying that we have these already protected natural rights enumerated in the US Constitution which are not being enforced so we will add more laws…., which we do.

Who is charged by the US Constitution to enforce the constitutions?
The Militia of the several states have that honor!

“Municipal Law In General”

“Undoubtedly there is no living law without sanction or penalty, and there must be somewhere some one who has the power to inflict penalty…. the Sheriff, who is the local representative of the executive body of the government, summons his posse comitatus, ie, he calls upon the good and law-abiding citizens of the of the county to support him, and none can lawfully refuse to obey the call.”

-Dr Edwin Vieira. That is the Militia.

The Militia of each state is the constitutionally assigned body of enforcement.

The Militia has as its constitutionally assigned duties to:

– Enforce the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution

– Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are all laws in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution)

– Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign

– “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”

Every person who has taken an Oath or affirmation took on the PERSONAL responsibility for their actions and for the support and defense of the US Constitution while serving. Yes, personal.

How do you think that those involved in Military actions were prosecuted for following an unlawful order? Because they were PERSONALLY responsible for THEIR actions after taking the Oath or Affirmation. The Military itself was not responsible for orders that were unlawful because they pass that responsibility to the individuals and officers when they are sworn in.

Example: No-knock raids: Say a SWAT team does not knock – already unlawful, breaks into the house – another unlawful act on the part of every member there; then in the unlawful process already going on “accidentally” kills a person, or multiple people living within their home – First Degree Murder on the part of ALL involved (including those who planned it and SENT them out). Why First Degree Murder? Because it was an unlawful planned attack. Why is everyone who was involved in the act in any way – paperwork, etc, guilty of that crime also? Because of the Oath – they took personal responsibility to see that every action they commit was in support of and in defense of the US Constitution. That is also why it is unlawful for raids to be set up and no information given to those carrying out the raid – THEY ARE PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS and they need to have ALL the information before committing the act.

The knock and lawful warrant being executed in the proper way protected NOT only the people being served a warrant, etc; but also those who were carrying out those actions. Those actions – here in the USA – are ONLY allowed under certain conditions – and they all swore an oath to ONLY commit those actions under those specific certain conditions.

Remember that the US Constitution assigns the duties of enforcing the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution to the militia of the several states:

Enforcing and keeping the “Laws of the Union” (which is constitutional laws ONLY), protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and suppressing Insurrections and repelling Invasions” to the Militia of the several states.

As Dr Edwin Vieira states in his book:

…that NONE of those tasks are assigned to the Army, to a Navy, to a (constitutionally unknown) National Guard, or least of all to any unnamed professional police, security, or intelligence agencies of the General Government or of any state or locality. Rather, the Constitution’s explicit emphasis on the Militia as the preeminent forces by politicians of a garrison, “national-security”, or police state…

-Dr Edwin Vieira: Constitutional Homeland Security : The Nation in Arms

So those bound by Oath who “knowingly, with willful blindness, or in reckless disregard of the consequences of his/her action” votes for an unconstitutional act, bill, etc; when a “President or state governor refuses to veto it and instead executes it; or when a Judge, either of the supreme and inferior courts of the general government, or of any state knowingly declares such a statute valid and enforceable – each and every one of them violates his oath of office.

A remedy MUST exist for every individual harmed by each and every violation. That remedy MUST impose some personal liability on the violator – it being his own Oath or Affirmation he himself forswore. And that personal liability cannot be evaded by his or his cronies’ assertion of some ersatz official immunity”.

Remember that the US Constitution allows for ONLY one official immunity, ONE. Using an implied power to create “official immunities” for themselves would allow them to negate the express requirement that “they shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution”… “for any public official to create or assert a purported “official immunity” for himself or any other official” is itself a violation of his Oath or Affirmation”. Dr. Edwin Vieira.

There is no statute of limitations on any act that breaks the Oath or Affirmation, or goes against the US Constitution, more importantly every unlawful deed that continues to remain on the books and is not destroyed by those reps who are later elected make them equally guilty of those crimes. As long as harm continues to those who are having those crimes enforced against them makes those reps, etc who let them continue guilty of every act committed. Take the Murder of those by SWAT teams enforcing unlawful acts – those reps that allow it to continue are guilty of those crimes – each and every one of them committed First Degree Murder – up to and including the Chief of Police, state representatives, governor; if a federal law being enforced then federal representatives, judicial branch and the executive branch – all of which could have vetoed that unlawful act.

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11: “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water”.

The congress has the duty to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal when they are needed to enforce the US Constitution, the laws, or defend the people and the nation. This is using private citizens in their own privately owned crafts to defend the USA and her people, this is using the Militia.

Clause 15 requires of the congress: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions”.

Clause 16: “To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”.

U.S. Constitution, 5th Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Justice Robert H. Jackson (Chief of Counsel for the United States, Nuremberg Trials – Nazi Germany): “It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error”.

James Madison: An efficient militia is authorized and contemplated by the Constitution and required by the spirit and safety of free government.

James Madison: … large and permanent military establishments … are forbidden by the principles of free government, and against the necessity of which the militia were meant to be a constitutional bulwark.

John Norton Pomeroy:
The object of this clause [the right of the people to keep and bear arms] is to secure a well-armed militia…. But a militia would be useless unless the citizens were enabled to exercise themselves in the use of warlike weapons. To preserve this privilege, and to secure to the people the ability to oppose themselves in military force against the usurpations of government, as well as against enemies from without, that government is forbidden by any law or proceeding to invade or destroy the right to keep and bear arms.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds: A ‘well regulated militia’ was thus one that was well-trained and equipped, not one that was ‘well-regulated’ in the modern sense of being subjected to numerous government prohibitions and restrictions.

State Gazette (Charleston): No free government was ever founded or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state…. Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin: “A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.”