Unconstitutional Government is an Outlaw Government outside the protection of law

What is an ??????outlaw government??????? Outlaw government is a government that is functioning in some fashion outside of the law of the land and is therefore outside of the protection of law itself, in other words it is Congressmen, or a president, or their agents acting in illegal ways contrary to what the law of the land allows, enacting acts or measures that are not in pursuit of the Constitution, or not in compliance with the Constitution, or not in agreement with the Constitution.

Yes, there can be, have been and are ??????outlaw?????? or ??????illegal?????? actions the federal government has taken. Such outlaw measures taken by the agents of the States and the people who inhabit those states, which agents are found in Congress and the White House, such measures that violate the law of the land, in fact the Supreme Law of the Land- our Constitution- then bring about a condition where the government is acting outside of its assigned duties, powers, or obligations. Then we have an outlaw government.

Sometimes the unconstitutional behavior of a President, or a Congress or both, sets a precedent by which future Congresses and Presidents of our government take their lead. We can see instances where Congress will pass acts repeatedly that are unquestionably unconstitutional, but since they have gotten away with the passage of such unconstitutional measures in the past, they feel certain they can continue to get away with their immoral actions in the present.

Can examples of outlaws in government be given and are there examples of the actions that they took that were illegal and/or unconstitutional (Unconstitutional means against the Constitution????????s law, not agreeable to the Constitution, or not authorized by the Constitution)? Certainly there are plenty of such outlaws that could be named and the violations of their oaths of office can be shown by the unconstitutional laws they passed, or orders they delivered, or other acts they did outside of Constitutional law.

Let us consider a definition of the word unconstitutional as it appeared in a dictionary widely used at a time nearer to the foundation of our great constitutionthan our own. In 1828 ??????NOAH WEBSTER????????S FIRST EDITION OF AN AMERICAN DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE?????? was published. Here is the definition of ??????unconstitutional?????? contained in that dictionary.

??????Unconstitutional, a. Not agreeable to the constitution; not authorized by the constitution; contrary to the principles of the constitution. It is not unconstitutional for the king of Great Britain to declare war without the consent of the parliament; but for the president of the United States to declare war, without an act of Congress authorizing it, would be unconstitutional.??????

What a great example Noah Webster gave in his definition of Unconstitutional. For truly the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 clearly delegates to Congress the exclusive duty or prerogative to decide upon the choice of whether to declare the United States to be in a state of war with another country or to decide against such a declaration of war. The president in his office of executive is to execute that decision, not make it. But many of our presidents have declared war based on usurped authority not delegated to them by our constitution, but only usurped from a Congress willing to unconstitutionally abdicate that power.

Why is it unconstitutional for Congress to abdicate its constitutionally delegated power to declare war? First, Congress is not delegated a power to abdicate its assigned duties to the president????????s office. Second, Congress is specifically delegated and assigned the duty over declaring war by the Constitution. The Constitution is the law that is to rule Congress. Third, it was recognized as a principle of our Constitution from the beginning of our Constitutional Republic that Congress declares war to insure that Congress deliberates the necessity or lack of necessity of war and that unlike England????????s king presidents of the United States are not authorized to declare our states to be at war.

When President Woodrow Wilson desired to make war upon Germany he went before Congress on Monday, April 2, 1917 and in person made his case to Congress as to why he believed our government should declare itself, the States, and the people of our country at war with Germany. While I’m not a fan of Woodrow Wilson as a president, in this instance he did what the Constitution required of a president in the case of America’s choice to go or not to go to war.

Congress listened to Wilson????????s message and request and after some debate members of Congress reluctantly declared war upon Germany and thus the United States entered World War I. Woodrow Wilson recognized that he had no Constitutional or presidential authority or prerogative to set in motion a state of war with a foreign government or power.

The then President Woodrow Wilson began his speech to Congress in 1917 with these words, ??????Gentlemen of Congress, I have called the Congress into extraordinary session because there are serious, very serious choices of policy to be made, and made immediately, which it was neither right nor constitutionally permissible that I should assume the responsibility of making.?????? (Wilson????????s speech is quoted from Page 17, THE ILLUSION OF VICTORY- AMERICA IN WORLD WAR I, by Thomas Fleming.)

Democratic President Wilson clearly recognized that he had no power to engage our country in war, but that such a responsibility belonged to the two houses of Congress as the Founding Fathers and those who ratified the Constitution had originally intended. Woodrow Wilson complied with the Constitution by not usurping a power over war choices that had not been delegated to him by our Constitution.

On December 8, 1941, the day after the Japanese naval forces attacked Pearl Harbor, Hawaii and sunk much of our fleet inadvisably docked in the Harbor by President Franklin D. Roosevelt????????s orders, the president came before Congress to request that a declaration of war should exist with Japan. While Franklin D. Roosevelt abused his power often as a president, in the case of a declaration of war he did as the Constitution bade and asked Congress to declare war. Congress formally declared war on December 8, 1941 as their Constitutionally designated responsibility was clear to both them and the President.

But what happened when Democratic President Truman wanted to send our armed forces to make war upon the communist government of North Korea and its military forces after a June 25th, 1950 invasion of South Korea by those Communist forces? When President Harry S. On June 27th Truman summoned Congressional leaders to the White House and told them he was committing our armed forces to war in Korea. Truman did not request a formal and constitutional declaration of war from Congress as Wilson and Roosevelt had, but instead usurped from Congress the power to declare war. In doing so he decreed war personally, assuming a power not delegated to him, acting as a lawless dictator that acts as a law unto himself. Thus in that instance he was an outlaw president. Impeachment could have been a remedy to his lawless action, but it was not applied by Congress as our troops were already committed to war even if unconstitutionally.

Where war was concerned a lawless trend was set in motion to be followed by president after president during the rest of the 20th Century and into the 21st Century. From the undeclared Korean War, excused as a ??????UN Police Action,?????? to the War in Vietnam, presidents sent our armed forces to make war without the Constitutionally-required Congressional declaration of war. We have continued to watch presidents do likewise.

Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon all pursued the Vietnam war without a declaration of war from Congress, but with the excuse of the fabricated event in the Tonkin Gulf as their justification. SEATO, the Southeast Asia Treaty, was the international regional arrangement under whose authority the conflict was suppsedly fought, not under a Congressional declaration of war.

We have seen our troops in Panama, in Haiti, in Bosnia and elsewhere in warlike activities all without declarations of war. Republican President George Herbert Walker Bush did not bother to ask Congress for a declaration of war when he launched all out war on the armed forces of Iraq and upon Iraq itself on January 16, 1991. On September 11, 1990, he told us he sought “new world order.” Later he would tell us he wanted to use the “peacekeeping” function of the UN to strengthen the UN. Peacekeeping is a euphemism for war making. President George H. W. Bush, while using appealing rhetoric, nevertheless acted in a lawless manner as a president acting outside of the supreme law of the land- the Constitution. He was acting as an outlaw and sadly the government that followed his orders became an outlaw government as the spineless members of Congress again abdicated their proper responsibility and delegated Constitutional duty to declare war to the usurpation of a President and his individual determination and willful disregard of our Constitution????????s provisions regarding war.


How many Americans demanded the impeachment of Republican President George H.W. Bush when he launched an unprovoked invasion of the country of Somalia? Did any Congressman voice any real objections to the 1993 aggressive invasion of Somalia, a country that had not threatened America,an invasion by 28,000 American marines under President Bush’s orders?

When President Clinton kept our troops in Somalia violence followed. The battle of Mogadishu occurred on October 3, 1993, and our troops killed perhaps thousands of citizens of Somalia in the streets of their own capital city. During a pitched battle 18 of our own soldiers lost their lives. As we saw their bodies dragged through the streets of Mogadishu did anyone think to call for President Clinton????????s resignation or impeachment for keeping us involved in an undeclared war? Congress didn????????t hear enough rage from Americans to act in defense of its own honor and duty. Americans let slip another crime against our Constitution and against the inhabitants of Somalia as well yet by another outlaw president in a long line of outlaws.

Republican President George W. Bush again ignored the Constitution and launched a 2nd Gulf War upon Iraq without asking Congress to declare war. Congress, now used to allowing presidents to unconstitutionally declare war on their own did not impeach the wayward president, but instead passed bills to finance the expensive wars on Iraq and Afghanistan.

When Democratic President Barrack Obama followed the trend and launched our military forces into unprovoked attacks upon the government of Libya he too did not request permission from Congress before going ahead with his war making actions. Some in Congress objected, but Obama ignored them and continued life as a rightful dictator and the objections died down. No Congressional calls for impeachment of the usurper were heard at the time. Another President was able to act as a dictator and get away with his lawlessness unhampered and without being brought to account through an impeachment proceeding. Congress had again failed to be a check upon the lawless outlaw actions of another war-making president.

And let us not fail to mention the use of drones to launch aggressive missile launches upon inhabitants of countries like Pakistan and Yemen that Congress has not declared war upon. President Barrack Obama, as if being elected had given him a 007 license to kill, constantly orders such drone-missile attacks upon countries that our country is not at war with! When missiles explode inside the borders of these nations with who we are supposedly at peace terror unquestionably strikes the heart s of the innocent as innocent men, women and children die during the unprovoked, explosive, murderous aggressions order by our President.

Democrat or Republican, it didn????????t matter, it doesn????????t matter, as one president after another has acted in this lawless manner without the American people demanding an impeachment. Why is that the case? Partly, I believe, because so many Americans are so ignorant of the provision in their own Constitution and so complacent about war that they could care less if our soldiers are kept in a state of perpetual war in nation after nation, justified or not.

There is also God????????s Law or ??????natural law.?????? Natural Law is said to be a law that conforms to the Creator????????s laws, to the will of nature????????s God, and is thus a natural law. There is a natural state of things that man????????s reason should seek so that when man establishes laws he should seek to conform to the Creator????????s law. We speak of natural or inherent rights, natural growth of animals, natural beauty.
One such law is that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Have our presidents obeyed this law with their launching of so many wars around the world since World War II outside of the protection of the law of our Constitution? When men, even presidents, act as outlaws, they are outside of the protections of God????????s law and when the voting inhabitants of our United States and our Congressmen fail to demand impeachment of lawless presidents for their most serious lawless acts we too act as outlaw citizens outside of the protection of God????????s law. Have we sewn the wind and will we reap the whorl wind?

Perhaps we have already begun to reap the whorl wind. When the events of September 11, 2001 shocked Americans they might have recognized some consequences for the actions of our government in the Middle East, what the CIA calls ??????blowback,?????? but few Americans recognized the terror attacks as a consequent result of our interventionist foreign policies.

Only one example, the example of the violation of war powers by presidents has been alluded to within this article, but many other examples exist. Our nation is in trouble because of government has been allowed to become and outlaw government and even encouraged to act outside the law by some factions of our society. A return to constitutional limitations could restore the lawful order of our Republic and solve the problems we face today that trouble our land.

Other examples of lawlessness were brought out in a recent article by Joe Wolverton II, J.D. where he wrote: ??????For example, there is not a single syllable in the Constitution providing fo foreign aid ($74 billion spent from 2010-2011), undeclared wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (nearly $4trillion spent since 2001), or the 185 federal welfare programs (nearly $2 trillion spent from 2010-2011). In the past decade, based on just those three examples alone, Congress has authorized the spending of over $6 trillion for unconstitutional purposes.?????? (Page 16, THE NEW AMERICAN, January 21, 2013, ??????How the Compact for America Threatens the Constitution,?????? http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/14109-how-the-compact-for-america-threatens-the-constitution#comment4045 )

One organization has continued to call attention to lawless acts passed by Congress, lawless acts of presidents, and the ??????blowback?????? quality of the 9-11 terrorist attacks, The John Birch Society. One organization has consistently, over decades of time, called for a restoration of Congressional and Presidential obedience to the Constitution. The John Birch Society has sought to organize concerned Americans to work in concert together to restore constitutional compliance within our country and our governments. Until The JBS and other organized efforts are successful in this important quest for restoration of governmental compliance with the Constitution, America will continue to ride the outlaw trail towards failure, impoverishment, debauchery of our monetary system, trillions more in indebtedness, undeclared and often unnecessary warfare. It could be argued we could even face the loss of protection from our Father in Heaven if lawless presidents continue launching aggressive military acts without just cause and legal authority.

One suggested article about the growing fourth branch of government brings out the great growing danger to us all. http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/14110-danger-federal-??????regulatory-cliff??????-ahead

leverton

I have been involved with publishing and marketing for the past 32 years. My passion is helping people share their voice. I am able to do this through two important venues: One, with Area-Info.net where people can share everything from opinions to events to news. It is your choice! What do you want to share? Two, through a new program called America's Real Deal I am involved with to help business owners get their voice heard.I schedule speaking engagements with community groups and business groups to share my passion about the importance of "sharing your voice".Contact me directly at lee@leeeverton.coom for scheduling information.

You May Also Like