When the government breaks its own laws: Part 1 of 2

PROTECTED CONTENT

If you’re a current subscriber, log in below. If you would like to subscribe, please click the subscribe tab above.

Username

Password

Login

Lost your password?

Username and Password Help

Please enter your email and we will send you a password reset link.

Email

Submit

← Back

I do not follow the cult of personality. I have no personal affinity for the likes of either Trump, RINOs, Neo-Cons, Republicans, Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Liberals, Democrats, etc. I am, and will forever be, a U.S. military veteran who swore an oath to our Constitution.

From that, I am thus a Constitutionalist. It is because neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are willing to fully embrace and abide by our Constitution 100% of the time, regardless of circumstances, that I eventually discovered that there is another political party that does embrace our Constitution as it is written; they are the Libertarians. By default then, since all Libertarians are Constitutionalists, I was happy to join their ranks.
According to our Constitution, mostly within the section we know of as “The Bill of Rights,” our rights are unalienable, no matter what, and our rights are unlimited. The Bill of Rights is not a defined list of what our rights are, but as the 9th Amendment specifically states that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

In fact, the Bill of Rights is a list of rights that are unalienable to all people and are to be considered sacred and therefore not to be trampled upon by our government.
Regardless of one’s political ideology, the federal government, and all of its departments, and all of its employees, have both a legal and a moral obligation to uphold our U.S. Constitution, first and foremost. It is because of our Constitution that they have their federal job. It is because of the Constitution that they are paid.

It is a requirement that before officially beginning their job, that they swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. Before any federal agent or agency proceeds with any action that would so much as even slightly inconvenience even one American citizen, even if that citizen is a wanted criminal, they should always ask “is it constitutional?” Rights are not to be trampled upon. Period. End of story.
Recently, five members of the “Proud Boys” were put on trial in federal court in Washington, D.C., for acts stemming from events on January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol. We must note that there is no possible way that five persons could effectively overthrow the entirety of our bloated, and bureaucratic, empire.

The first charge they face is sedition, which is defined as a “conspiracy to overthrow the federal government by the use of force.” In addition to sedition, the five are being charged with conspiracy. A conspiracy is “an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime that they are able to commit in which at least one of those who embraced the agreement took at least one step in furtherance of it.”

According to the Supreme Court, there can be “no sanction or penalty imposed on someone for exercising a constitutional right.” (Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F.2d 945) Additionally, for a crime to exist, there must be an injured party (Corpus Delicti). In contrast to the decision by our SCOTUS, “conspiracy” is essentially a thought crime, where the courts have dispensed with the element of harm, or a victim.

When it comes to “conspiracy,” the government only needs to prove the existence of the agreement and the single step in furtherance of its consummation, regardless of whether there was a victim that was harmed. In every conspiracy case brought before the courts, the defendants had failed to carry out their intended crime, for if they had been successful, the defendants would have been charged with having committed an actual real crime that had an actual real victim.

Additionally, conspiracy is not the attempt of a crime that failed, as if a victim was shot by a defendant, but still survived. The charge of conspiracy requires only that just one material step be made toward their making their plan possible, even if the plan was abandoned as unwise before an attempt was ever made.
Regarding this case, Judge Andrew Napolitano (a former New Jersey Superior Court judge, visiting professor at Brooklyn Law School and a Fox News’ senior judicial analyst) stated that “if the conspirators concoct a plan that cannot succeed, then by definition there is not only no harm, but the prosecution is exclusively for the employment of forbidden mental processes,” meaning that our federal government is prosecuting citizens for having “forbidden thoughts,” a contradiction to the natural born right of we-the-people to be able to think as we wish.

The natural rights of persons, codified within the Ninth Amendment, which states that our government “shall not deny or disparage,” leaves no moral or legal basis for the condemnation of ideas or thoughts, especially thoughts that are negative about the government. Our own Declaration of Independence that created our United States was a long list of repeated injuries and usurpations committed by King George III and the government of Britain, all “forbidden thoughts” that the British probably would have gladly prosecuted Thomas Jefferson for. Our thoughts, no matter how reprehensible, are immune from governmental overreach.
Unfortunately, as is the case with most courts, the federal court, a part of the federal government, deferred this contradiction of a constitutionally protected right to have thoughts back to the government. The prosecution then continued with their charges for the prosecution of thoughts, even though their charges violate our constitution, and not one single hair upon anyone’s head was injured.

The point that our government is making is that we must never forget that our government will always aggressively prosecute every instance where they can portray themselves as the victim. In this light, we must ask, which is more harmful to personal liberty, thinking and wishing the government ill, or agreeing to uphold the Constitution, and then violating it?