The Cure for the Patriot Act: Police Who Honour Their Oath
by Michael Gaddy
The Sierra Times
For the unconstitutional Patriot Act and its offspring to be perpetrated against the citizens of America, all assisting branches of law enforcement; local, state and federal, must operate outside the restraints of the constitution they swore to "uphold and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic." In real terms, it will not just be a simple violation of that oath but an active participation with the domestic enemies of our freedoms and rights.
There are those of you who will say; but they are just following the law. To support this position one must be of the opinion that there can be contradictory laws. As a people, we have allowed this concept to permeate our thinking and thereby allow the numerous usurpations of the supreme law of the land by those in government.
Looking at
www.usconstitution.com we find the very first sentence states, "The U.S. Constitution is the central instrument of government and the 'supreme law of the land."
In the second paragraph the definition statement continues; "The Constitution outlines the structure and powers of the 3 branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial) and the 3 levels of government (federal, state, local)."
The Miriam Webster dictionary defines supreme as, "the highest in rank or authority: highest in degree or quality." Therefore, simple logic would tell us that when any law, adopted by any entity, contradicts the Constitution, the Constitution reigns supreme and is higher in rank or authority.
Any government that attempts to govern with contradictory laws will create a society of chaos. There cannot be a law that says you cannot rob a convenience store and another that says you can. There cannot be a law that prohibits murder and one that allows it. There cannot be a law that outlaws drunk driving and one that says it is legal. Any law that is adopted by government that lies in contradiction to the Constitution would by definition be null and void.
When any member of law enforcement chooses to enforce a law of government, regardless of jurisdiction, that contradicts the Constitution, they are acting outside of their legal purview, are in violation of their oath and are in fact acting in a criminal fashion if the enforcement of that unconstitutional law is denying or infringing on the rights of those they profess to "protect and serve." When those who have taken an oath to uphold the laws of the Constitution act outside the constraints of that oath at government's behest: who is to protect us from those criminal acts? Does it now make sense why many of these jurisdictions are supporting the disarming of their constituents?
Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot found it much easier to control a disarmed citizenry who finally realized their rights and liberty were a thing of the past.
All efforts possible should be taken to address these issues with law enforcement entities in a peaceful forum before some confrontation breaks out. Citizens must advise those we pay, who have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, that any acts committed that are in conflict with that oath are illegal and in fact criminal in nature. Police have no more right to take your liberties, freedoms and privacies than they have to take your furniture from your home. To not protest the possibility of these actions prior to their happening is to invite more acts of violence and death, such as those at Ruby Ridge and Waco.
There are many in government and law enforcement who see our acquiescence to these unconstitutional laws as "permission granted" to proceed. It would certainly be to our advantage to address these issues, in numbers, to the law enforcement command and control in our particular area.
Our greatest misconception lies in the belief our police are aware of their duty to the Constitution and to the citizens they serve. I have had the opportunity and the occasion to talk to many who have not a clue of their responsibilities and obligations as defined by the oath of office they took. Almost to the officer, they have indicated their allegiance lies with the particular governmental agency they see as their employer. In addition, the academies where most potential police receive their training have created an adversarial attitude among many officers as it relates to their relationship with the citizens of the particular community they serve. We have often been a witness to the fruits of this poisonous tree.
At your very next opportunity, ask a police officer who will answer what he/she would do if ordered by their department or command to instigate confiscation of all firearms from law abiding citizens in their jurisdiction. After you recover from the answer you receive, then ask what they would do if a citizen refused to surrender that firearm.
The answers provided should awaken you to the very real threat many of us will be facing in the not too distant future.
While I supported the war and still support this president, I don't think our liberties should be up for negotiation. I would need to see some pretty convincing reasoning for expanding on the Patriot Act. Our freedoms, and wanting to see others enjoy those same freedoms, is the one thing that I can hold on to when others argue against the U.S. and it's policies.
