The Basis of our Government
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <4/11>

      I am surprised this has to be repeated but I am finding it necessary to focus upon what should be the obvious. I find it necessary to say this as in the wake of President Clinton's witch hunt for militias and his political opposition people are starting to talk as though our government exists superior to the people.
      Let me start with an uncommon these days but simple example. An area of some county in a state for some reason becomes densely populated and find a need for a municipal government. The people simply look up the procedure for incorporation in their state, follow them and sooner or later they are a law making body.
      Similarly federal territories wishing to become states look up the procedures established by Congress that are authorized by the Federal Constitution and they apply to Congress, buy a lot of expensive dinners and they become states. Hawaii and Alaska did so in the 1950s. Puerto Rico votes on this matter ever few years and continues to decline to become a state.
      But now back to the war of colonial independence. That is an uncommon way to describe it but is is closer to the truth. The individual colonies were fighting for independence in every legal sense. That they joined forces to jointly declare independence and to form an army to fight for it is a separate issue.
      In the beginning the cooperation was limited to these items. Granted they were important and not to be minimized but there was no general government for the colonies in this. The powers of the Continental Congress were effectively limited to the area of waging war against the British. It was not until the year before the end of the war that the Articles of Confederation were adopted that created a limited cooperation between the colonies through some limited powers. (For those of you still concerned about NAFTA, the enforcement provisions of the articles of Confederation were stronger than the provisions of NAFTA.)
      However, in the long standing tradition of winning a war the colonies won the right to form their own government. In an age when the basis of government having been a successive rejection of the right of the nobility to rule, the only source left was the people. And the people became the source of the very existence of the new state governments.
      And that is the point of interest here. The states exist solely because the people have said they can exist. And the people have an equal right to de-constitute the power of their states. What the people create the people can destroy. If the people can not destroy then there is no basis for the powers of the state as they no longer come from the people. As our states were constituted by the power of the people without the people our states no longer have any power.
      Similarly our federal government, our United States of America was created by the people and the people granted it its powers. If the people withdraw powers from the federal government it no longer has those powers. The example is the creation and elimination of Prohibition by the people.
      The complications are that even though the preamble to the constitution is "We, the people," it is the states that actually ratified the original constitution and all of the amendments. That is worth a wordy but uninteresting digression upon a representative form of government.
      The second is much more interesting. What standing does the government have should the constitution be nullified? A case can be made that once established it can not be nullified. But clearly the federal governments powers can be ratified out of existence to the point where no one would bother running for office in it. So that is not a meaningful argument.
      The next argument is that it is a contract binding upon descendants but that is clearly a unique kind of contract that does not exist in law. No contract I sign can legally bind my children. It is hard to imagine an argument that can establish the existence of a unique kind of contract for a unique type of government that can exist in any terms that exist in any other form of contract.
      What makes our constitution unique is that it is a result of "we, the people, do ordain and establish this constitution of the United States." In the sense of an on-going government we do have the argument that it is in the form or prior governments in that they continue until overthrown by force. Except that is not the form of our government.
      Very simply we have gone from creating state constitutions to replace colonial charters to the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution of the United States. We have a tradition of peaceful and lawful forms of change. For example there was war of conquest to establish nor a revolution to overthrow the Articles of Confederation. The same for our Constitution.
      All the evidence points to the people having the supreme power over the existence of all of our governments and should we we wish to eliminate it or replace it we have that power as clearly from fact and from history as we have to change it.
      To address the original issue, the government has not right or power of continued existence without the consent of the people, you and me. The nearest thing we have to what might be called a contract is a singular form of an "on-going" contract where the present citizens have the right and power to change, dissolve, abolish the existing government. The "consent of the governed" is on-going and that consent is renewed from minute to minute.
      There are no limits or bounds upon the means of changing government. Only "prudence" counsels that such changes not be undertaken for "light or transient" reasons. In that light prudence certainly counsels that the least violent means be used first.
      However, the current case of the demonization of the militia is none of the above. All of the militias are swearing to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. All of the militias are talking about being reactive only to the excesses of the government. There is no claim to overthrowing the constitution but in holding the government to the constitution.
      The only argument with regard to the militia is whether or not the government should be held to the constitution and then only in a reactive sense to government violations of the constitution.
      And what is unconstitutional? Just last year the Florida Supreme Court threw out a conviction because the kind of attack used in Waco was unconstitutional under the Florida Constitution which differs in no significant manner in this regard than the federal constitution.
      So tell me, what is a militia for? Perhaps instead of the survivors of the dead suing over unconstitutional actions the people are not killed in the first place. That sounds like the right course to me.
      Taking this back to the secondary theme, the oath taken by all members of the army, the military, even the civil service is to uphold and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. This oath is simply a formal statement of what is assumed of every person born here who decides not to leave. Immigrants take a similar oath so they need not repeat it. It is a formality. A presumption of citizenship.
      As this is an oath (or affirmation) it is considered the highest statement a person can make. This oath has no time limit. It does not include "the above only applies while in uniformed service or otherwise prohibited by law." There are no restrictions expressed or implied upon this oath. It is the presumption that every American has made it and that it only need be spoken as a formality.
      Considering that we are all implicitly or explicitly bound by that oath, to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States we take it one step further. That each person is bound either to follow the lead of someone they have reason to trust if they can not think it through for themselves or they must think it through for themselves.
      They must think through their oath to support and defend our constitution. Standing aside while it is violated is not compliance with the oath. Not having taken the oath is not an excuse. Not thinking for yourself is not an excuse. Not since Nuremberg.
      In other words every one of us as citizens has the obligation to uphold and defend the constitution and to find some way to work it through for ourselves. We do not have the option to let things rids as we are implicitly or explicitly charged with upholding and defending the constitution of the United States.
      I know many will attempt to opt out of the process by believing they are not bound by this. I will not argue that point now but I will point out that means, if they adopt that position, they have an obligation to remain completely silent on the subject. If they adopt a position, they are morally bound to have examined the position they adopt.
      One more point I want to make. Our elected officials who constitute our government are in fact our hired help. They are paid to do a job if the job is big enough, in some cases they are not paid. But in any event they are no more than our hired help.
      In the ultimate sense, we pay their salaries and we do not in any manner endow them with greater powers or abilities than ourselves. They are not a greater power. They merely have greater responsibilities for which they are being compensated to assume.
      This applies to the local town council of a town of 1000 as well as to the Congress and President of the United States. This applies to every government at every level. They are the hired help to make this country work at all levels. They have no other standing regardless of our method of choosing them be it by the vote or not.
      More simply and a huge can of worms, if the people choose anarchy then, even though it means the end of civilization, our form of government holds there is no body with the power to stand against the will of the people without the imposition of tyranny.
      The genius of the people is that is we have never called for tyranny. But the wrath of the people will be upon those who oppose with force what the people can do. And the people can do anything that is not explicitly given to their governments to do.
      Some may hold the government has a duty to "preserve civilization" or some such. But our government is the people. To hold a government is above the people leaves only violence to preserve "civilization" against the will of the people. And that is but one more justification of violence for a personal objective.
      There is no cause to hold against a militia that stands only to uphold and defend the constitution. Should any militia claim to do otherwise I will strike against them myself with every word i can command. But none have done so as yet. And until they do, no lies will lead me to condemn those who have done no wrong. Nor will I cease stating they have done no wrong.
      This is the militia and your duty. It is upon your conscience to deal with your response to current matters.